Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Club -- I find it remarkable that you can support policies which have the admitted effect of permitting large companies to (for want of a more sophisticated analogy) make a living by anally raping boatloads of people and then oppose disclosure requirements, etc. which would help some of the folks to see the big penis coming.
[I'm talking about -- for example, requiring the disclosure of the effect of only making minimum payments, etc.]
[ETA: (Since Gatti liked the analogy). And you're also supporting legislation which makes it harder for those people to disengage while bruised and bleeding, gather their torn clothes, and limp away, until after the large companies have achieved their full measure of satisfaction.]
I find it most remarkable that you justify this laissez-faire attitude with a philosophy of individual responsibility -- while seeming to find no corresponding need for any sort of enforceable corporate responsibility. (Talking about the policing effect of the "market" is nonsense -- the information and bargaining power are not even.)
It is most ironic that you deride efforts at consumer protection as being motivated by an inappropriate paternalism or condescension. It cold comfort to desparate people if the government refuses to help them -- or the law facilitates their screwing because: "We thought you were smart enough to figure it out yourself."
|
Concentual sex is not rape, no matter how rough it is.
No one is forcing borrowers to sign up for credit cards or borrow money beyond their means.
