Its quite a nice circle. First you limit voting rights to land owners, then people wise up and let everyone vote, then you incentivize anyone that may vote to buy land.
Already you can barely function as a citizen unless you either own a house or pay rent to a landlord. Want to live in your car? Want a bank account registered to a box at the Post Office? Can't do it! Whether you are a human being deserving of rights is determined -- who would have guessed? -- by whether you get a bill from the electric company.
Homeowners are the only caste that matters.
Renters are grudgingly accepted as human in some limited circumstances.
This seems like a bit of an extreme take to me. Some jurisdictions are shitty towards anyone that sleeps in public, but people do still do it. I know a few people that would fall into the category of "vanlife", they have stories to tell about cops trying to tell them they can't sleep there but ultimately they still live in a van (occasionally down by the river).
Many banks don't let you use a PO Box, but there are services for mail forwarding that give you a regular address. That also isn't my biggest complaint with banks today if we want to complain about them, I don't think that'd rank in my top 10.
What have you seen that made you think homeowners are a caste, or that anyone who doesn't own or rent is subhuman? Genuine question, I just haven't seen anything in my years to make me see the world that way.
Please don't ask for the goverent to have full control over the entire life cycle of our wealth. They already print the money and set rates that largely define what loans cost us. If the government also directly owns our bank accounts as well we really are entirely at their whims.
Not only could the government implement austerity to pay of debt or attempt to reduce inflation, they could directly control approval over every digital payment you make.
> they could directly control approval over every digital payment you make.
Is it better that this is instead controlled by a narrow set of “private” actors who use their private status to deny everything the government would deny plus things it constitutionally (mostly for first and/or fifth amendment reasons) couldn't?
I've had plenty of issues with PayPal over the years, but I'd still take PayPal over a state-run bank any day.
Unless you find yourself in a political environment where the private and public sectors have merged, the state will always be more powerful. PayPal can block a transaction or even put a hold on my fund for 6 months, but they don't have an army and can't drive a tank down my street. More realistically, they also can't stop another bank down the street from taking my business.
Just look at what the Canadian government did during the trucker rallies. When the protesters wouldn't leave the government forced banks to shut down accounts, blocking protesters from being able to get hotel rooms or buy food and fuel in the middle of winter. And they were able to do that without directly owning protesters' bank accounts. What would they do once the government doesn't have to worry about forcing a private bank to comply? And though it may be reasonable to think today's government wouldn't do that, what about tomorrow's?
We’re talking about checking/debit accounts for people who are unhoused/unbanked not “the government having full control over the entire life cycle of our wealth”.
I was talking about that as well. If the government is your direct banking provider, they own everything from money creation to base rates that largely set cost of your debt to access to your wealth. If the government provides your debit/checking accounts they can't deny charges they don't want you to make or completely block you from your money.
Sure, that’s possible; however, I’ll note that private banks and payment services do already discriminate in their payment terms, and while your high income earner may choose more desirable options (for whatever reason), the unbanked population would still likely benefit from the existence of a minimalist USPS banking option.
> however, I’ll note that private banks and payment services do already discriminate in their payment terms
That's a much more important issue in my opinion, I assume we agree there. I wouldn't be surprised for any one bank to be picky, but if almost every bank refuses to service a certain type of customer that's a problem. More broadly, its a problem that having a bank account is effectively required to live in modern society.
> the unbanked population would still likely benefit from the existence of a minimalist USPS banking option.
Agreed here as well, at least in the short term. The government we have today doesn't seem interested in flexing that authority even if they had it, though the government does have a history of a slippery slope problem when it comes to federal powers.
Income tax was initially sold as a tax of only 1% on the most wealthy. While it was originally limited to that, the government gave itself the power to tax income and it only grew to leverage that more. I have no reason to think banking would be different.
They may only want to help the unbanked today, but when a big bank fails the government would offer accounts and may even offer full replacement for lost funds due to bank failure. That alone wouldn't matter, except that it could tip the scale of cost/benefit that made a USPS bank worth it for those with no other choice.
