4 ms·
Why do you consider yourself or the cashier to be in position to deny the man his lawful right to be stupid?
by liaukovv 4y ago
Why do you consider yourself or the cashier to be in position to deny the man his lawful right to be stupid?
- trhway 4y agoWell, if one sees a crime being committed against an elderly person, it is kind of an recognized social duty to intercede, though really there seems to be no good practical way of doing so in the case like this. And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Unfortunately it is a very heavy legal process of a sledgehammer when i think in many cases it should be a surgeon knife.
- liaukovv 4y agoI personally consider conservatorship immoral. "We know better so you are better off being my slave"
- ClumsyPilot 4y agowell its meant for folks that literwlly no longwr function, like late stage Alzheimer and what not
- roenxi 4y agoThere is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money. Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse. All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.
- danaris 4y agoYou see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?
- phil21 4y agoThis is an incredibly disengenious take. Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop. What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience. This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse. Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that. Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.
- danaris 4y agoIt sounds to me like what you're criticizing is one particular method of addressing the problem, rather than the general idea that we need to address the problem. It would absolutely be reasonable to continue fighting fraud by recognizing that these things can happen, and taking steps to combat them, without tilting it as far as you have seen in favor of banks essentially confiscating customer funds.
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoWell, suppose we learnt with 100% certainty that a spesific bank account belongs to dangerous criminals - surely we should not be allowing money transfers to that account - either you are beinflg scammed, or you are financing crime on purpose. I sympathise with your position, but you cant have people awndong money to know drug dealera and terrorists and go "oh well, its their money" either the additional angle to consoder is that we have duty of care to vupnerable individuals - elderly pwople and children.. like if a peraon with a degree in finance is buying crypto, no questions. but if someone in their 80s is investing in crypto becauae their neighbour tols them to, thats suspicious i am writing this as someoje who currently can't send koney to family because the whole country has been sanctioned, so,
- LocalH 4y ago>And some level of stupidity, either natural or appearing with age, qualifies people to lose their right to be stupid, ie. conservatorship. Which are abused nationwide
- piva00 4y agoWhy do you consider that total freedom of an oblivious individual fucking their finances is a good thing for society? As a society we are actually here to help others with our experiences, if the experience of a cashier with multiple fraudulent transactions can help a soul to not be a sucker, why shouldn't they use that power? Why do you consider "lawful" as the only measure of "good"?
- liaukovv 4y agoFreedom is important
- piva00 4y agoAvoiding financial distress and/or ruin is important as well. How you balance this equation is the hard part that takes effort and deep thinking and the subject to much discussion in many fields of philosophy. Being a maximalist is the road to stupid dogmatic behaviour. The path to radical extremism.
- kylebenzleee 4y ago
- lordgrenville 4y ago"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." (J.S. Mill). I think this is a good example of the limitations of this principle. It precludes social cohesion and mutual responsibility.