frevaljee

@frevaljee@kbin.social

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Ah, I see. That is quite clever. And I like the idea of implementing it in non-centralised market. This could be an actual use case for those, instead of all those pictures of cats and monkeys.

  This would have to scale quite significantly for those betting against climate change to be able to affect it. Like you say, corporations could cooperate and also gain some goodwill. And venture capitalists, or just any investor, could chip in.

  I really like the idea of creating direct economic incentives for positive development, at the same time as you insure those that are harmed if it doesn't go so well. And this would also be global and have direct effects, and not sensitive to populist politicians and temporary government investments like climate poltics tend to be todsy.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  That sounds like an interesting idea. So this is a blockchain based idea?

  How is it implemented? Is there a payout depending on how the predictions turned out to incentivise positive change?

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I do agree to an extent. Anarcho capitalism is perhaps more of a theoretical idea rather than a practical social structure. And it is not possible to uphold the NAP in an absolute sense – it is inevitable to cause aggression in some ways, through e.g. pollution or whatever. And private ownership of natural resources is, let's say tricky.

  I am not an anarcho capitalist myself, but I believe society and interactions should be voluntary. But it is difficult to find a practical social structure where that is possible. I am actually rather pessimistic about people tbh, and our track record shows how bad we are at getting along and leaving people be.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  I don't think I follow your reasoning tbh. What exactly are you comparing? You said that capitalists favour intervening governments, which is simply not true. Not in any general sense anyway.

  Anarcho capitalism is probably as far into anarchy you can go. They want to completely abolish the state and enforce property rights privately.

  Or are you saying that such a society will fall into some kind of feudalism? At the core of anarcho capitalism is the NAP which is not really compatible with feudalism. In feudalism you have a hierarchy not based on voluntarism, and that would therefore not be anarcho capitalist.

  Do you imply that we need a strong state with a monopoly on violence to keep us in check, otherwise we would descend into chaos? Thats a pretty bleak and pessimistic view of mankind.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  A government which only enforces private property rights is still significantly smaller than most alternatives.

  Enforcement of private property rights is a part of virtually all governments, and then you pile all other stuff on top of that hence making the government bigger.

  And ofc the taxes will be below the profits, no sane person would make any investments in anything if it was above the profits.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨x last night⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  Oh yes, an ideology defined by private ownership and small government intervention is also somehow responsible for the basis of government intervention - taxes.

• ⁨Comment⁩ on ⁨Is Lemmy "just" Usenet plus voting?⁩ ⁨⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago⁩:

  About the second point, it would be neat if "subs" could federate somehow.