Here is a thought experiment, the magna carta states that you are "guilty until proven innocent" that means when your ship is boarded, you as a captain must have all your papers on board and depending on the cargo on your persons at all times. In the event that you are boarded by maritime militia enforcing law, you must present papers immediately and hope that proves your not guilty or you face conviction and that-is the trail.
In America we have the Constitution(plus Bill of Rights/Amendments) instead of the magna carta; With water being against automation/computational power and in land the technology is so helpful, its only logical to use technology to our advantage but there is a cost to every benefit no matter how small or big.
The more automation we have in business transactions(personal or professional) the less we solidify down what is "actually taking place" and when its time for your companies lawyer or your self against the people to "show your papers" then your going to WISH you KYC your customer because you or your company will be liable instead of your customer.
So there are logistical issues with a perfect free(will) society. Just changing the laws alone won't affect anything. Tic-Tacking up a wall of a problem.
I ask "Is it still a due process issue after this thought experiment?"
Yes, absolutely. Imagine, for example, if we let electric companies pick and choose their customers and we also held electric companies liable if they sold electricity to an illegal drug operation. All of a sudden, people with past drug convictions or "suspicious" usage patterns would be denied electrical service as a result of government action.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I believe that is a straw man fallacy: I don't know of one electric company in a first world country that doesn't write down their expenses and "isn't" held liable for "illegal" drug operations that they are providing resources to.
Electric companies also have the right to deny service to anyone as long as it's not under the basis of sex, race, or creed. And your right "The people" have the right to deny publicly declared services to felons instead of coordination of denial, society uses the heuristic approach of "jail/prison". Maybe someone will free felons from their heuristic misery of not receiving electricity provided by the public.
Now if that felon "built their own solar panels" and built their own house and still was denied their solar panels and house... thats just lawlessness and with out due process I would agree with you on that.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Actually, they don't Electric companies do not have the right to deny service arbitrarily. See, among other things, this link: https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0220-utility-services
And they are not liable for providing resources to illegal drug operations the way financial institutions are liable for providing financial services to terrorists.
In fact, electric companies operate exactly the way I argue financial institutions should. They provide reasons when they deny service. Those reasons are appealable. And when they think they're providing service to an illegal operation, they call the police and the police investigate.
If the government is going to require people to have electricity, it can't grant a regional monopoly to one electricity provider and allow them to pick and choose their customers.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Exactly they are not liable for providing resources to illegal drug operations because like I've stated, as a result of being a prudent business they were able to produce necessary information that satisfies the public to dismiss any liabilities in the context of intentionally assisting illegal activities.
Your right that the government can only regulate, which is why the link you showed me proves that if landlords are offering to pay for utilities then that IS the arbitration, reiterating for a moment the government can't break the law by removing others rights they can only regulate, the utility companies have a monopoly on their resources and thus are considered a "government" according to the people and ergo as a result must push the burden of liabilities to the landlord or choose not to regulate it at all. Landlords have the right to offer to pay for utilities as such they might want to CHOOSE to not fund/rent to felons. So although i don't have a phrase to describe what tipping point is going on here. I believe that we are in agreement but foresight of "Cases to come" with the increase of homelessness and felons(both too) that the arguments would solidify down as i presented although the status quo says you would be "currently" correct. This is getting interesting.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit