Ethics and Paypal

[Hard Times]

I think JamesEarly said it best - he does not use PayPal because he does not agree with its approach. I agree that is the best way to approach this. Don't like it, don't use it. Like it - use it. It is a free country and everyone has a choice. But use it incorrectly, that affects other people who are using it correctly as Mark Feld points out. JMHO.

 

Best, HT

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

[Raisethis2]

I think the losses PayPal incurs from improper use of the gift requirement are built into the business model. If then (hypothetically) there is zero abuse of the gift option does PayPal do the "ethical" thing and refund the windfall?

 

 

Just sayin...........

 

 

See, I can start some s$@%!!

[James_OldeTowne]

Those debating whether RockMy should change his post title using the E word, here is the definition below, and I think RockMy has used a correct title. He specifically addresses the use of PayPal here on these boards and how that relates to following the RULES laid down by these boards for use. Hence, definition 2 below particularly is consistent with the word Ethics in RockMy's title and first post on this topic.

 

Best, HT

 

ethics

  Use Ethics in a sentence

eth·ics

[eth-iks] Show IPA

plural noun

1.( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Actually, this definition shows exactly why "ethics" was NOT an appropriate use of terms in the OP. "Law" and "illegal" do not appear anywhere in the given definition, and that is not by accident. It is precisely because the two terms are not interchangeable, demonstrating that "ethics" was in fact misused in the opening argument.

 

The discussion obviously intended to discuss violation of a Paypal rule, and the definition clearly and intentionally does not reference "violation of rules".

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Those debating whether RockMy should change his post title using the E word, here is the definition below, and I think RockMy has used a correct title. He specifically addresses the use of PayPal here on these boards and how that relates to following the RULES laid down by these boards for use. Hence, definition 2 below particularly is consistent with the word Ethics in RockMy's title and first post on this topic.

 

Best, HT

 

ethics

  Use Ethics in a sentence

eth·ics

[eth-iks] Show IPA

plural noun

1.( used with a singular or plural verb ) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.

2.the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.

3.moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.

4.( usually used with a singular verb ) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Actually, this definition shows exactly why "ethics" was NOT an appropriate use of terms in the OP. "Law" and "illegal" do not appear anywhere in the given definition, and that is not by accident. It is precisely because the two terms are not interchangeable, demonstrating that "ethics" was in fact misused in the opening argument.

 

The discussion obviously intended to discuss violation of a Paypal rule, and the definition clearly and intentionally does not reference "violation of rules".

 

"Law" and "illegal" was not used in the opening Post of the Thread.

You are reaching to support your position, when you don't need to.

I did not interpret the opening Post as an obvious intent to discuss violation of a Paypal Rule.

I did interpret an intent to tie in #1, 2, 3, and #4 of the definition, to the point the OP was making.

 

[James_OldeTowne]

"Law" and "illegal" was not used in the opening Post of the Thread.

You are reaching to support your position, when you don't need to.

I did not interpret the opening Post as an obvious intent to discuss violation of a Paypal Rule.

I did interpret an intent to tie in #1, 2, 3, and #4 of the definition, to the point the OP was making.

John, "law" is definitely implicit in the OP. We all know that it is against the law to "steal", and you can observe the following quotes in the OP:

 

...doing so is stealing of Paypal's rightfully earned fees...

...steal from the store...

...It's still stealing...

 

But prior to these phrases, note use of the following phrase:

 

This board, in general, maintains a fairly high standard of ethical behavior

 

We may be interpreting the OP differently, but clearly the intent is to associate a statement of lawfulness with questions of ethical standards.

 

All that being said, I can certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"Law" and "illegal" was not used in the opening Post of the Thread.

You are reaching to support your position, when you don't need to.

I did not interpret the opening Post as an obvious intent to discuss violation of a Paypal Rule.

I did interpret an intent to tie in #1, 2, 3, and #4 of the definition, to the point the OP was making.

John, "law" is definitely implicit in the OP. We all know that it is against the law to "steal", and you can observe the following quotes in the OP:

 

...doing so is stealing of Paypal's rightfully earned fees...

...steal from the store...

...It's still stealing...

 

But prior to these phrases, note use of the following phrase:

 

This board, in general, maintains a fairly high standard of ethical behavior

 

We may be interpreting the OP differently, but clearly the intent is to associate a statement of lawfulness with questions of ethical standards.

 

All that being said, I can certainly understand and appreciate your point of view.

 

I think we can agree, without either of us over-reaching, that stealing is a subject of Ethic and ethical behavior, and that stealing is directly linked to Law by a persons' ethical behavior or more precisely the lack of same.

 

It is very difficult to separate an unlawful act from the parent that birthed the unlawful act, i.e. lack of Ethic. It may even be illogical to attempt to separate same. I of course exclude mental illness from this ethic position.

 

The positions stated by the OP and you have merit of equal importance.

 

That is the real message transmitted to me by both of you.

[RWB]

The concepts mentioned come back to one of the central discussions of the Middle Ages: what are the differences between ethos and fairness. The idea of fairness permeated Medieval commerce with hundreds of laws implemented to ensure that no merchant or craftsman had an “unfair” advantage over another of the same trade. Because life was permeated by opinions of the Bishop of Rome and catholic church bureaucracy, controversy and comments were not simply civil but fundamental to religious doctrine. “Would a banker be condemned to eternal torment because he charged 10% interest or was the limit really 12.5%, or some other number?”

 

Ordinary craftsmen in Paris could not advertise that their product was better than another’s or that it had any advantage. They could not employ extra workers or family members, and all work had to stop at dark. The ethos of the church and of ordinary commercial society were often in conflict, and the only help for merchants was that they could buy salvation with the appropriate payment to a church pardoner or a local bishop.

 

The meaning of ethos has floated around for millennia and will continue to do so.

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

I don't have a problem with paypal; for some 3% is too much on, say, bullion transactions, but I would agree that guarantees when there are credit card transactions are imperative. A major New England dealer posted elsewhere that he had been scammed recently by a customer using a cc going by the name of "Will Robinson" and his money was now lost in space, pardon the pun. With paypal at least he would not be in that predicament.

 

People need to follow their consciences even if it causes them to greatly curtail certain types of transactions. Two principles if followed would greatly limit the need for law enforcement if universally followed: "Do all you have agreed to do, and do not encroach on other persons or their property."

[jimjum12]

....I will use paypal personal to pay for an item if it is a hardship sale.....with the understanding that the individual can buy it back within a reasonable time. The protection and convenience that paypal provides is deserving of some loyalty on my part. As stated earlier.....I don't HAVE to open that door. GOD BLESS....

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[bochiman]

Threads like these are always interesting, yet sad, to read.

 

Too many opinions, and many of which are not fully educated but are very emotionally charged, and too many attacks on others.

 

I find that, while I still read them, to see if there is anything to learn, I often just learn about some of the dark sides of certain folks due to egos and what is posted.

I now mostly avoid posting to threads like this.

[comicdonna]

The problem with feeling bad for PayPal is that they don't follow their own rules, they force their monopoly on eBay, and they help commit fraud against sellers by not allowing common sense to prevail.

 

As a seller I'd rather take any other form of payment than PayPal. They're awful.

I agree. The last 3 days, paypal has pretty much put me through a nightmare. This is over a large transaction (nearly 30K). A buyer from Canada made the payment in 3 installments, because he was limited to 10K each time. Paypal limited my account. They said the transaction wasn''t normal for me. They contacted the buyer to confirm it was legit, and checked my ebay history. I have given them a link to my FS thread, a link to my registry, CGC's number to confirm my id here and the tracking number for the express package. This is not enough. They say I have to prove I own the books. Many were purchased 6 to 8 years ago with money orders. Since the fire two years ago, I have no reciepts. They recieved over 1K from me as their cut plus, charged the buyer more than the going exchange rate for his payment. So, as far as i'm concerned, they can have my paypal account.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

Threads like these are always interesting, yet sad, to read.

 

Too many opinions, and many of which are not fully educated but are very emotionally charged, and too many attacks on others.

 

I find that, while I still read them, to see if there is anything to learn, I often just learn about some of the dark sides of certain folks due to egos and what is posted.

I now mostly avoid posting to threads like this.

 

I disagree with your evaluation of this Thread.

 

I learned from the Posts. Level of education (which I admit I do not know what your definition of this is or why it is important) of the those that replied never invaded my thoughts.

 

I read many well phrased and passionate Posts. I detected a demand for exactness of language and definition and a demand to support a position and a clear demand to identify the reason for the Post.

 

Ego and dark side interpretation of a Posters' position in a Post can sometimes be a result of the ego and dark side of the Reader.

[Raisethis2]

I feel your pain comicdonna. I've heard many similar stories about PayPal and their policing of the transactions they encourage and profit from. If you Google PayPal there are threads and blogs that crucify this companies shady practices where they are Judge and Jury whenever they appoint themselves to be.

 

Again, as long as they're the only game in town I think they are as unethical as any user who clicks gift when they shouldn't. I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for them at all.

 

Good luck with the transaction.

 

 

[newprepper]

Threads like these are always interesting, yet sad, to read.

 

Too many opinions, and many of which are not fully educated but are very emotionally charged, and too many attacks on others.

 

I find that, while I still read them, to see if there is anything to learn, I often just learn about some of the dark sides of certain folks due to egos and what is posted.

I now mostly avoid posting to threads like this.

 

Really?!? Too many opinions? I see 2, those who agree it is theft, and those who don't care. Then you can throw in the attacks on the OP as extras.

 

What is not fully educated? The posters or their opinions? There is really nothing to educate about, paypal has 2 forms of payment, one for purchases which they charge a fee for, and 1 that is for gifts, no fee. That's it

 

As far as dark sides go, everybody has one, some may be bordering on eggshell instead of full blown black, but everybody has one.

 

I find your post very condescending with out adding anything of value to the conversation, just you looking down your nose at everybody else

 

But thanks for joining the attacks on everybody else

 

[newprepper]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

So because it's not worded in iron-clad language, you cannot recognize right from wrong?

[RockMyAmadeus]

Oh, and for the record...the person who posted this:

 

The reason is because he is a tool. And for the record, his long standing status is on the comics forum. I don't even think he collects coins.

 

Hey RMA, gonna call me out for my rules violation or do something productive, like get a life.

 

I don't know who this person is (other than their user id), but unprovoked lashing out at strangers on the internet...while a time honored tradition...isn't really the best way to build up any respect or credibility. You can disagree with someone without being hostile and insulting, especially unprovoked.

 

It's kinda funny....I get all sorts of grief on the comics side for being a dedicated coinee...and here, there are people claiming I don't even collect them. Ironic, no?

 

I'm sorry life has dealt you a tough set of cards. Best of luck to you.

 

I don't need to build up respect or credibility on this or any other coin forum. If you were actually a coin collector like you pretend to be, you would know this. Furthermore, we don't need to be lectured on the subject of ethics by a forum troll.

 

You want us to believe that you collect coins. Then start posting some coins and discussing coins and stop being the Paypal police. Nobody cares if Paypal doesn't get their fee.

 

Btw, do you really expect us to believe that you motive for posting this thread was to clarify to the point that you beat like a red headed step child in the thread that got zapped? Your such a good little troll. Post the thread and act like you motive is innocent. Then when it appears that everyone is fooled, you reveal your true agenda which was to respond to my slam which you couldn't do on the other thread since it got zapped. Of course, now you will deny it, while using 5 consecutive posts to do so all while trying to ruin my credibility in process.

 

We all know what you are, you aren't fooling anyone! Now go after that post count title.

 

I'm sorry, truly, that life has dealt you such a difficult set of cards that you have to lash out unprovoked at people like this. Truly. You're clearly not a happy person.

 

I don't know you, or anything about you, but you're clearly angry about something, and since you and I have never interacted, it's clearly not me.

 

That said, you're not the board spokesman, you don't speak for anyone but yourself, and what you choose to believe is none of my business, no matter how untrue it may be.

 

The fact remains: using Paypal personal to pay for merchandise is theft. To those who were inclined to steal before, this means nothing: you will continue to steal, because the problem is much deeper with you than what Paypal does. And, you will continue to scoff at anyone who stands up to theft. But you won't be able to do it in broad daylight.

 

Those who did not know, and who were not inclined to steal, probably welcome this information, as I did, so they could address it.

 

Best wishes to you.

 

Oh what's wrong, couldn't come up with anything original to say so you had to repeat your lame little poker reference?

 

There was no poker reference intended. I employed a cliché to make a point. That you read it as a poker reference is you reading into it.

 

You are right about one thing, you don't know me or why I am angry but I will tell you. What angers me are the countless number of clowns who run roughshod over internet forums accumulating massive post counts without ever making a positive contribution to the forum. Since you have been posting on this forum, I have yet to see one single post from you that provided any numismatic education to the reader. All of your posts are incredibly argumentative speeches about tangential topics.

 

1. I didn't realize there were rules on how one must post.

 

2. The fact that you are angry about how someone else chooses to post is a very serious problem for you. To state that one must make a "positive contribution" (by your definition) or they risk the wrath of Lehigh96...well, who's really running roughshod over whom...?

 

3. Let me make it very clear that I don't have to defend my posts, especially to someone who thinks it's their duty to dictate how other people should post. No one has to defend how they post to anyone but the moderation team of this board. Whether I've helped thousands, or none at all (and the answer is much closer to the former), is no one's business, provided I follow the rules of this forum.

 

4. I seriously doubt you've seen even 1/100th of my posts on this board, so you are hardly qualified to make pronouncements on what you have actually seen.

 

So while you are a legend in your own mind, ask yourself this question: "what have the members of the NGC Coin Forum learned from my posts?" If you are as honest as you claim in this thread, you will admit that the answer is "nothing."

 

You're inventing statements and proscribing them to me. This is called a "straw man" argument, and it's a logical fallacy.

 

At no point did I "claim" ANYTHING about me. You invented that statement out of thin air, based on supposition, and now are stating that I "claimed" it.

 

Not saying that I'm not, mind you...just pointing out the fallaciousness of your statement.

 

As to what I have and have not "taught" others...that's not for me to decide. If someone has learned from my posts, great. But I would not be so arrogant as to presume that anyone needed me to teach them anything. This is an internet message board, not a classroom.

 

And...again, I must belabor the fact that there are no requirement as to what one MUST post.

 

Your purpose on this forum is simply to feed your own ego and give meaning to your pitiful existence that leads you to post over 30 thousand times in 8 years. Seriously, do you ever leave your house? Or your computer for that matter?

 

Furthermore, I never said that using paypal gift isn't tantamount to theft. I simply stated that I and most of the board members of this forum don't care.

 

Again...I wasn't aware they had elections for board spokesman.

 

You do not speak for "most." You speak for you. Presuming you speak for "most" is the sign of an arrogant man.

 

I doubt Paypal would consider it theft since they routinely freeze peoples accounts for the sole purpose of generating interest on those funds while they are frozen.

 

Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous accusation?

 

Naturally, this prevents the rightful owner of that money from transferring those funds into an interest generating account of their own. Now that is theft.

 

 

I suspect...and am fairly certain of this...that all of these things that you have claimed about me are nothing more than projections about character flaws that you dislike about yourself. That's nearly always the case, especially on internet message boards.

 

Like I said before, I am sorry that whatever circumstances in life led you to the point where you think it's your right to dictate to other people how they must post on an internet message board, but the problem lies solely with you.

 

I ask again...who's really the one trying to harass, cajole, and insult others into behaving as he sees fit?

 

Best wishes.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I use PayPal Gift to buy and sell coins AND use Regular PayPal to buy and sell coins.

 

It's amazing how many people send PayPal Gift when buying coins from me. I just say I accept PayPal and at least 50% of the time the buyers send PayPal Gift.

 

PayPal could make 3% on every one of my transactions. They don't. It's likely under 2% and probably 1.5%. That 1.5% was roughly $300 for PayPal in 2012. Do I feel guilty that they didn't get $600? No.

 

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many people are so cavalier about stealing on this side of the board.

 

I guarantee, if someone stole from you, you'd have something to say about it.

 

But you care nothing that you and others steal from Paypal.

 

Mystifies me.

 

You're right. I don't care.

 

Why is that YOUR business? Why do you care what other people are doing? It is none of your business.

 

Um. You DO know that you were the one who announced publicly that you're ok with stealing, right...? You made it public knowledge.

 

As far as what you do...you also know that I have no way to stop you from doing whatever it is you wish to do, right...? What you do is controlled by you, and whatever code of ethics you adhere to.

 

Finally, as to why it's my business: stealing affects all of us, and is therefore all our business. Costs are higher, laws and codes and rules are tightened, all because of the greedy among us who want to take what isn't theirs. This is an inescapabale fact of life. So, yeah, you bet I'll speak out against it when I see it, especially such a blatant example.

 

I guess RMA is now the world's moral authority and must enforce ethicst for us all.

 

RMA: Have you always given your employer 8 hours work for 8 hours pay? Ever slack off even for a minute? You stole from your employer. He who judges others will judged the harshest. Watch what you say. It will come back to haunt you. I guarantee it.

 

Sigh.

 

I haven't judged you, FishyOne, though I know that any time anyone dares question anyone else, it is automatically assumed to be "judgement."

 

I do not judge you. That's not my place. I already told you, I neither can, nor have the desire to, stop you from doing what you will do. Nor am I in any position to condemn you if you do.

 

Speaking against evil is a GOOD thing, though those who wish to do evil won't think so. Stealing is evil, because it hurts others. What I am trying to do is appeal to reason, to demonstrate why stealing is not good, no matter who it's from, and that we all pay when it occurs. Perhaps, by putting it in those terms, those who would steal would not....or, at the very least, think twice.

 

It is a fact of life that those who are challenged will slip into defense mode, as you have done here, and employ hyperbole to lash out.

 

Granted.

 

But my hope, FishyOne, is that you come to see that it's wrong, that it hurts others (and hurts you, too), and that you stop doing it of your own free will, not because you think someone on a message board "judged" you. That is my appeal to you.

[Nutmeg Coin]

The problem with feeling bad for PayPal is that they don't follow their own rules, they force their monopoly on eBay, and they help commit fraud against sellers by not allowing common sense to prevail.

 

As a seller I'd rather take any other form of payment than PayPal. They're awful.

I agree. The last 3 days, paypal has pretty much put me through a nightmare. This is over a large transaction (nearly 30K). A buyer from Canada made the payment in 3 installments, because he was limited to 10K each time. Paypal limited my account. They said the transaction wasn''t normal for me. They contacted the buyer to confirm it was legit, and checked my ebay history. I have given them a link to my FS thread, a link to my registry, CGC's number to confirm my id here and the tracking number for the express package. This is not enough. They say I have to prove I own the books. Many were purchased 6 to 8 years ago with money orders. Since the fire two years ago, I have no reciepts. They recieved over 1K from me as their cut plus, charged the buyer more than the going exchange rate for his payment. So, as far as i'm concerned, they can have my paypal account.

 

I was very sorry to read about this and hope it gets straightened out!

 

On establishing ownership, records can usually be established in some way. I have kept my records going back to the early 90s so an audit or other need to prove ownership could be established; plus when doing cash transactions in order to buy quality coins some dealers insist on green cash to sell to me, I make a record on my BoA bank account so as to have a record to go on. If paypal or other entity was making me sweat to come up with a record I would rack my brains for possible proof of ownership, paper trail of some type; even old shipments that were insured for $XXXX may be acceptable in some cases.

 

If I were doing a transaction with a Canadian entity, I would probably look for advice beforehand from a lawyer knowledgeable on these transactions. (pre-paid legal and similar companies offer hours of consultations a month without extra charges beyond their membership fee).

[RockMyAmadeus]

James, stealing is stealing, whether laws or rules against it are enforced or not. Ditto for other crimes.

Mark, we completely 100% agree. Stealing is against the LAW, which is why the OP should have entitled the thread in that manner: "Breaking the law and Paypal", not "Ethics and Paypal". That is what this argument is truly about. There was no need to introduce misleading use of the term "ethics" into the argument -- that in itself is an ethical violation.

 

My only question for you, James, is this:

 

Why is stealing against the law....?

 

What's at issue here is the misunderstood difference between "ethics", and "law". These are not interchangeable terms, not in the least. Sadly, many people take advantage of the confusion between the two in order to make an argument sound like an "ethical" discussion when it is not. For some reason, folks often think that if they can portray something as an ethical discussion, then that somehow strengthens their point, but that is not the case if the argument has, in fact, nothing to do with ethics.

 

I find it unethical when the term "ethics" is misleadingly used, by intent, and out of context, to support an argument that is actually one of legality.

 

Incidentally, when it comes to being a dealer, I sleep very well at night knowing I have never stolen anything from anyone... EVER. And for the record, I have never ever even in one instance "stolen" from Paypal, because I do not use it, and I believe it is unethical to support that corrupt organization.

 

 

There was no discussion of legality, James. I know you don't believe that, but it's true nonetheless. This is a discussion about ETHICS, not the law, and always has been. Whether or not it's ethical to use Paypal personal to pay for merchandise, when Paypal says it's not.

 

The term ethics was not used out of context, it was not used misleadingly, and the discussion has nothing to do with legality, other than the broader context of how our legal system is BASED ON our ethical code.

 

That you would contend that discussing the ethics of using Paypal personal for purchases is, itself, a violation of ethics is a terrible stretch.

 

I find it quite surprising that a dealer would publicly announce a gap in personal ethics.

 

I, for one, would think twice about dealing with such folks...EVP

But you wouldn't think twice about dealing with someone who hides their "gap in personal ethics", right? Seriously, you don't see the flaw in your argument? Should I think twice about dealing with you because you fail to reveal your "personal gap in ethics"?

 

The point, James, is that one may or may not be dealing with a thief...they won't know until and if they become a victim.

 

But those who go out of their way to state that they are ok with stealing...well, it removes all doubt, does it not?

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

There are many sneaky forms of ripping people off that the liberty-worshippers out there will say are OK and Kosher because two people entered into a contract without a gun being pointed at either of their heads.

 

I would say that those who buy precious metals at under XX% of melt or fair market value are engaging in a form of legal theft.

 

There is a term "constructive fraud" that speaks to a form of deception that the law may judge as deserving of censure:

 

constructive fraud n. ..."when the circumstances show that someone's actions gives him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven."

 

Here is an example of a CW advertiser who ripped off the wrong guy:

 

http://www.goldismoney2.com/showthread.php?40492-Anybody-ever-bought-sold-from-Chaim-Greenberg-May-need-legal-help

[FishyOne]

Yes, I am in the don't care category. I realize full well it is considered a theft of services. No question about it.

 

Ebay/PayPal (same company) have raised their fees so high they have an 80% Gross Profit? It that ethical?

 

Ebay/PayPal have raised fees so high they turned $3 billion in profit last year on $14 billion total revenue. That is six times (6X) the net income of Wal-Mart per dollar of revenue. Wal-Mart, the world's whipping boy for corporate greed and lack of ethics earns 1/6 of what Ebay/PayPal earn per dollar or revenue. Is that ethical?

 

I did very well in business ethics when completing my Master's degree in business management. I realize that the goal of every corporation is maximizing shareholder value by extracting every dollar possible from their customers. With a virtual monopoly that is largely unregulated, Ebay/PayPal can charge exorbitant fees and get away with it. Is that ethical?

 

I very rarely "send" a PayPal Gift but have received it many times and often without asking. I have never received any message from Ebay or PayPal regarding these "gifts". Why? Because Ebay/PayPal make so much money off me. They have made thousands of dollars from my business over the years.

 

When I buy, I almost elusively use funds from my PayPal balance. If I always used a credit card, PayPal would be earning little from me. I know that and ensure they get their cut. Maybe I'm "stealing" from them but I'm not stupid. I realize they have to make money and ensure they do.

 

I guess I could reverse things (fund my purchases with a credit card and accept only regular PayPal for sales) and the result would be nearly the same. PayPal is not stupid either; they know they are getting a fair "cut" from me or you can be sure I would have received a "cease and desist Gifts" e-mail long ago.

 

Is it right? Is it ethical? Well, if this is the biggest sin I have to confess when I meet my maker, I will be doing well.

 

 

 

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

A little back story, then.

 

Paypal MUST offer the fee free transfer of funds generally, per federal regulation.

 

However...when people abuse the personal payment, and use it for purchases, Paypal can, and has, blocked the individual's ability to use Paypal personal.

 

So, they do indeed enforce their rule.

 

But regardless, even if they didn't, it's still stealing. Ease of opportunity doesn't change that.

With regard to "stealing", you and I completely agree that stealing is illegal. I have never questioned that at all.

 

That's good, because that's never been the question.

 

The question to you is: WHY is stealing illegal?

 

However, because it is illegal does not suddenly lead to an argument over "ethics", which is the premise of your OP, and that is where we do not agree. Erroneously introducing the concept of "ethics" into the argument immediately calls into question your own ethics, because it was (seemingly) an intentional misuse of the term in order to elicit an emotional response in favor of your argument. (And by the way, it seems like others folks in this thread have unfairly attacked you -- I find your participation on the boards to be very positive and I trust you take nothing I write here as a personal attack!)

 

I don't, James, not at all. I recognize that discussing things which may be delicate is going to stir up emotions for some, especially those who don't agree, and unfortunately, many, many people internalize what they read if they disagree with it, and turn a disagreement over what they think...even if the person has no idea what they thought...into a personal attack against them.

 

That's a very serious flaw, but it's also extremely common. My obligation is to answer, but not take the by-now personal attacks back at me personally, undestanding where they come from and why they exist. It has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with the person doing the internalization. In most cases, if one can step back and recognize it for what it is, one often feels pity for those people...they allow their emotions to rule their reason, which always ends in disaster.

 

As to your contention that this is a discussion of legality, not ethics...it's not, and never has been.

 

If you want to carry out an argument with regard to a legal situation (and I DO believe you have a legitimate argument), then your discussion would be much stronger by not confusing it with misuse of the word "ethical".

 

I used the word ethics, and continue to use it, on purpose, because what it really comes down to is this: there's precious little to STOP a person intent on using Paypal personal for purchases. Yes, the law may be against it, but it is essentially powerless to stop it from occuring. Therefore...and this is the crux of my argument...it is incumbent on the personal ethics of those using the service to not abuse it. Those personal ethics derive from the larger societal ethos nearly universally (in other words...no man is an island.)

 

Stealing is stealing. It's quite a bit more serious than j-walking, or unjust laws.

Are you quite sure about that? You do realize that violation of Jim Crow led to serious punishment of violators in years past, right? Segregation was a much more egregious crime than 'stealing". A major reason Jim Crow was defeated was because Rosa Parks broke the law and refused to give up her bus seat to a white man.

 

It was definitely an illegal act, but was it unethical?

 

Unfortunately, you and I will have to disagree on stealing being less egregious than segregation. Segregation, as onerous as it is (and I believe it is), isn't one of the Big 10.

[RockMyAmadeus]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What does "without a purchase" mean to you?

[FishyOne]

I use PayPal Gift to buy and sell coins AND use Regular PayPal to buy and sell coins.

 

It's amazing how many people send PayPal Gift when buying coins from me. I just say I accept PayPal and at least 50% of the time the buyers send PayPal Gift.

 

PayPal could make 3% on every one of my transactions. They don't. It's likely under 2% and probably 1.5%. That 1.5% was roughly $300 for PayPal in 2012. Do I feel guilty that they didn't get $600? No.

 

Frankly, I'm shocked at how many people are so cavalier about stealing on this side of the board.

 

I guarantee, if someone stole from you, you'd have something to say about it.

 

But you care nothing that you and others steal from Paypal.

 

Mystifies me.

 

You're right. I don't care.

 

Why is that YOUR business? Why do you care what other people are doing? It is none of your business.

 

Um. You DO know that you were the one who announced publicly that you're ok with stealing, right...? You made it public knowledge.

 

As far as what you do...you also know that I have no way to stop you from doing whatever it is you wish to do, right...? What you do is controlled by you, and whatever code of ethics you adhere to.

 

Finally, as to why it's my business: stealing affects all of us, and is therefore all our business. Costs are higher, laws and codes and rules are tightened, all because of the greedy among us who want to take what isn't theirs. This is an inescapabale fact of life. So, yeah, you bet I'll speak out against it when I see it, especially such a blatant example.

 

I guess RMA is now the world's moral authority and must enforce ethicst for us all.

 

RMA: Have you always given your employer 8 hours work for 8 hours pay? Ever slack off even for a minute? You stole from your employer. He who judges others will judged the harshest. Watch what you say. It will come back to haunt you. I guarantee it.

 

Sigh.

 

I haven't judged you, FishyOne, though I know that any time anyone dares question anyone else, it is automatically assumed to be "judgement."

 

I do not judge you. That's not my place. I already told you, I neither can, nor have the desire to, stop you from doing what you will do. Nor am I in any position to condemn you if you do.

 

Speaking against evil is a GOOD thing, though those who wish to do evil won't think so. Stealing is evil, because it hurts others. What I am trying to do is appeal to reason, to demonstrate why stealing is not good, no matter who it's from, and that we all pay when it occurs. Perhaps, by putting it in those terms, those who would steal would not....or, at the very least, think twice.

 

It is a fact of life that those who are challenged will slip into defense mode, as you have done here, and employ hyperbole to lash out.

 

Granted.

 

But my hope, FishyOne, is that you come to see that it's wrong, that it hurts others (and hurts you, too), and that you stop doing it of your own free will, not because you think someone on a message board "judged" you. That is my appeal to you.

 

Thank you for the thoughtful response RMA. I appreciate it.

 

I was cranked up earlier and lashed out at you and Mark F. I apologize.

 

As noted previously, if I fund my purchases with a credit card through PayPal and accept only regular PP, the net "take" to PP will be roughly the same. Perhaps in the future that will be a better way to handle it.

 

I like utilitarianism, even if it is a hedonistic philosophy!

[RockMyAmadeus]

Yes, I am in the don't care category. I realize full well it is considered a theft of services. No question about it.

 

Ebay/PayPal (same company) have raised their fees so high they have an 80% Gross Profit? It that ethical?

 

Yes. They, and anyone doing business, have the right to charge whatever they believe the market will bear. You have the right not to do business with them.

 

Provided they have no received the money under the cover of fraud, then it is completely ethical.

 

Is it ethical to charge $1600+ for an ounce of gold?

 

Ebay/PayPal have raised fees so high they turned $3 billion in profit last year on $14 billion total revenue. That is six times (6X) the net income of Wal-Mart per dollar of revenue. Wal-Mart, the world's whipping boy for corporate greed and lack of ethics earns 1/6 of what Ebay/PayPal earn per dollar or revenue. Is that ethical?

 

Yes.

 

I did very well in business ethics when completing my Master's degree in business management. I realize that the goal of every corporation is maximizing shareholder value by extracting every dollar possible from their customers. With a virtual monopoly that is largely unregulated, Ebay/PayPal can charge exorbitant fees and get away with it. Is that ethical?

 

Yes. No one is forced to trade with eBay/Paypal.

 

I very rarely "send" a PayPal Gift but have received it many times and often without asking. I have never received any message from Ebay or PayPal regarding these "gifts". Why? Because Ebay/PayPal make so much money off me. They have made thousands of dollars from my business over the years.

 

Um...I'm thinking it's because you haven't been caught yet.

 

Many, MANY of my friends and business associates foolishly lost the ability to send and receive personal payments because they abused the system in precisely this way.

 

When I buy, I almost elusively use funds from my PayPal balance. If I always used a credit card, PayPal would be earning little from me. I know that and ensure they get their cut. Maybe I'm "stealing" from them but I'm not stupid. I realize they have to make money and ensure they do.

 

I guess I could reverse things (fund my purchases with a credit card and accept only regular PayPal for sales) and the result would be nearly the same. PayPal is not stupid either; they know they are getting a fair "cut" from me or you can be sure I would have received a "cease and desist Gifts" e-mail long ago.

 

Um...no, you just haven't been caught, not because you decide what is "fair" for Paypal to make.

 

Justifying it in any way is just justifying theft.

 

Is it right? Is it ethical? Well, if this is the biggest sin I have to confess when I meet my maker, I will be doing well.

 

The wages of any sin, even "the smallest", even one, is death. But that's an entirely different discussion.

[newprepper]

Yes, I am in the don't care category. I realize full well it is considered a theft of services. No question about it.

 

Ebay/PayPal (same company) have raised their fees so high they have an 80% Gross Profit? It that ethical?

 

Ebay/PayPal have raised fees so high they turned $3 billion in profit last year on $14 billion total revenue. That is six times (6X) the net income of Wal-Mart per dollar of revenue. Wal-Mart, the world's whipping boy for corporate greed and lack of ethics earns 1/6 of what Ebay/PayPal earn per dollar or revenue. Is that ethical?

 

I did very well in business ethics when completing my Master's degree in business management. I realize that the goal of every corporation is maximizing shareholder value by extracting every dollar possible from their customers. With a virtual monopoly that is largely unregulated, Ebay/PayPal can charge exorbitant fees and get away with it. Is that ethical?

 

I very rarely "send" a PayPal Gift but have received it many times and often without asking. I have never received any message from Ebay or PayPal regarding these "gifts". Why? Because Ebay/PayPal make so much money off me. They have made thousands of dollars from my business over the years.

 

When I buy, I almost elusively use funds from my PayPal balance. If I always used a credit card, PayPal would be earning little from me. I know that and ensure they get their cut. Maybe I'm "stealing" from them but I'm not stupid. I realize they have to make money and ensure they do.

 

I guess I could reverse things (fund my purchases with a credit card and accept only regular PayPal for sales) and the result would be nearly the same. PayPal is not stupid either; they know they are getting a fair "cut" from me or you can be sure I would have received a "cease and desist Gifts" e-mail long ago.

 

Is it right? Is it ethical? Well, if this is the biggest sin I have to confess when I meet my maker, I will be doing well.

 

 

 

 

No worries, the only problem as I see it is that when we start saying that a certain amount of profit is too much, we are starting down a road away from capitalism toward socialism. We start branding people and companies as evil for making a profit and you take away all incentive to better your life, why would somebody start a company to be told how much profit they can charge? Or spend 7 years in college, 3 years or more in residency with hundreds of thousands in loans just to be told how much you can charge? It sure would suck to find a pristene 1909 S-VDB in change have it graded and be told you can only charge a certain amount of profit on it

[RWB]

Geeez....now we have to define "sin." I always thought it was more fun when undefined --- come to think of it, so did the minister's daughter.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

So because it's not worded in iron-clad language, you cannot recognize right from wrong?

 

Unfortunately, you have misinterpreted.

 

Please read the last 2 paragraphs carefully, and while doing so, reflect on the lack of clarity of the conflicting language of the Rules, and not cherrypicked for convenience of position. Another method of thinking about the Rules is that a Contract/Agreement/Document is intended to read as a Whole, complementing all parts for continuity and clarity.

 

I realize I have disappointed you.

I am going down to the Creek and blow my face off. I will miss you.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

I understand this whole thread, it is easy to violate principles when it is against a faceless corporation, the people who do this would not dream of doing it to friends though. It is just the nature of the beast, much like people steal from wal-mart or any other corporation, they aren't stealing from people, they are stealing from wal-mart, nevermind the fact that they are stealing from everybody, Waltons, stockholders, employees, consumers, because it all affects the cost of merchandise in the future, just the way it is

 

 

I was going to keep my mouth shut about this whole thing but (blah blah), I am not convinced the issue of the "Rule" is one of Ethic.

 

I realize the issue is being interpreted as Ethic, and if there is clarity of language in the "Rule" I would understand.

 

What I interpret is a frightfully worded Rule, that is subject to interpretations that allow the choice of action a person chooses.

 

However, intent by action speaks to the individual.

If the individual clearly interprets the Rule as stringent and confining, and acts to deceive, this is clearly an issue of Ethic.

 

If a person can not truly decide clear intent of the Rule, and after seeking clarity does not receive clarity and decides to act in good faith without intent to deceive, this is not Ethic.

 

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about the following:

 

""Personal Payment" means amounts sent between two individuals (not to or from a business) without a purchase"

 

(emphasis added)

 

https://cms.paypal.com/us/cgi-bin/?cmd=_render-content&content_ID=ua/UserAgreement_full&fli=true

 

Further:

 

4.1 Receiving Personal Payments. If you are selling goods or services, you may not ask the buyer to send you a Personal Payment for the purchase. If you do so, PayPal may remove your ability to accept Personal Payments.

 

Now, I can understand where this may leave wiggle room..."well, they just said I couldn't ASK...they didn't say the buyer couldn't OFFER" (setting aside the obvious conflict of how do they find out in the first place)....but that wiggle room is completely shut by the definition of a Personal Payment.

 

I guess we just have a different interpretation of the words.

The last 2 paragraphs of my Post might help clarify my interpretation.

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

What does "without a purchase" mean to you?

 

Setting aside the wording used in posing the question, I would again refer you to my Post and please read carefully.

 

It may also help to read my reply to Prep.