• 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.