3 ms·

trading is ok as long as the experience is convoluted and looks ugly? only people with a certain amount of wealth should be permitted to use aesthetically-pleas

trading is ok as long as the experience is convoluted and looks ugly? only people with a certain amount of wealth should be permitted to use aesthetically-pleasing interfaces? not sure what you're advocating for here.

ByteJockey 6y ago
They're advocating for protecting people from themselves. Which is kind of terrifying for a country with democratic input. If people can't be trusted with their own money, why should they be trusted to decide who controls the American nuclear arsenal?
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >>Which is kind of terrifying for a country with democratic input. If people can't be trusted with their own money, why should they be trusted to decide who controls the American nuclear arsenal? With this analogy, I think you inadvertently supported the opposite argument: the nuclear arsenal itself is not democratically controlled. Rather, we elect someone who controls it (with several layers of checks and balances).
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    What's the check on the president hitting the button? Is it just the willingness for military officials to follow the order? I'm pretty sure the president doesn't have to consult with congress or the supreme court before doing this.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I don't totally disagree. But, at some point, "let people make whatever stupid decisions they want to make" turns into we should also be able to kick those stupid people into the gutter and abandon them.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    I mean, yeah. It does. The fundamental assumption of all democracies are that the people are competent enough to govern themselves. Ultimately, I'm not sure a free society, a welfare state, and universal suffrage can all co-exist in the long term. I think any two could survive, but all three seem like a longshot. I'm actually having trouble figuring out which two I'm rooting for.
- kthxbye123 6y ago
  Actually they’re advocating for protecting people from predatory corporations that adversarially target and exploit their customers with weaponized psychology, bit of a difference In a democracy, the people (and their legitimately elected representatives) are also allowed to structure markets and decide on what business practices are and are not allowed

ByteJockey 6y ago

They're advocating for protecting people from themselves. Which is kind of terrifying for a country with democratic input. If people can't be trusted with their own money, why should they be trusted to decide who controls the American nuclear arsenal?

enraged_camel 6y ago
>>Which is kind of terrifying for a country with democratic input. If people can't be trusted with their own money, why should they be trusted to decide who controls the American nuclear arsenal? With this analogy, I think you inadvertently supported the opposite argument: the nuclear arsenal itself is not democratically controlled. Rather, we elect someone who controls it (with several layers of checks and balances).
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  What's the check on the president hitting the button? Is it just the willingness for military officials to follow the order? I'm pretty sure the president doesn't have to consult with congress or the supreme court before doing this.
ghaff 6y ago
I don't totally disagree. But, at some point, "let people make whatever stupid decisions they want to make" turns into we should also be able to kick those stupid people into the gutter and abandon them.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  I mean, yeah. It does. The fundamental assumption of all democracies are that the people are competent enough to govern themselves. Ultimately, I'm not sure a free society, a welfare state, and universal suffrage can all co-exist in the long term. I think any two could survive, but all three seem like a longshot. I'm actually having trouble figuring out which two I'm rooting for.
kthxbye123 6y ago
Actually they’re advocating for protecting people from predatory corporations that adversarially target and exploit their customers with weaponized psychology, bit of a difference In a democracy, the people (and their legitimately elected representatives) are also allowed to structure markets and decide on what business practices are and are not allowed