[ethbr0]

> but their goal is to eat everyone

Their goal is to make money.

If you go them and say "I want to make a very unfavorable to myself deal, that will make you lots of money" then they'll say "Yes."

Caveat emptor by default, with specific exclusions for some worse cases, generally governs financial contracts in the US.

In other words, you have the right to agree to whatever you want to agree to. If you choose to use that power to blow your foot off... well, that can happen.

[hkt]

The contrary view is that the state has at least two jobs: to create an environment where you're in a position to turn down bad deals, and to prevent the very worst deals from being offered in the first place.

Really it is about whether the government's job is to forcibly not govern, or to get involved.

[ethbr0]

The former I'd agree with, the latter I'd question.

Because "very worst" (or even just "bad") deals is a loaded term. Why? For whom? When?

As discussed in this topic, a high-interest rate loan is a bad deal, unless it's the best option you have. Would no loan be better than that loan? Maybe. Should we take away someone's ability to make that decision? I'm not convinced.

At some point, the cost of freedom is freedom to fail. So it's always a balancing act between not making that failure hurt too much or too easy to inadvertently stumble into... and giving people autonomy.

You'd think engineers would understand that you can't optimize for everything at once.