Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why is it the job of the government to protect people from fraud? If you believe that the free-market solves any issue that government might try to intervene, why is fraud separated from that? If I sucker you into a contract, wasn't it your responsibility to know what you were signing in the first place?
Why is it the job of the government to protect people from fraud? If you believe that the free-market solves any issue that government might try to intervene, why is fraud separated from that? If I sucker you into a contract, wasn't it your responsibility to know what you were signing in the first place?
In a perfect world, it is absolutely your responsibility to make sure you aren't entering into a fraudulent contract. When did anyone claim that fraud is a separate issue? In a true free market a few people WILL be suckered into the fraudulent company, but subsequent people will stay away and that company will eventually die out.
It is absolutely not the responsibility of the government to protect the individual. It should be the responsibility of the government to protect the individual's freedom to protect him/herself.
In a perfect world, it is absolutely your responsibility to make sure you aren't entering into a fraudulent contract. When did anyone claim that fraud is a separate issue? In a true free market a few people WILL be suckered into the fraudulent company, but subsequent people will stay away and that company will eventually die out.
It is absolutely not the responsibility of the government to protect the individual. It should be the responsibility of the government to protect the individual's freedom to protect him/herself.
You summed it up pretty well. In other words, buyer beware.
In a perfect world, it is absolutely your responsibility to make sure you aren't entering into a fraudulent contract. When did anyone claim that fraud is a separate issue? In a true free market a few people WILL be suckered into the fraudulent company, but subsequent people will stay away and that company will eventually die out.
It is absolutely not the responsibility of the government to protect the individual. It should be the responsibility of the government to protect the individual's freedom to protect him/herself.
It is the government's responsibility to prosecute the perpetrators of the fraud, isn't it? The opinion that the company "will eventually die out" is not satisfactory to me. In fact, that "punishment" is as milquetoast as anything can be.
I will "eventually die out", but I look forward to living a happy, fruitful life before that happens.
It is the government's responsibility to prosecute the perpetrators of the fraud, isn't it? The opinion that the company "will eventually die out" is not satisfactory to me. In fact, that "punishment" is as milquetoast as anything can be.
I will "eventually die out", but I look forward to living a happy, fruitful life before that happens.
Yes, we do need a legal system for people who commit crimes. If I get you to pay $100,000 for a 10 year old ford tarus, that isn't a crime. That is your stupidity and the government should not prosecute for anything. The government should also not spend time, money and effort to try and prevent it from happening in the first place.
Why is it the job of the government to protect people from fraud? If you believe that the free-market solves any issue that government might try to intervene, why is fraud separated from that? If I sucker you into a contract, wasn't it your responsibility to know what you were signing in the first place?
If you sucker me into buying a car for twice what I could get it from somewhere else that is my fault and the government should not get involved. If you agree to sell me a BMW and deliver a Toyota then the government should get involved. That's what the court system is for though - to enforce contracts.
there are times when the government should step in, and times when they should step back and leave well enough alone. there should be laws against fraud and misrepresentation though to allow the government to step in when needed. if i sing a contract to buy something at a certain price, and you deliver that something, then i should pay the price agreed to. if someone else is selling the same thing at a lower price, i shouldnt be able to sue you for fraud or misrepresentation, its all on me for not shopping around.
on the other hand if i contract to buy product A, and you deliver product B, then i ahve the option of either accepting product B, or forcing you to deliver product A and that is where government should step in if you refuse to deliver what we contracted.
In a perfect world, it is absolutely your responsibility to make sure you aren't entering into a fraudulent contract. When did anyone claim that fraud is a separate issue? In a true free market a few people WILL be suckered into the fraudulent company, but subsequent people will stay away and that company will eventually die out.
It is absolutely not the responsibility of the government to protect the individual. It should be the responsibility of the government to protect the individual's freedom to protect him/herself.
I went to the website and it makes it clear, government's only role is to help individuals against force and fraud. If you get frauded, why should the government help you?
there are times when the government should step in, and times when they should step back and leave well enough alone. there should be laws against fraud and misrepresentation though to allow the government to step in when needed. if i sing a contract to buy something at a certain price, and you deliver that something, then i should pay the price agreed to. if someone else is selling the same thing at a lower price, i shouldnt be able to sue you for fraud or misrepresentation, its all on me for not shopping around.
on the other hand if i contract to buy product A, and you deliver product B, then i ahve the option of either accepting product B, or forcing you to deliver product A and that is where government should step in if you refuse to deliver what we contracted.
Time out, shouldn't be your responsibility to know the type of person, or company you are dealing with? Why should the government step in because you didn't do the due diligence on the character of the person you are negotiating with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
