Hacker News Reader

Comment by kryogen1c | Hacker News Reader

>In reality, consumers aren't (and can't) be educated enough

this is a gravely serious statement. in America youre talking about a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governed and the government. many states would violently oppose the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should create laws for you backed by lethal force.

>US citizens would still rather protect corporate bad actors than protect themselves.

you missed the point. its not about protecting corporations, its about allowing personal freedom, even if that freedom includes suboptimal results. moreover, it is abjectly false that the government can simply do whats best for everyone.

View on HN

> this is a gravely serious statement. in America youre talking about a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governed and the government.

Uh, consumer protection laws have existed in the US for over a century. The FTC was founded in 1914. The mindset that laws should protect people from things that they don't understand is not an abrupt or fundamental shift. If not for the government, would you know how to find out if an apartment was built and wired in a safe way? Or do you rely on government permits and inspectors for that confidence?

>The FTC was founded in 1914

the ftc was founded as an anti-monopoly arm of the government, and is not the same thing as saying "consumers aren't smart enough to know whats good for them"

IMO as a libertarian, trust-busting is one of the fundamental responsibilities of the government because consumers and small businesses usually cannot overturn a monopoly.

> because consumers and small businesses usually cannot overturn a monopoly

But they can somehow fight the abuse and manipulation companies can expertly unleash on them? How is the uninformed consumer better prepared to combat this than a monopoly? Millions of individual consumers speaking with millions of voices have absolutely no chance against a companies with a single voice and a single goal. Companies hold far more cards than a regular consumer ever will. How much time can you dedicate towards protecting yourself and not being abused? Because a company can dedicate a lot of time into finding better ways to abuse or manipulate you.

It's a misguided belief that the Government intervening is intrinsically bad, or that any decision taken at individual level is intrinsically good simply because it proves "freedom". And this stems from lack of education and the unwillingness to accept that most individuals are woefully unprepared to fight back a never ending assault. But you can easily see the "converts" angrily shouting at the Government whenever they get trampled by yet another company. One of the more clear examples is when people who got scammed out of they cryptocurrencies went from "boo regulation" to "why didn't the government do anything" without missing a beat.

Yeah, that’s the cookie-cutter generic answer to any consumer protection.

Does anyone actually belief it’s workable to require every single consumer to be informed about the most minor details of a router’s DHCP configuration in order to stop such shenanigans? And how does this fantasy work when the router is provided by your cable company? There must be thousands of issues of that magnitude you would need to research when deciding among the two options for internet most people have. Although I guess it’s easier once you notice both provides use the same routers and you don’t have a choice after all.

Do you also favor the government leaving food safety to the individual consumer? If yes, do you routinely research the full supply chain of all ingredients that go into your cheeseburger, to be sure nobody is using lead as a convenient sweetener? Do you check every restaurant’s kitchen for hygiene?

>this is a gravely serious statement. in America youre talking about a fundamental shift in the relationship between the governed and the government. many states would violently oppose the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should create laws for you backed by lethal force.

You sure about that? The FDA, USDA, CPSC, FCC, FAA etc all exist already.

So, would you be ok with corporations selling things that are slightly radioactive? The average consumer isn't going to understand the implications and risks of such products. What makes a smoke detector safe vs. glowing paint that killed a lot of people painting watch hands/marks with it?

> many states would violently oppose the idea that the government knows whats best for you and should create laws for you backed by lethal force.

Isn’t that exactly what a police force is? Doesn’t that exist in every part of the US and act to uphold laws designed to protect the people who live there?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com