3 ms·

No it's actually the opposite, modern societies are the product of an all pervasive state that has the power to curtail bad behaviour. In any modern Western cou

No it's actually the opposite, modern societies are the product of an all pervasive state that has the power to curtail bad behaviour. In any modern Western country the most powerful institution is the state. Now of course you need a somewhat de centralized state i.e. not too much power in the hands of a single person but the overall institution has to be very powerful. That is the system that has lead to modern success , not your libertarian fantasy, which actually existed for most of history (extremely weak state penetration in most societies).

kazen44 5y ago
also, a free market doesn't count in the externalities of crypto mining. Like the massive waste of electricity and the resulting carbon emissions. The free market doesn't care about the longlevity of the earth, because it is an externality that is hurting the collective instead of the individual participants specifically. The same goes for labour laws, the 8 hour workday, health and food regulation etc.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  It's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. But anyways, I'm definitely not an anarcho-libertarian - regulations are pretty important, and externalities are a real thing. But accepting for a second the premise that crypto has negative externalities - isn't it kinda stupid to focus on a very small slice of power usage and regulating it literally out of existence, instead of making sure externalities are really included in the price of electricity? Which not only doesn't destroy anything, but, you know, actually solves the problem. Instead of using the problem as a sledgehammer to do something else entirely. This reminds me of people fighting tooth and nail to ban plastic straws. Is plastic pollution a problem? Well, yes. Is banning plastic straws helping it? Sure. Is it even remotely a sane option when considering the cost benefit of all other things you could do to fight plastic pollution? Yeah.
  - hyperman1 5y ago
    You might consider finding another example. The plastic straw banning was not because they are plastic pollution. The problem is the unique shape of the straw getting into the digestive system of animals, and killing them. Plastic just made these things linger longer in the environment. Paper straws have similar problems, except a lot shorter and with a chance to digest before killing the animal.
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      I'd like sources for that, a cursory google didn't find anything. With my baseline knowledge, I'd say that it's possible to be a marginally worse shape. But plastic as a rule doesn't get eaten - it gets buried. The number of animals that were saved by such regulation is very likely minuscule. The opportunity cost of not tacking anything else related to whatever your goal of choice is - that's not minuscule. Even if you ignore the effort to get there, a legislature can pass only a finite number of regulations per time interval. Context and opportunity costs matter.
  - kazen44 5y ago
    > it's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. In the US perhaps, but in many countries, these kind of concessions where only done after the state intervened in the free market. The general political climate in which this was allowed to occur happened after many socialists political parties became recognized (or threatened with revolutionary action).
radu_floricica 5y ago
Google "Ius primae noctis" for the libertarian fantasy that was replaced by the very strong state.

kazen44 5y ago

also, a free market doesn't count in the externalities of crypto mining. Like the massive waste of electricity and the resulting carbon emissions. The free market doesn't care about the longlevity of the earth, because it is an externality that is hurting the collective instead of the individual participants specifically. The same goes for labour laws, the 8 hour workday, health and food regulation etc.

radu_floricica 5y ago
It's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. But anyways, I'm definitely not an anarcho-libertarian - regulations are pretty important, and externalities are a real thing. But accepting for a second the premise that crypto has negative externalities - isn't it kinda stupid to focus on a very small slice of power usage and regulating it literally out of existence, instead of making sure externalities are really included in the price of electricity? Which not only doesn't destroy anything, but, you know, actually solves the problem. Instead of using the problem as a sledgehammer to do something else entirely. This reminds me of people fighting tooth and nail to ban plastic straws. Is plastic pollution a problem? Well, yes. Is banning plastic straws helping it? Sure. Is it even remotely a sane option when considering the cost benefit of all other things you could do to fight plastic pollution? Yeah.
- hyperman1 5y ago
  You might consider finding another example. The plastic straw banning was not because they are plastic pollution. The problem is the unique shape of the straw getting into the digestive system of animals, and killing them. Plastic just made these things linger longer in the environment. Paper straws have similar problems, except a lot shorter and with a chance to digest before killing the animal.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    I'd like sources for that, a cursory google didn't find anything. With my baseline knowledge, I'd say that it's possible to be a marginally worse shape. But plastic as a rule doesn't get eaten - it gets buried. The number of animals that were saved by such regulation is very likely minuscule. The opportunity cost of not tacking anything else related to whatever your goal of choice is - that's not minuscule. Even if you ignore the effort to get there, a legislature can pass only a finite number of regulations per time interval. Context and opportunity costs matter.
- kazen44 5y ago
  > it's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. In the US perhaps, but in many countries, these kind of concessions where only done after the state intervened in the free market. The general political climate in which this was allowed to occur happened after many socialists political parties became recognized (or threatened with revolutionary action).

radu_floricica 5y ago

Google "Ius primae noctis" for the libertarian fantasy that was replaced by the very strong state.