4 ms·
> But whatever, obviously Amazon is getting into the slave credit business. Like they care, and like anyone would bother holding them accountable. I hear this
by dev_dull 7y ago
> But whatever, obviously Amazon is getting into the slave credit business. Like they care, and like anyone would bother holding them accountable.
I hear this kind of argument from the same people who say the government shouldn’t be telling people they can’t do recreational drugs, or who to marry, or what to do with their bodies etc etc — that they can decide for themselves.
... but the same people can’t be trusted with a high interest credit-building card??
- CodeMage 7y agoAre you really failing to make a distinction between individuals and corporations? Or is there something in your argument that I missed?
- javert 7y agoWhy should there be a distinction? People shouldn't magically lose rights because they ban together as a corporation instead of acting as individuals.
- CodeMage 7y agoNo, I actually misread the comment in question. I thought @dev_dull was saying that people who don't want the government to limit individual freedoms were the same people who want the government to regulate corporations. After re-reading the comment, I can see that this wasn't the message. However, there's still the fact that @dev_dull is not distinguishing between people arguing about government restricting individual freedoms and government regulating corporations. It's not about whether people can be trusted with high interest cards, it's about whether corporations should be allowed to set any interest rate they want.
- tssva 7y agoPeople gain some rights and protections when they ban together as a corporation. It is not unreasonable to expect them to give up others in exchange for the ones they gain.
- javert 7y agoI don't think that people should gain rights when they ban together into a corporation. So perhaps some adjustment is necessary. In some cases, this adjustment would necessitate increasing the rights of individuals.
- dgacmu 7y agoThe comment to which you replied was complaining about the lack of disclosure. one can be in favor of allowing consumer choice and still be in favor of mandating disclosure of relevant information -- in fact, it's a pretty logical combination. the recreational drug analogue would be requiring your dealer to tell you if they laced your weed with fentanyl. Something your life depends on knowing, in fact.
- javert 7y agoThe comment he replied to had two separate complaints. One about disclosure and one about high interest. He is commenting on the high interest issue. So your criticism is misplaced and unfair. As has been covered elsewhere in the thread, the disclosure complaint is based on an apparent misreading of the law.