If they're so valuable, maybe you could spare a thought of thanks that the previous owners passed them onto posterity, whatever the condition. If you don't like the condition, feel free to continue your search. Getting heated over their use of their own property isn't very philosophical of you.
That's just vanilla regulation. Yes it tends to create market inefficiencies, by definition. Capture entails industry corrupting and directing regulatory bodies.
I think this is plain old regulation, not regulatory capture. For it to be the latter we'd need evidence than it was the incumbents who designed this oversight which they then asked the white house to rubber stamp.
This straw man doesn't merit falsification. Nobody claims wealth alone gives political power. Wealth applies leverage to all endeavors, but political ends still require strategy and operationalization. It's just a lot easier with a couple trillion dollars, vs. a single individual vote once every couple of years.
> you start or fund a think tank that writes policy proposals, or a media organization that advocates your views
Or you run "money primaries", financially filtering the menu of candidates before democratic voting. Or you pay/lobby for (non-democratic) judicial appointments, which is a strategy that's been openly pursued since 1971: https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blog/powell-memo.pdf
Nobody is forcing anyone to place bets they can't back, isn't this a personal responsibility issue?
edit: to be clear, if companies are committing fraud in their marketing, that should be prosecuted or if regulations around misleading marketing are weak, that should be legislated of course.
Personal responsibility is an excuse for lazy regulation. These things are designed to be harmful, for the express purpose of squeezing money out of people, as efficiently as possible. We know that some people are psychologically and genetically more prone to addiction than others, and that people like that will be extremely likely to form addictions with gambling or drugs when we make those things easy to access.
What would you rather have? More regulated gambling and less addicts, or unregulated gambling and more addicts? Personally, I prefer the former.
> Nobody is forcing anyone to place bets they can't back, isn't this a personal responsibility issue?
Honestly, calling it "personal responsibility" when a powerful group is actively working to exploit that flaw seems a little weird. But even accepting that, we outlaw plenty of things because we think society isn't currently responsible enough to handle them.
You are promoting gambling to young people, easily manipulated.
That's why you see so many college boy on their marketing video.
It's completely fine when you're old enough to be responsible, and to know that gambling is a degenerate behavior that you can allow yourself sometimes to release the steam, but these companies don't make money from us.
They make money from the kids overspending because they are convinced they are going to get rich doing that. That's manipulation.
It would be like showing McDonald ads to starving African kids, of course they are going to make the wrong choice when offered food. They can't think rationally in that state.
A family member lost years of irreplaceable photos and paid apps due to account lock, and doing this across two countries they were legitimately residing in triggered it.
In my experience it only locked me out (of just the payment or account settings I think) for like 24 hours when I switched like 4 times in a single day.
To be held in contempt indefinitely you must "hold the keys to the jail cell" meaning you can leave at any time if you simply comply with the courts order.
