Of course not.
In all cases, the producer must provide a product, created from scarce resources, that a consumer would wish to consume in order for his efforts to be worthwhile. In all cases, inconveniencing or outright harming consumers, particularly if it damages or devalues their product, would be bad for business and leave producers liable for restitution. In all cases, competition would keep producers accountable and unable to overcharge or under-deliver.
And, in all cases, any regulation or interventionary legislation ultimately becomes influenced or altogether crafted by the largest and most connected producers so as to carve out exceptions, secure guaranteed revenue streams from taxpayers, limit liability, and/or stifle competition.
So, no - the laws of supply and demand are immutable. Therefore, the only way to harness man’s ability to cooperate is to not institute means of evasion from cooperation. The only way to force a selfish man to consider another man’s happiness is to make it in his best interest to do so. Establishing a monopoly on force that can hand out favors and supersede an individual’s right and authority to make decisions for himself only ends in the very corruptible and unaccountable power structures you fear.
- getmesomedopamine reblogged this from laliberty
- lendahandandliftme likes this
- biognosis likes this
- michaelangerlo likes this
- thecriticlaughs likes this
- iambinarymind reblogged this from laliberty
- iambinarymind likes this
- philosophermaggot likes this
- self-ownership said: Peter Theil once said something along the lines of…In the world of stuff, things are heavily regulated. In the world of bits, things are relatively unregulated and there is rapid growth in technology at lower costs. This is no coincidence.
- self-ownership likes this
- justingirnus reblogged this from laliberty
- laliberty posted this