Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud(bitsaboutmoney.com) |
Notes on a non-profit indicted for bank fraud(bitsaboutmoney.com) |
Regardless, I'd encourage you to think about the actual moral actions presented in this article. Is the system that the SPLC used and extended an inherently bad system (in this case, acting as a source of disallowed organizations for banks)? Furthermore, given the existence of that system, was the SPLC's use of it bad? Are the SPLC's goals good or bad? Were their methods in the timeline taking up the latter half of the article good? Despite the generally negative tone of the article, I think they were a morally acceptable method of achieving their goals. Essentially, the article is describing the SPLC's efforts to use large-scale community organizing and pressuring organizations to accomplish their moral goals. The article's disapproving tone makes this sound like a conspiracy and... it kinda is. But then, can't you describe almost any charity as a conspiracy to accomplish a moral goal? As the article notes, the SPLC has used similar tactics in the past to combat, eg, the KKK, and I doubt many people would imagine that as a conspiracy to target and censure particular law-abiding citizens.
In short, despite the article's somewhat negative tone overall, I don't think anything described is actually a negative thing (well, the factual bank fraud is, but not the conspiracy to implement moral goals). The description of the methods they used are essentially a negatively-worded description of just about any sort of charitable organization. You could describe the DNC as a conspiracy to install into power authoritarians who want to curb speech they don't want ("hate speech"), for example, or you could describe it as a grassroots organization to ensure people are fairly represented in government and their wishes (curbing racism) are achieved.
I think the main thing to criticize, is that
1. Banks are deputized as ersatz law enforcement, and will cooperate in ways you would otherwise expect to warrant a warrant, or do damage to people you would otherwise expect a court to gate.
2. Government has set up laws that on their face sound reasonable, but are extremely easy to run afoul of, and extremely easy to prosecute.
3. Banks have delegated decision making to private entities, which confounds oversight and is probably extremely under regulated vs anyone’s expectations
4. A lot of this power is wielded at the discretion of political actors at both ends
5. The main lesson of American politics since Nov 2016 is that we need more guardrails than “discretion”
That’s a bright line violence against innocents, so we’re closing all your checking accounts and preventing you from paying for anything without cash. And if people try to help you, we’ll say loudly in polite society that they traffic in blood money.
I hope you understand.