So What?
After seeing the motives behind these scams, their perpetrators, and the people who fight against them, the scammers could even be made out as the good guys. While I won't go quite that far in my claim, I feel as though scammers are typically not as bad of people as you would think. Scammers have some cunning about them and are able to be crafty and successful, on a monetary level, in the world. The people they "victimize," are often equally as greedy, getting caught up in the scam in the first place because of a blind desire for monetary gain before fact checking. Through scams, people with the same greed and a higher intelligence level gain money.
That's how the world works. It's not unfair. It's natural selection.
The better somebody is at accumulating money, the more likely they survive in the modern world and eventually, the level of cunning in the entire population will increase, people once susceptible to scams will have died, and scams will no longer be a problem in society, not because the government tries to stop them, but because the general population will have the intellect to avoid being scammed.
Throughout history, as I've shown, scams have become more complex, but only because they are outlawed and punished severely. Protection the government gives to people who don't have the sense to pay closer attention before giving away their money is wasted protection. Establishing strong credibility is a primary strategy employed by fraudsters, however, in every scam example shown, there was a way to see through the problem. By allowing scams to persist, people who can see the way through these acts of trickery have a competitive advantage and will utilize it. People who fall for the scams will lose their money and have to work their way back up the economic ladder, those who outwitted them leaping up the metaphorical ladder. Scams, if less strictly monitored would allow for a more proportionate distribution of wealth based on people's cunning and their ability to gauge other people's lies. While this may not be an idealized system, it is more fair than the current system in place which severely inhibits the cunning people attempting to establish a scam to advance themselves economically. Because of this, it only makes sense that the restrictions and penalties against scams be lightened.
That's how the world works. It's not unfair. It's natural selection.
The better somebody is at accumulating money, the more likely they survive in the modern world and eventually, the level of cunning in the entire population will increase, people once susceptible to scams will have died, and scams will no longer be a problem in society, not because the government tries to stop them, but because the general population will have the intellect to avoid being scammed.
Throughout history, as I've shown, scams have become more complex, but only because they are outlawed and punished severely. Protection the government gives to people who don't have the sense to pay closer attention before giving away their money is wasted protection. Establishing strong credibility is a primary strategy employed by fraudsters, however, in every scam example shown, there was a way to see through the problem. By allowing scams to persist, people who can see the way through these acts of trickery have a competitive advantage and will utilize it. People who fall for the scams will lose their money and have to work their way back up the economic ladder, those who outwitted them leaping up the metaphorical ladder. Scams, if less strictly monitored would allow for a more proportionate distribution of wealth based on people's cunning and their ability to gauge other people's lies. While this may not be an idealized system, it is more fair than the current system in place which severely inhibits the cunning people attempting to establish a scam to advance themselves economically. Because of this, it only makes sense that the restrictions and penalties against scams be lightened.