[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.

[golergka]

I don't disagree with anything you said, except for conclusion.

That's because you seem to operate out of an unspokem assumption that if government can change something in society for the better, it should.

This core assumption is the only thing I disagree about. Every additional little thing that government gets involved, brings unseen debt of increasing power of monopolic beurocratic apparatus with absolute authority and very ineffective oversight.

I believe that government should be involved only in things that can absolutely cannot be resolved without it. Being able to merely do some good is not a good enough reason. Yes, the phone situation is probably better with such legislation, but it's not a good enough reason for people to give up more of their power to the state and state-like institutions.