6 added 332 characters in body
source | link

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways. For example, the contract can say that there is a fee of 100% of basic premium.

A consumer must combine that statement with other statement, such as what is basic premium, and how much is it, to know that there is a $10k fee. Not suspecting that a $100 worth of insurance can have a $10k fee, most customers just miss that part.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

For a sample.

I wonder what a libertarian court, justice, or government would do in

http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty

Will it be the same or differ from what Singaporean governments' do?

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

For a sample.

I wonder what a libertarian court, justice, or government would do in

http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty

Will it be the same or differ from what Singaporean governments' do?

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways. For example, the contract can say that there is a fee of 100% of basic premium.

A consumer must combine that statement with other statement, such as what is basic premium, and how much is it, to know that there is a $10k fee. Not suspecting that a $100 worth of insurance can have a $10k fee, most customers just miss that part.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

For a sample.

I wonder what a libertarian court, justice, or government would do in

http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty

Will it be the same or differ from what Singaporean governments' do?

5 added 273 characters in body
source | link

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

For a sample.

I wonder what a libertarian court, justice, or government would do in

http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty

Will it be the same or differ from what Singaporean governments' do?

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

For a sample.

I wonder what a libertarian court, justice, or government would do in

http://www.asiaone.com/singapore/sim-lim-scams-student-reduced-tears-after-being-charged-1k-iphone-warranty

Will it be the same or differ from what Singaporean governments' do?

4 added 456 characters in body
source | link

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)

Also, what about if you buy a software, and some terms in the software TOS says that you agree to be sex slave.

A more concrete samples

Unit link insurances. In most regions, people are selling unit link insurance. The unit link insurance are often sold deceptively.

For example, say you buy an insurance that normally worth $100. The insurance agent will combine that with investment. Say, the investment is $10000. The insurance agent will say that all the money is invested, and you got a small insurance on top of that.

The fee, however, is $10k (yap 100 times the normal cost of insurance).

The customer doesn't know that there is a $10k fee. It's usually written in obscure ways.

Another real world samples:

  1. Ethereum DAO The contract is the code. There is a bug in a code that makes some people lost money. The way ethereum do it is with a fork. But we can't change our currency every time this happened.

  2. Hacking In case of hacking, the thief just got the money. So libertarians seem to follow the easiest path. Notice libertarians aren't worse off than most countries.

How would libertarians view that sort of contract?

In one hand the contract is consensual. It usually contain terms like customers already read, understand, and agree with the contract.

Basically there are several things libertarian "countries" may do

  1. Don't bother enforcing the contract. After all, the contract if the contract is grossly deceptive it's not "true consent" anyway.
  2. Let the market handles the situation. Companies with deceptive contract will have bad brand.
  3. Having protection customer agencies suing the companies (this is probably a very unlibertarian solution, but this is how most countries are doing it)
3 added 456 characters in body
source | link
2 added tag
| link
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackPolitics/status/964613815269822464
1
source | link