• qooqie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    The only way for libertarianism to work is if every human had only good intentions. Since that’s simply never going to happen libertarianism will never work. Just my opinion feel free to disagree.

    • trailing9@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Libertarianism also works if there is information about bad people and good people are free to avoid them.

      Freedom of information and freedom of action.

      It’s easier to avoid bad people in free markets than it is to prevent them from taking and abusing positions of power in a powerful state.

    • idunnololz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that it doesn’t work even if everyone has good intentions. It needs everyone to agree on what “good intentions” even means.

    • SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also there’s the fact that nearly everybody’s idea of freedom is drastically different and some people’s freedoms infringe on others.

    • weastie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Respectfully, I think the opposite. I think, for the most part, a free® market naturally benefits humans with good intentions and harms those with bad intentions.

      For example, let’s say in a free market, somebody wanted to start a business with horrible working conditions, horrible salary, horrible everything. Now, if the economy is real bad then people might work there, but for the most part, that business is going to fail because people won’t work there, and would choose other jobs instead. So in this case, a free market actually incentivizes “good intentions”. The business owner will have to improve work conditions, salary, etc. so that people will work there instead of elsewhere.

      And one of the important aspects of a free market is the ability to start a competing business. If there was a company with overall poor working conditions and salary, it would highly incentivize someone to start a new company with better conditions, because they could pull in all the workers from the other company.

      And look, I’m not saying this is fool proof and works 100% of the time, and I’m not saying there shouldn’t be a healthy amount of regulation. But if you compare this to an economic system where businesses are run by the government, you can simply just be stuck with shitty work conditions and shitty salary, and not be able to do anything about it.

      • qooqie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s fine to disagree. I used to believe this back when I took Econ classes in college, every Econ professor is a libertarian lmao. I just don’t think a free market would punish bad actors. Tons of people turn a blind eye to anything as long as costs are cheap

      • 257m@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That only works when worker are less replaceable and desperate. Their are a lots of open job positions today but most pay less than the cost of living.

      • TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        My concern is that “bad product” to the consumer is mostly a matter of price and quality; environmental impact, legality, and even employee safety rank much lower with the average person as far as choosing where to spend their money. Companies can and do operate for years on the suffering of the lower class in particular, often openly doing so, and still make oodles of money.

      • phobiac@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah the main lesson I’ve taken away from the last decade of cryptocurrency instability, NFTs, and things like algorithmically generated judicial sentencing guidelines that perpetuated the existing racial biases while making them seem more legitimate because “the computer can’t be wrong” is that we should run our whole society with them.

        • sturlabragason@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sure.

          Algocracy uses algorithms to inform societal decisions, while Blockchain is a transparent, decentralized ledger system. People often confuse cryptocurrencies with the underlying Blockchain technology, even though they serve different purposes.

          Comparing the challenges of Algocracy to the volatility of cryptocurrencies is like assessing the potential of online commerce based on early internet connectivity issues.

          Biases in Algocracy are the result of poor design. With meticulous design and continuous oversight, the potential of Algocracy can be fully realized.

  • Vode An@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    “We live in a society” - the jonkler

    “Not if I can help it” - libertarians

      • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Be fair. Some of them are republicans who are more open about not wanting age of consent to be a thing.

      • weastie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I really hate this sentiment because if you actually look into the libertarian party platform and their recent candidates, they are nothing like Republicans. LP has supported LGBTQ+ rights for decades, they support open borders, support social freedom, don’t like religion in govt, etc. I mean, the only real overlap between the LP and Republican party is like, guns. I know many people would argue that they have similar economic policies but they really don’t, all Republicans have done in the last twenty years is spend more money and specifically only remove the regulations that are actually useful.

        But at the same time, whenever I meet someone who calls themselves a “libertarian”… yeah 90% of the time they are just edgy Republicans.

    • Grayox@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thats cause if they argue in good faith they wont be Libertarians for long.

  • beteljuice@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Most “libertarians” are this dumb, but the old school ones at least attribute the problems to uneven regulation rigged in favor of the ruling class, which does jive with my understanding of what is wrong with the financial system. That being said, libertarianism wouldn’t work even if they did get shit straight.

    • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The vast majority of libertarians are (in my experience) just conservatives that want to smoke weed. They believe a lot of the same awful shit. The rest of them have deluded themselves into thinking that a libertarian society is viable when it is laughably not. They generally consider themselves to be way more capable and independent than reality can support.

    • Clarke @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Unfortunately Libertarians suffer from the abject stupidity of “libertarians”

      Very few of us have read Locke and Through and run on the ideals of the Non Aggression Principle but we do exist.

      Simply stated if you’re arguing with a “libertarian” And their point of view would be an attack on another person or group or a trespass on another’s rights they’re probably not a libertarian.

      The purpose of government is the monopoly of violence. Ideally this violence should only be used to protect rights and not violate them. Unfortunately it is often the case that government violates rights. Libertarians do not like that.

      El libertarian society is a trust based society strengthened by voluntary engagement. In short you’re allowed to sell poison if you label it as poison but you’re not allowed to sell medicine that is actually poison.

      Unironically Ron Swanson is a pretty apt description of accurate libertarian philosophy.

  • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    North America has never been a free market. Even since the days of Sumer have there been regulations on commerce. We will never have a free market.

  • _number8_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    i thought being a libertarian was cool when i was 20 and wanted to smoke weed but didn’t know how to get any

  • grue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Zoning codes that restrict density are the opposite of a free market.

  • trailing9@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    What else but regulations prevents the creation of surplus housing? That poverty as a feature post, why are those houses not been built?

    It only takes a few people to solve the housing market in a liberal market by organizing the construction. With regulations, it takes a majority to make a change. The same majority who could rise taxes and build affordable housing with tax money right now.

    There is land, unemployed people who can do the construction and people with income who seek housing and will pay for it. Who is preventing the construction?

  • Gigan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Do you people actually think the housing market is a free market??? It’s one of the most overly regulated markets! Zoning laws restrict what kind of housing can be built all over the US. Getting rid of those would allow for more mixed style housing and that is one example of de-regulation and making a freer market.

  • books@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s be honest there are areas that would benefit from less regulation.

    (Looking at you housing!)