|
|
|
|
|
|
by daveidol
112 days ago
|
|
|
I don’t want to be too flippant, but I think there is a real trade off across many aspects of life between “freedom” and “safety”. There is a point at which people have to think critically about what they are doing. We, as a society, should do our best to protect the vulnerable (elderly, mentally disabled, etc) but we must draw the line somewhere. It’s the same thing in the outside world too - otherwise we could make compelling arguments about removing the right to drive cars, for example, due to all the traffic accidents (instead we add measures like seatbelts as a compromise, knowing it will never totally solve the issue). |
|
|
Yes, one could imagine some kind of mental test and if you fail you don't get to use your bank online, you have to walk to the physical location to make transactions. But this can obviously be abused to shut out people from banking based on political and other aspects. Generally democracies are wary of declaring too broad sets of people as incapable of acting independently without some guardian. Obviously beyond a certain threshold of mental incapacitation, dementia etc. it kicks in, but just imagine declaring that you're too easy to influence and scam and we can't let you handle your money,... But somehow we can rely on you using sane judgment when voting in elections. Or should we strip election rights too?
We rely on polite fictions around the abilities of the average person. The contradictions sometimes surface but there is no simple way to resolve it without revising some assumptions.