⇒ banks/transit agencies/Amazon ban you because you’re a bad person
… which is appropriate in this case because they have good info + specialization in evaluating that type of badness
but that’s not what’s going on at all; the entities in question aren’t trying to evaluate someone’s overall character or enforce norms for social benefit.
Banning someone to protect infrastructure just doesn’t extend to banning someone because they abuse their family, it doesn’t create a question of where to draw the line.
It seems to me like the OP tacitly assumes (& is confused by) something like ‘all punishment/enforcement-like actions should be justified in terms of universal morality, not particular responsibilities and interests’.
Yes, this. That part of the OP reads to me like
fraud / fare-dodging makes you a bad person
⇒ banks/transit agencies/Amazon ban you because you’re a bad person
… which is appropriate in this case because they have good info + specialization in evaluating that type of badness
but that’s not what’s going on at all; the entities in question aren’t trying to evaluate someone’s overall character or enforce norms for social benefit.
Banning someone to protect infrastructure just doesn’t extend to banning someone because they abuse their family, it doesn’t create a question of where to draw the line.
It seems to me like the OP tacitly assumes (& is confused by) something like ‘all punishment/enforcement-like actions should be justified in terms of universal morality, not particular responsibilities and interests’.