Well i took from your reply that you challenged the notion that citizens have _not_ wanted the get-rich-quick crypto jazz.
I wasn't saying that chargebacks don't exist. I was saying that the government dictating that you cannot lose all your money in a foolish endeavor would, in some parts be seen as infringing on your "freedoms".
Force safety nets was the discussion, as i took it. And some countries are resoundingly against forced safety nets.
Talking about the US specifically, the question comes down to infringing on liberties versus stopping scam behavior.
Everybody agreed it was a good thing when the Fed shut down several scam colleges and forcibly discharged all the debt students had taken on. People aren't really meant to evaluate whether colleges are "real".
On the other hand, gambling laws tend to be contested. Gambling is regulated - most Casinos don't cheat but may have unfair odds. People who support gambling argue that adults can make unwise decisions so long as we can assure Casinos are honest and post odds.
The alternative view re gambling is that gambling rewards part of the human brain that we are bad at regulating and the government should step in and prevent even "honest" gambling.
Both of those takes on gambling have merits. If you oppose gambling because it's unethical, would it be ok to ban people who collect trading cards at insane prices hoping to resell them? Likewise if you support gambling, don't you have to admit it's brought many to financial and family ruin?
The question re crypto is whether crypto is more like gambling or more like a scammy college. My position is that crypto is a scam, not an honest casino.
> I was saying that the government dictating that you cannot lose all your money in a foolish endeavor would, in some parts be seen as infringing on your "freedoms".
I mean, some people might think that, but every functioning state in the world has laws against fraud, at the very least, and generally various investor safeguarding laws beyond that.