To put it maybe too bluntly: but I do not see the difference between "randomly reasonable commoner" and a "paternalistic approach". And more importantly I thin

To put it maybe too bluntly: but I do not see the difference between "randomly reasonable commoner" and a "paternalistic approach". And more importantly I think you put in too much trust in the good will of people. To me it is important to factor in the "human nature" which not always conform to higher ideals. And that does put me firmly in the paternalistic camp. Not to say I want to remove all liberty. But with the gym examples they clearly show they need to be regulated. They've shown no intent to listen to reasonable random commoners. I live a place with better consumer protection. I have never in my life had to do a charge back. And have the same bank account. Reasonable consumer protection makes life better - not worse. With the added benefit of making the market more fair for the reasonable players and not cater for the buccaneers.