If you were to spend less time theorizing on what SHOULD happen and take some time to look at the real world to get a better accurate understanding of what IS happening. Then you will come up with much cooler ideas, that will benefit the community more.

You’re assuming that the market can tell the difference between a technically good solution, and a technically shit solution.  YOU are already aware they cannot because of your stance on X. So your premise to allow for PURE competition because you believe consumers/investors will choose the better thing, and thus we will get better stuff. But reality shows that that is not the case. ENRON did good, as a horrible company that made the world a worse place, and INVESTORS did not do anything about it. A certain car company, who I won’t name by name was polluting the shit out of the environment, and what were investors doing about that?  So your solution to making the world a better place is to reply upon idiots that don’t know anything, it’s a stupid solution.

You say it’s good when stupid investors lose things quicker. So allow me to introduce you to how things work in the real world.  You think that works. The thing that works is proper regulation and prevention of problems. Instead of allowing problems to happen, going to courts, arguing over contracts. It’s better to not pollute the environment than it is to let the environment get polluted, then wait for someone to report it, then wait for people to conduct their due process, and then a court somewhere, and then a judge saying, this is not good, pay your fine. 

Courts, retribution, redress are a poor solution to unregulated environments, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So the concept of saying that we should try all these things, and let a bunch of people lose their money, on a bunch of technical ideas, because if your fantasy anarchist world, that’s a better way to do things. Hold no root in reality And the only places where that work is in places where resources are abundant or infinite. 

So many libertarian bros they forget that the free in free-market means it’s restricted. Free means having restrictions, free means that you’re free to act and play fairly, You’re free to get punished and eliminated from the market if you do something unfair.

Again, you only have to look at the real world, and you will find that human beings are not the only creatures who have evolved into the game theory strategy of fairness. We can call it universal ethics, call it social game theory, or optimal behavior for a conducive society… 

In an ideal world, we would not need laws at all, because everyone would behave optimally. But the world is not ideal, and collusion plus collectivism is powerful and effective. The most powerful things in the world are collective humans. The most effective way we have found to overcome the negative aspects of collectivism (I’m using the phrase generally here, it could be corporatism, tribalism, nationalism, or government), is through the enforcement of rights. 

Libertarians think that personal freedom if executed out across all the idiots of the world, would work well. what they don’t realize is, with ultimate freedom, comes ultimate responsibility, that most people will not accept.  Stupid people, given ultimate freedom, do stupid things. 

Good laws can be written, they exist, and the countries that have them, have the highest citizen outcomes. The countries that have the most laws are the safest, most productive, highest disposable GDP for their citizens, highest birth defect-free.

Government is an emergent property of humans, and anarchy will turn into government every fucking time. And if you don’t want anarchy to turn into government, you need a government. So you’re fighting against the emergent property of humans, and you’re not going to win that battle. So you should focus on creating better governments, instead of trying to create square circles that are contradictory in their existence.

It’s so easy for libertarians and an-caps to talk about how shitty laws are because the laws have been doing a good job at removing the examples, that if you remembered them would let know why we have those laws in the first place. It’s easy for people to say that the government is useless, and police are useless and that everything would be better if we got rid of that. Until you go someplace where it’s been gotten rid of, and you realize, oh shit. People are brutal and left to their own devices, things can go wrong.

In an ideal world, libertarianism would work. But if you go up against authoritarian China, you’re fucked. Because they are not fair, but not-fair works well against fair.

Decentralization is not that big of a deal if all the decentralized parties make stupid/wrong choice emergently,