Don't let the libertarians hear you say that

Charging people who do not need the service and not letting them cancel looks like fraud, certainly not a voluntary transaction of two willing individuals. I do not see any problem from the point of libertarian for the state to protect the right of a person who does not consent to a business relationship anymore to withdraw from it - just as it is true for any other relationship. Just as libertarians would not object to the laws allowing people to leave a job or divorce, they should not object - from purely libertarian grounds - to laws that allow people to dissolve business relationship without undue burden and involuntary money transactions.

Now, if the gym in question would fully inform the person that they have nearly impossible cancellation procedure and obtained informed prior consent, that would be different. But that never happens.

Made sense until the last paragraph and everything turned upside down.

"Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"?

Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book. If you think you're allowed just because you are a little smarter than us I would question your moral and welcome any basic consumer protection.

> "Fully inform" is that not simply what we in real life call "the small print"?

It depends. We can easily get into the sophistry of "what is understanding", "what's the nature of knowledge" and "how many gains of sand makes it a heap". But usually the most common, though definitely imperfect, test would be whether a random reasonable commoner would be able to understand it. I.e., if somebody is told "we have a contract for 12 months, for X dollars per month, if you want out earlier, you'd have to pay fee of Y dollars" and you say "yes, I agree" - that is voluntary transaction. If you are told "the price is X per month, don't worry about cancelling, it's easy" and then you have to jump through hoops and pay Y dollars because it was printed in unreadable font somewhere in the 2-inch pile of documents you've been given to sign - it's not voluntary, because average reasonable person wouldn't realize it.

> Taking advantage of people is never ok in my book.

Neither it is in mine. There is, however, a wide area of situations where some consider it to be "taking advantage", while others, sometimes including the individuals supposedly being taken advantage of, consider it a free choice. I am against paternalistic approach which says some people can define for other people what's best for them and must protect them from voluntary transactions because it looks to the paternalists like "taking advantage". On the other hand, if it looks for everybody, including the participants, as "taking advantage", and involves hiding substantial information that alters the meaning of the deal, then it's not voluntary. I know it's a more complicated position than fits on a bumper sticker, but life is complicated, so there's no reason not to have complicated positions.

To put it maybe too bluntly: but I do not see the difference between "randomly reasonable commoner" and a "paternalistic approach".

And more importantly I think you put in too much trust in the good will of people. To me it is important to factor in the "human nature" which not always conform to higher ideals. And that does put me firmly in the paternalistic camp.

Not to say I want to remove all liberty. But with the gym examples they clearly show they need to be regulated. They've shown no intent to listen to reasonable random commoners.

I live a place with better consumer protection. I have never in my life had to do a charge back. And have the same bank account. Reasonable consumer protection makes life better - not worse. With the added benefit of making the market more fair for the reasonable players and not cater for the buccaneers.

The thing about the invisible hand is that it works really well if you buy a chocolate bar that you don't like. The next day, you won't buy that same chocolate bar. However, when a handsome man in a suit offers my cousin a loan for a house that she can't afford and puts her in severe financial trouble, she might very well not use that bank again the next time she's looking for a loan (in maybe 30 years), but that doesn't help much.

The free market self regulates well in some areas. Others need some assistance.

The fact that banks are allowed to give loans with money they don't have to people who can't repay them is mostly because of that "assistance".

That only works if they let you cancel. Otherwise they can't lose customers.

“If they don’t learn they will go out of business” sounds nice, but in reality, we can all point to hundreds and hundreds of different companies that show that that simply does not happen. Otherwise, the US would have the best and friendliest companies in the world, since that’s where capitalism runs the most rampant, and where you can really see that “the market will sort itself out” philosophy in action.