= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
magfrump comments on Mandating Information Disclosure vs. Banning Deceptive Contract Terms - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (74)
A person who was aware that they might succumb to being tricked, might voluntarily agree to a legal regime which authorized judges to void contracts that seemed to be attempts to trick them. On the other hand, if they were not aware of this vulnerability, one might benefit them by forcibly preventing them from being tricked. But it is hard to see how a political regime which does this to them is accountable to such folks. If they had influence over the political system, they would want it to stop this sort of thing. It would have be that other people who had power over politics wanted for force this protection onto them. This brings us to an image of a powerful political elite forcing their protections on unwilling others, for the good of those others. Is this how you see politics?
The unaware citizen may be a knowledge specialist (for example, a metro organization wonk) with a friend who is a different knowledge specialist (for example, a financial policy wonk). The two of them would then be able to enter into an agreement where each would attempt to hold their shared government accountable for injustice each could see, while trusting the other to prevent unseen injustice.
Sort of a technocratic turn of events but my heuristics are pretty heavily pro-technocracy.