726
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 32 points 2 months ago

This is 100% capitalism. It's not free market to have a goverment-enforced monopoly.

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 38 points 2 months ago

This is textbook late stage free market ideals at work. This is how the free market always ends.

[-] FinalRemix@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago

X - ~~The system is broken.~~

✅ - The system is working exactly as intended and must be destroyed.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 months ago

When did it start?

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago

You are correct. There would be no copyrights or patents in a free market.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah, the huge companies would dominate over small companies even more than they already do.

[-] ConsistentParadox@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago

Copyrights and patents are literally government enforced monopolies for huge companies. Without them, there would be a lot more competition.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 9 points 2 months ago

Really? Calling it a government enforced monopoly seems very disingenuous.

Good luck trying to make a movie without Disney stealing it or making an invention with really effective solar panels or something without the biggest companies stealing it and bankrupt the original creator.

Copyright and patents protect everyone involved in creation and while there are a LOT of problems with the systems. Removing it entirely seems like the biggest overcorrection possible.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

Or trade secrets. "Perfect information" is a bitch. Not to speak of "perfectly rational actors": Say goodbye to advertisement, too, we'd have to outlaw basically all of it.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Trade secrets don't need to be enforced much by law. You can create an ad hoc trade secret regime by simply keeping your secret between a few key employees. As it happens, there are some laws that go beyond that to help companies keep the secret, but that only extends something that could happen naturally.

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

To get closer to the free market there would have to be a duty to disclose any- and everything that's now a trade secret, no matter how easily kept. To not just get closer but actually get there we all would need to be telepathic. As said, perfect information is a bitch of a concept.

[-] lud@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

Being free to innovate and keep your own ideas to yourself sounds like it should be part of the free market though.

Forcing people to disclose their (mental) secrets seems bizarre.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Are you telling me that the axioms behind the simplistic model are wrong?? shocked-pikachu.jpg

[-] barsoap@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

It's not so much that they're wrong is that they're impossible in practice. Axioms, by their very nature, cannot be justified from within the system that they serve so "true" or "false" aren't really applicable.

The model does have its justification, "given these axioms, we indeed get perfect allocation of resources", that's not wrong it's a mathematical truth, and there's a strain of liberalism (ordoliberalism) which specifically says "the state should regulate so that the actually existing market more closely approximates this mythical free market unicorn", which is broadly speaking an immensely sensible take and you'll have market socialists nodding in agreement, yep, that's a good idea.

And then there's another strain (neoliberalism) which basically says "lul we'll tell people that 'free market' means 'unregulated market' so we can be feudal lords and siphon off infinite amounts of resources from the plebs".

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Wrong as in not sound. An argument can be valid assuming its assumptions are true. The argument is the model, which really is a set of arguments. Its assumptions which are taken axiomatically are as you say impossible, therefore they are not true (which I called wrong). So the argument is not sound. I'm not saying anything different than what you said really, just used informal language. ☺️

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

What's government enforced about it? Is ARM the only allowed chip designer for cellphones?

[-] fushuan@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

license enforcement is a thing because if someone bypasses it you can sue them, which is a government interaction. Technically, claiming X means nothing if there's no one that enforces your claim.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago

Yes but that rule protects you the same as it does them. They can be a monopoly if nobody else can get their chips sold but they cannot be a government enforced monopoly unless nobody else is allowed to sell chips.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
726 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
2825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS