Earlier quoted context omitted.
Made sense until the last paragraph and everything turned upside down. "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. If you think you're allowed just because you are a little smarter than us I would question your moral and welcome any basic consumer protection.
> "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"? It depends. We can easily get into the sophistry of "what is understanding", "what's the nature of knowledge" and "how many gains of sand makes it a heap". But usually the most common, though definitely imperfect, test would be whether a random reasonable commoner would be able to understand it. I.e., if somebody is told "we have a contr…
And more importantly I think you put in too much trust in the good will of people. To me it is important to factor in the "human nature" which not always conform to higher ideals. And that does put me firmly in the paternalistic camp.
Not to say I want to remove all liberty. But with the gym examples they clearly show they need to be regulated. They've shown no intent to listen to reasonable random commoners.
I live a place with better consumer protection. I have never in my life had to do a charge back. And have the same bank account. Reasonable consumer protection makes life better - not worse. With the added benefit of making the market more fair for the reasonable players and not cater for the buccaneers.