Hacker News Reader

Comment by rossdavidh | Hacker News Reader

I'm fairly libertarian, but I have to agree. No system does everything, and that clearly includes the market. It's almost a Godel-style limitation; no system can do everything. The market can do a lot, but it can't do everything. Ergo, you need a system to do what it can't. Insuring attention to things like security is clearly one of those things.

View on HN

I think this is the tension for me in trying to embrace a fully libertarian mindset. When companies in their blind allegiance to producing shareholder value and conducting profitable free enterprise perpetuate harm upon consumers, what does the free market do with that?

For me, the sweet spot lies in acknowledging that both market failure and regulatory overreach are harmful. Unregulated markets lead to a Hobbesian world dominated by a succession of monopolies, just like markets controlled through central planning.

Markets with true competition can only be sustained through continuing struggle, because companies hate competition and constantly innovate new ways to capture the regulators.

The best we can do is regulators who retain their humility and exercise a light touch.

Any business transacting in dollars is not going to be a free enterprise in a free market.

The devil is in the details, but if there is an agreement about what defines "harm", then the libertarian remedy would be civil or criminal liability for that harm.

And who enforces that civil or criminal liability?

Huh? That is just the standard role of the criminal and civil justice systems. Nothing new there.

I was taking a jab at fundamentalist libertarians that think no government is somehow a solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com