[TeMPOraL]

> If they were adequately informed about risks, why shouldn't we be allowed to choose our path?

That's a big if. In reality, they won't be adequately informed - they'll be at best adequately disinformed by the marketing departments of the power companies and third parties popping up around variable-pricing schemes. And to the extent exposing the customers to price variability is beneficial for the suppliers, the market has a nice way of removing the previously available options from the choice pool.

There's a spectrum between "let the people decide for themselves" and "the people will predictably decide to do something stupid and then they'll beg to be bailed out, so perhaps let's not offer that option", and I feel this may fall closer to that second end.

[sokoloff]

If I do something stupid, why should I be bailed out? That takes away a key feedback mechanism.

Heads you win; tails someone else loses; how much would you like to wager?

[TeMPOraL]

Because if you lose enough, you start dragging your family or community down. If enough people lose enough, they turn into a humanitarian crisis. People are social creatures, and want to help each other, and set up systems that do so - which then get unintentionally exploited by risk takers.

So a bunch of people do something obviously stupid - like getting scammed by a tech support call, or get infinite debt on a payday loan, or put a hand in a moving machinery and lose it. Now they're there, scammed, without money, and/or a hand. What are you going to do? Deny them healthcare and basic support? No, we help them anyway, and instead chase scammers, put limits on payday loans, and enforce safety requirements on equipment - we take away the choice of being stupid, because that's more reasonable than being indifferent to the suffering of victims of their own stupidity, for the sake of enforcing a corrective feedback loop.