As of the time of this reply, 3 people have downvoted you. I cannot fathom reading your message and thinking "Well this guy is clearly wrong! Everybody should be judged equally!"

How they came to the conclusion to downvote you, I'll never know.

We do protect the vulnerable from bad actors, when anybody tries to make large transfers of money the banks are required to check the validity of the transaction but ultimately if the individual insists what's the bank supposed to do. It's their money.

There is only so much that it is possible to do, and beyond a certain point you have to accept that scams are either going to happen or just take people's ability to control of their own money away from them, neither are particularly good options.

You make a great point - not all of us have the same capacities and there need to be protections in place to prevent people falling for scams - but I just don’t know where the line is between personal responsibility and collective responsibility. Like, for society to function, we all need to assume some amount of collective responsibility to protect others but that can’t be at 100%. People need to take some amount of personal responsibility for their actions, otherwise we slide towards a society with no learning and no repercussions which is a recipe for disaster and collapse.

It’s a tenuous relationship, and extremely context-dependent, so I don’t think that there is an objective and quantitative answer to the question. Would make an interesting philosophical/ethical debate though.

And yet we let them vote and run the country.

We can't even agree to revalidate their driving ability because that would be disrespectful.

They don't get to have it both ways.