It’s not that in the absence of regulation, companies are going to be scrupulous, it’s that the cure is worse than the disease in the first place. After all, many regulations are actually lobbied for by the big corporations themselves, to prevent small companies from competiting with them.
I say we should publish blogs or whatnot about bad products, and then capitalism will figure it out. After all, without the government, only corporations that are providing value will continue to exist. The reason why many corporations today aren't providing real value is because of rent-seeking.
So the best example of a free market here is from China...
Chinese companies made a bad product (in this case poisoned baby formula)... And so now there's a thriving market in buying formula in countries that have all the regulation and shipping it in at an even higher markup.
>I say we should publish blogs or whatnot about bad products,
1. With what piece of hardware will you write this post? What assurance do you have that the manufacturer will allow you to write negative blog posts about them or their partners?
2. Via what infrastructure will you connect to what network, upon which to publish? What assurance do you have that you will be allowed to use that infrastructure to publish negative content about that infrastructure owner or their partners? What about the owners of the network?
3. Upon what websites or domains will you publish these? How will you share them? What assurances do you have that they will remain visible and accessible?
>then capitalism will figure it out
"Hand wave" fallacy. There's no substance to your argument. This is a meaningless statement.
> After all, without the government, only corporations that are providing value will continue to exist.
Evidence for your claim? Supporting argument?
> The reason why many corporations today aren't providing real value is because of rent-seeking.
Evidence for your claim? Supporting argument?
Based on what you've said, why should I believe you have a better solution that regulatory status quo? Enacting change requires solid evidence, arguments, logic, and reasoning. Wouldn't you agree it would be foolish to undertake a new endeavor without a majority of the above?
