Last week, Robinhood (the free-trading app that lets retail investors trade stocks, options, ETF's and cryptocurrency commission-free) limited the buying of GameStop stock. The CEO stated the reason for this unprecedented limitation was to ". . . protect our customers". Now, Wall Street billionaires protecting each other is not a new development, so financial corruption is not really my point. (But if you want to learn more about the Robinhood/GameStop saga's specifics, check it out HERE.) So, while the details of this story are not compelling, I am fascinated to see "protection" once again used as a rationale to inhibit free choice.
The Robinhood/GameStop saga is another in a recent wave of this idea of "protection." The Covid pandemic has ushered in unprecedented measures of governmental "protection." Our governments have mandated masks, required certain distances to be kept, limited the number of people who can gather publically, and even set limits on the number of people who can gather in your own homes – all in the name of "protection." Government officials have asked us to cancel holidays, weddings, and funerals – so we can do our part to protect others. Nursing homes have limited access to families to "protect" them from the virus. Schools have been canceled to "protect" the children and "protect" their family members. While I have a personal perspective on these measures, my thoughts don't matter. The real question is, who bears the ultimate responsibility for "protection"?
I contend that "protection" is a personal responsibility. The level of protection a person desires is an individual choice and fluctuates based on the situation. So, someone may be risk-averse with their financial investments and take a great deal of risk in their personal life. Risk and the need to be protected is based on a complicated equation built on personally held beliefs involving risk tolerance, rewards, goals, and past experiences. Protection is not administered in a one-size-fits-all method. As our society becomes more connected, large organizational structures feel the pressure to provide blanket protection to protect as many people as possible. This strategy ultimately implodes upon itself due to unintended consequences and the human desire for self-determination. People are wired to have free will, and while protection is logically understood for short periods, long exposures to forced protection will ultimately create more harm than good. Here are some examples:
CHILDREN. There is nothing more important for me than to protect my children, but my strategy for creating this protection must evolve. If I tried to parent my 13-year-old the same way I parent my 2-year-old – even while arguing, "I want to protect you." I would limit the growth and happiness of my child. My 13-year-old would be much safer if I treated them like a 2-year-old, but that strategy would ultimately damage their long-term success. It would be better short-term, worse long-term.
FOOD. We know that hundreds of thousands of people die each year because they consume unhealthy food: obesity, heart disease, and diabetes plague our nation. One could argue that we should limit certain types of foods to "protect" people from death and disease. The elimination of these unhealthy foods would certainly save lives, but making such strict guidelines would limit the human experience.
ROBINHOOD. Robinhood claims they are protecting their users from financial hardships. They contend the lack of experience of their users prevents them from making informed decisions. Robinhood is saying that we (the company) know better than you and don't want you to lose your money. The problem with this position is that it also does not allow the user to make any money. While Robinhood is indeed protecting the user, it is also eliminating the opportunity for prosperity, and many of these users would sacrifice guaranteed protection for potential prosperity.
LOCKDOWNS, MASKS, AND CLOSINGS. For nearly a year, society has experienced extreme changes. Covid-19 has killed over 400,000 people and damaged millions of lives. So the need for “protection” is legitimate. So, governments all over the world acted to "protect" their citizens. Lockdowns were instituted, masks were required, schools were closed, and large gatherings were made illegal. At the beginning of the pandemic, most people supported lockdowns and understood that the uncertainty around COVID-19 precipitated the need for drastic measures. However, as time went on, other unintended consequences began to threaten the validity of lockdowns. Every day, more and more information comes to light showing the negative impact of these measures. Suicide, drug abuse, domestic violence, and unemployment are all at an all-time-highs. Even the lockdowns themselves have yet to prove out as effectively stopping the spread of Covid-19. See California vs. Florida by the numbers and/or comparing FL to the ten other most restrictive states. Even with all of this new information, "protection" continues to be used to validate lockdowns, masks, and other aggressive measures to create a perception of protection. Regardless your political stance, there is no evidence that clearly shows lockdowns are effective in slowing the spread of Covid-19. Yet, we continue to be “protected” by our governments.
So, what are we left to do about “protection”.
Based on real-world outcomes and examples, it seems to me that "protection" is best administered by the individual and is a personal responsibility. When we pass off the burden of "protection" to other entities – we will be disappointed. The larger the entity, the larger the disappointment. Protection can not be delegated and is ineffective when mandated.
To take it one step further, it appears that people should even be wary when groups or others create mandated systems promising "protection." Suppose protection is indeed best facilitated personally, to safeguard individual self-interest. In that case, it is likely that governing bodies (and individuals leading these groups) are also acting in their self-interest when mandating long-standing protective requirements. They use the narrative of "your protection", but are motivated to protect themselves, whether that be their position, their money, or simply their way of life.
Be accountable for your own protection. Don't look to others for "protection". Have the confidence to take a course of action that YOU see fit because leaving your safety up to others might be a more the most dangerous proposition of them all.