this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2025
1057 points (99.2% liked)

solarpunk memes

4282 readers
313 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(and why conservatives hate public schools, ofc)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's to peoples' best interest to choose a better product if they:

  1. even know there's a problem in the first place. Corporations have a long history of covering up faults in their products, sometimes for decades, before independent tests or reporting reveal them (during which time they're outcompeting more legitimate competition on price).
  2. competing products exist. Monopolies are a natural outgrowth of unregulated markets. It's always more profitable not to have to compete so endless mergers are a threat which have to be regulated but frequently arent. It's also much easier for an entrenched institution to crush or buy out new startups before they can become a problem. Add in collusion where companies that compete on paper secretly agree not to undercut each others prices and you end up with a market where there is no real competition and no need for costly innovation. And though regulatory capture may not exist in a truly unregulated free market, we certainly see it in real life, where superior foreign products can be outright banned from a market, the entrenched industry's products made artificially cheap through subsidies, and new safety laws kept off the books to protect the corporate bottom line.
  3. the competing product is actually superior. We frequently see a race to the bottom effect where most people consistently choose the cheapest product available (often because wages have been stagnant for generations and they're poor enough that they legitimately can't afford better) and better, safer, more ethical products are simply priced out of the market, whereupon the companies making them either start cutting corners themselves or go out of business. And we can refer back to point one where just because one product has been revealed to be unsafe doesn't guarantee that the competitor hasn't managed to hide an unknown hazard in theirs.

Asking regular people, many of whom are perpetually overworked and exhausted, to extensively research every product that's made it to market (and to overcome marketing, illegal concealment of hazards, and collusion) strikes me as a kind of Just World Falicy thing, where the 'opportunity' to simply buy a better product becomes a chance to blame people for the bad things that happen to them. They should simply have bought a test kit and figured out that there was lead contamination in their baby formula. They should have studied auto accident statistics from the last five years to notice that that particular model routinely explodes in a fireball with the doors jammed. What did they expect buying something without doing their own research?

[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I still feel you attacked the open market idea, instead of answering the question I asked where a controlled market decides to give a sub par product, what individualistic avenue is there then to correct the 10% saw dust in my food?

[–] JacobCoffinWrites@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fair enough. Personally I'm skeptical that there is a "passive corrective method" for individuals to fix problems in either system (maybe a socialist can identify one for us). There aren't many passive solutions at all.

The way to fix these problems in either system is through regulation, governance, and collective action. People just buying other products hasn't worked to correct the flaws in capitalism, regulation has, so you might as well go straight to that either way.

[–] notaviking@lemmy.world 2 points 23 hours ago

I will be honest, I identify as a libertarian, but that does not mean I have blind faith, and I do see benefits of other system. I do not think there really is a one size fits all solution. I am coming from South Africa. The post apartheid government I think even describes themselves as Socialist. I won't lie they did great work from 1994-2008, amazing even. But unfortunately their way led to what I can describe as a self enrichment drive, really hollowed out our beautiful state. I think that's why I identify as libertarian, Hayek's road to serfdom really felt like he was explaining exactly what we are experiencing the last 15 years.

But apart from whose economic model is right, I think the most important thing in a functioning society is participating, like we are doing, coming up with dialog, arguing in good faith. But basically keep those in power on their toes, ensure their power isn't entrenched, they are there to serve the people in however little or how much they try to govern us, and the people should participate to ensure they are kept accountable.

I think all of us want the same thing, a better world for us and a better place for future generations. Don't let the elite tell us our differences should cause us to fight, like I said that is the beauty of this conversation, we can differ, thank you for having a different view so that I am not in an echo chamber, let's argue in good faith, have freedom to explore each other's viewpoints, you really did make amazing argument with entrenched monopolies for example.

Sorry rambling here, but love you internet stranger, thank you for our argument and challenging our own ideas so that we can grow