[pmlnr]

The very purpose of a governing body, by greek idea, is to protect citizens. That includes protrcting from bad companies.

[golergka]

"Protecting" a person from a bad deal that he enters voluntarily is not protection, it's taking away that person's freedom.

[em-bee]

only if the person can reasonably be expected to know that this is bad deal, which in most cases they can't

[golergka]

This may be true; however, it's also implied in your statement that government does.

Never assume that government knows better than it's citizens. It's made out of the worst of them.

[em-bee]

well, it depends on how that protection is implemented. sure, if the government is blocking certain deals then it better be sure that those are actually a bad deals. i agree with you on the downside of that

but the government doesn't need to know that something is a bad deal if instead it provides for ways to revert the deal once it's discovered to be bad.

for example in the EU any online purchase can be reverted within 14 days without requiring any explanation, because it is assumed that bad deals may not become aparent until after the purchase.

[golergka]

Many private enterprises implement money-back guarantees on their own, without any requirement from the law. Which tells me that government in these matters requirements is not necessary, and therefore, shouldn't exist.

[em-bee]

only if all actors are good.

clearly a lot of people have already been burned by bad purchases, otherwise this law wouldn't exist. laws like this are generally made in response to existing problems, not in speculation of potential problems.

the issue with your claim is that it is less likely that bad actors give a money back guarantee. and those are the ones why such a law is needed. or from the other side: those businesses that do offer s money back guarantee are more likely those that do not need it. it's for the other ones that this law was made.