> An individual's susceptibility to a vice is an individual problem.

Maybe if you're Tom Hanks in Castaway. In real life, people contract lung damage from secondhand smoke; homes are mortgaged to fund gambling habits; families are destroyed by drunk drivers.

That's not to say that people can't partake in their vices responsibly. But the idea that any harms are limited to the person with the problem is just not true.

▲

yieldcrv 3 hours ago | parent [-]

the basis of my view is the observation that homes can be mortgaged to trade financial markets as well

all the protective frameworks out there do not prevent someone from becoming a debt serf or excluded from the credit markets if they want to

	▲	jakelazaroff 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Sure, there isn't a silver bullet that magically prevents all possible harm while also imposing no burden or inconvenience. The basis of my view is that the non-existence of such a framework is a terrible reason to have no protective framework at all.
	▲	AlexandrB 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I think adding barriers to doing something dumb: 1. Gives the person more opportunities to reconsider. 2. Gives loved ones more opportunities to notice what's happening and intervene. There's a world of difference between refinancing your home by visiting a bank several times over a period of a few weeks and refinancing your home by tapping a few buttons on your phone. The difference convenience makes to the rate of making errors in judgement is actually so obvious that even military equipment will have additional steps you have to take to enable lethal weapons/eject/etc.