3 ms·

Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition. The whole point of the "free-market" is that there are repercussions or effec

by zo1 11y ago

Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition. The whole point of the "free-market" is that there are repercussions or effects for what we determine to be bad behavior (with or without a state). And currently, individuals are being misled (a tad bit ironic) by the state in the sense that we all "assume" that bad market actors are being punished, when in fact they aren't always. Additionally, people bought VW cars under the assumption that they were thoroughly regulated and tested by the government. VW won't get "hurt" as such, probably. But they should be mandated to submit a model that doesn't cheat, have it be tested, approved, and then give that model to all the recalled cars. Ironically, discussions like these are what eventually drove me to consider non-state solutions to the problems around us. I looked around and was presented with really countless scenarios/problems that are "bad" or "unwanted", and the state not fixing it despite claims by them that it is a problem. E.g. car accidents/fatalities, 100+ years later, and still happening even in civilized countries.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
> And currently, individuals are being misled (a tad bit ironic) by the state in the sense that we all "assume" that bad market actors are being punished, when in fact they aren't always. > Additionally, people bought VW cars under the assumption that they were thoroughly regulated and tested by the government. There are, in fact, but not enough. All legally available cars are thoroughly regulated and tested - that's why they don't explode on the road or poison people to death as they drive by. Every product out there is regulated against direct health hazards, and that's the only reason you can safely shop. Also, the government did the testing for emissions, it's VW that cheated on them. You could question the quality of those tests but then again, if you know you'll have to test fraudsters, why don't just go ahead and arrest them instead of investing tons of resources in more fraud-proof tests? The government probably saved a lot of money trusting the companies to act in good faith. VW has just abused this trust, and it's entirely their fault. > Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition. If those are failings of state not being strict enough, then let's state the corollary - that free market / competition are not saviours, but savage beasts that need to be controlled in order to put their power to good use. > Ironically, discussions like these are what eventually drove me to consider non-state solutions to the problems around us. I looked around and was presented with really countless scenarios/problems that are "bad" or "unwanted", and the state not fixing it despite claims by them that it is a problem. E.g. car accidents/fatalities, 100+ years later, and still happening even in civilized countries. I also had a similar turn towards non-state solutions, mostly because it's becoming evident that you couldn't design a system less capable of dealing with actual, serious issues than modern democracy. I looked briefly at private businesses for solutions and while they seem to be a much more efficient instrument than politics, the private sector is filled with even more corrupt people than there are in public. Which makes me both depressed and cheering for those few individuals and companies who honestly try to do some good.
- icebraining 11y ago
  If those are failings of state not being strict enough, then let's state the corollary - that free market / competition are not saviours, but savage beasts that need to be controlled in order to put their power to good use. I don't think anyone, not even ancaps, disagrees that market participants can be fraudulent or destructive. The disagreement is about what to do about it.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    It's not that they 'can' be, but they will be (and are). A lot of people are in denial about it.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      Who is in denial? That sounds like a strawman.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        You're right, I admit I was weasel-wording there a bit, but that's because of hurry (as I'm again on HN procrastinating before life-or-death (for me) deadline). By 'a lot of people' I meant the many people - from some of friends and colleagues to some members of various communities I participate in, HN included - that seem to be very convinced that total deregulation is the right thing to do and the market will turn benevolent if you remove all interference. I understand that there are subproblems for which deregulation indeed seems to be the right way to go; personally, I try to evaluate things on case-by-case basis. But it seems obvious that total, absolute deregulation would be disastrous and yet there are real people who seem to actually want exactly that absolute.
        icebraining 11y ago
        Ah, yes. The confusion is assuming that advocating for deregulation means one thinks that markets are perfect - it doesn't. It just means they think that deregulation is not a good solution - much like someone can advocate against blood-letting as a cure for cancer without believing that cancer doesn't exist. For example, in this case the regulation didn't prevent VW from polluting, but it did help them fool people by giving fraudulent approval to the cars - it's not hard to argue it actually did worse than if it hadn't existed. Then there's regulatory capture, misguided policies that promote worse solutions, etc.

by zo1 11y ago

TeMPOraL 11y ago

> And currently, individuals are being misled (a tad bit ironic) by the state in the sense that we all "assume" that bad market actors are being punished, when in fact they aren't always. > Additionally, people bought VW cars under the assumption that they were thoroughly regulated and tested by the government. There are, in fact, but not enough. All legally available cars are thoroughly regulated and tested - that's why they don't explode on the road or poison people to death as they drive by. Every product out there is regulated against direct health hazards, and that's the only reason you can safely shop. Also, the government did the testing for emissions, it's VW that cheated on them. You could question the quality of those tests but then again, if you know you'll have to test fraudsters, why don't just go ahead and arrest them instead of investing tons of resources in more fraud-proof tests? The government probably saved a lot of money trusting the companies to act in good faith. VW has just abused this trust, and it's entirely their fault. > Fine, but those are failings of the state, not of the free-market or competition. If those are failings of state not being strict enough, then let's state the corollary - that free market / competition are not saviours, but savage beasts that need to be controlled in order to put their power to good use. > Ironically, discussions like these are what eventually drove me to consider non-state solutions to the problems around us. I looked around and was presented with really countless scenarios/problems that are "bad" or "unwanted", and the state not fixing it despite claims by them that it is a problem. E.g. car accidents/fatalities, 100+ years later, and still happening even in civilized countries. I also had a similar turn towards non-state solutions, mostly because it's becoming evident that you couldn't design a system less capable of dealing with actual, serious issues than modern democracy. I looked briefly at private businesses for solutions and while they seem to be a much more efficient instrument than politics, the private sector is filled with even more corrupt people than there are in public. Which makes me both depressed and cheering for those few individuals and companies who honestly try to do some good.

icebraining 11y ago
If those are failings of state not being strict enough, then let's state the corollary - that free market / competition are not saviours, but savage beasts that need to be controlled in order to put their power to good use. I don't think anyone, not even ancaps, disagrees that market participants can be fraudulent or destructive. The disagreement is about what to do about it.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  It's not that they 'can' be, but they will be (and are). A lot of people are in denial about it.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    Who is in denial? That sounds like a strawman.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      You're right, I admit I was weasel-wording there a bit, but that's because of hurry (as I'm again on HN procrastinating before life-or-death (for me) deadline). By 'a lot of people' I meant the many people - from some of friends and colleagues to some members of various communities I participate in, HN included - that seem to be very convinced that total deregulation is the right thing to do and the market will turn benevolent if you remove all interference. I understand that there are subproblems for which deregulation indeed seems to be the right way to go; personally, I try to evaluate things on case-by-case basis. But it seems obvious that total, absolute deregulation would be disastrous and yet there are real people who seem to actually want exactly that absolute.
      - icebraining 11y ago
        Ah, yes. The confusion is assuming that advocating for deregulation means one thinks that markets are perfect - it doesn't. It just means they think that deregulation is not a good solution - much like someone can advocate against blood-letting as a cure for cancer without believing that cancer doesn't exist. For example, in this case the regulation didn't prevent VW from polluting, but it did help them fool people by giving fraudulent approval to the cars - it's not hard to argue it actually did worse than if it hadn't existed. Then there's regulatory capture, misguided policies that promote worse solutions, etc.