> What if the only way to ban fraud is to say you can't structure it this way? Pyramid schemes seem like a good example.
If it's really the only way, then I can accept that tentatively (without taking an even more radical stance which I won't introduce here). But, I would still say tread very carefully and make sure it's the only way. Government regulation has a tendency to creep up and become entrenched. Even if it is the only way to prevent it, it may not be worth the increased government scope.
> My understanding of the article was that customers complain to their local council, get their money back, and the company changes after loosing too much money.
Okay, sorry I skimmed the article rather briefly. Still, if that's the format, why not keep it in the judicial system? I guess I don't have a strong point there, though.
If it's really the only way, then I can accept that tentatively (without taking an even more radical stance which I won't introduce here). But, I would still say tread very carefully and make sure it's the only way. Government regulation has a tendency to creep up and become entrenched. Even if it is the only way to prevent it, it may not be worth the increased government scope.
> My understanding of the article was that customers complain to their local council, get their money back, and the company changes after loosing too much money.
Okay, sorry I skimmed the article rather briefly. Still, if that's the format, why not keep it in the judicial system? I guess I don't have a strong point there, though.