4 ms·

What a free society that would be!

palata 1y ago
I don't get this interpretation of "free". Would you say that one should be "free" to kill someone else? Nobody wants absolute freedom. We all want some set of rules (e.g. "You should not be allowed to burn my house for fun"). Of course, we may want rules that benefit us personally ("Taxes should be paid to me personally, not to the country"), but that obviously doesn't work (if taxes are paid exclusively to me, they can't be paid exclusively to you). So as a group, we agree on a set of rules that benefits society the most. We want to "maximize the global utility", if I can say it like this. If "not having unicorns" is better for the society at large than "having unicorns", then it works. And your short-sighted, convenient understanding of "freedom" doesn't change that.
- huntertwo 1y ago
  How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Edit: my implicit argument is that restricting unicorns while sounds nice on paper is that the net benefit of an implementation of that is net negative - not that absolute anarchy is the solution.
  - palata 1y ago
    > Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Because your sarcasm was constructive, maybe? > my implicit argument is that Next time, maybe consider making it explicit and without using sarcasm. My explicit answer was that if you consider that regulations are fundamentally against freedom, then I disagree. To me, it's perfectly fine to regulate unicorns if we believe it is better for the society. You can disagree with the fact that it would be better for society, but that's not what you said. What you said is that regulating against unicorns would be against freedom.
  - abenga 1y ago
    > How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Enact and enforce anti trust laws.
exe34 1y ago
Truly! imagine if international trade was controlled for the benefit of the people instead of a pump and dump operation for the oligarchy!
- huntertwo 1y ago
  My mistake, I forgot you could either ban both unicorns and pump and dumps or ban neither! How could I be so dumb!
  - exe34 1y ago
    What would a ban even look like in the US? who would enforce it? if it profits the republican party, then there's no government agency left to enforce laws against that.
    - huntertwo 1y ago
      The president has a meme coin I think we’re going to get a painful reminder of why we have so many financial laws soon.
  - InsideOutSanta 1y ago
    I must point out that you introduced the word "ban." I did not. I don't even know what "banning Unicorns" means, or how that would work. I said, "Unicorns are a problem and should not exist." I suspect that regulation that protects competition and the free market is a pretty effective way of preventing Unicorns from arising in the first place.
    - huntertwo 1y ago
      That is my mistake - I misinterpreted. In my mind, regulations preventing unicorns (I.e statups > 1B in valuation) would require restricting personal decisions on where to invest money based on size. Protecting competition or free markets IMO would not succeed in preventing unicorns but maybe there is a plan that could work.
InsideOutSanta 1y ago
A society with competition? Yes, indeed, that would be a more free society.

I don't get this interpretation of "free". Would you say that one should be "free" to kill someone else? Nobody wants absolute freedom. We all want some set of rules (e.g. "You should not be allowed to burn my house for fun"). Of course, we may want rules that benefit us personally ("Taxes should be paid to me personally, not to the country"), but that obviously doesn't work (if taxes are paid exclusively to me, they can't be paid exclusively to you). So as a group, we agree on a set of rules that benefits society the most. We want to "maximize the global utility", if I can say it like this. If "not having unicorns" is better for the society at large than "having unicorns", then it works. And your short-sighted, convenient understanding of "freedom" doesn't change that.

huntertwo 1y ago
How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Edit: my implicit argument is that restricting unicorns while sounds nice on paper is that the net benefit of an implementation of that is net negative - not that absolute anarchy is the solution.
- palata 1y ago
  > Also refrain from personal attacks on this site - you don’t know my understanding of freedom and denigrating me doesn’t help your argument. Because your sarcasm was constructive, maybe? > my implicit argument is that Next time, maybe consider making it explicit and without using sarcasm. My explicit answer was that if you consider that regulations are fundamentally against freedom, then I disagree. To me, it's perfectly fine to regulate unicorns if we believe it is better for the society. You can disagree with the fact that it would be better for society, but that's not what you said. What you said is that regulating against unicorns would be against freedom.
- abenga 1y ago
  > How would you restrict the existence of unicorns? Enact and enforce anti trust laws.

exe34 1y ago

Truly! imagine if international trade was controlled for the benefit of the people instead of a pump and dump operation for the oligarchy!

huntertwo 1y ago
My mistake, I forgot you could either ban both unicorns and pump and dumps or ban neither! How could I be so dumb!
- exe34 1y ago
  What would a ban even look like in the US? who would enforce it? if it profits the republican party, then there's no government agency left to enforce laws against that.
  - huntertwo 1y ago
    The president has a meme coin I think we’re going to get a painful reminder of why we have so many financial laws soon.
- InsideOutSanta 1y ago
  I must point out that you introduced the word "ban." I did not. I don't even know what "banning Unicorns" means, or how that would work. I said, "Unicorns are a problem and should not exist." I suspect that regulation that protects competition and the free market is a pretty effective way of preventing Unicorns from arising in the first place.
  - huntertwo 1y ago
    That is my mistake - I misinterpreted. In my mind, regulations preventing unicorns (I.e statups > 1B in valuation) would require restricting personal decisions on where to invest money based on size. Protecting competition or free markets IMO would not succeed in preventing unicorns but maybe there is a plan that could work.

InsideOutSanta 1y ago

A society with competition? Yes, indeed, that would be a more free society.