• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    You are not arguing with me. Not reading comments before answering them is disrespectful.

    • Aceticon@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      This has everything to do with centralization, just not with the one small context for it which you picked.

      With real decentralization in place market mechanisms work.

      Monopoly situations along with market mechanisms invariably result in centralization (“monopoly” comes from the Greek word for “right of exclusive sale”), hence market mechanism won’t “work” in the sense you mean it in such a scenario, as I explained.

      Your argument is circular because it’s like saying that it will work as long as it creates the conditions to make itself work (which is the same as saying “as long as it works”).

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Decentralization and distribution should be enforced, yes.

        By, for example, institutionalized resistance to anything like IP law, to regulations and certifications allowing bigger fish to call those who can’t afford them, and at the same time by maintaining regulations against obvious fraud.

        It’s not a circular argument, you’re just not paying attention.

        The friendliness of political systems to decentralization doesn’t correlate much with their alignment in terms of left\right or even authoritarian\libertarian. So in my opinion this should be a third dimension on that political compass everybody’s gotten tired of seeing. And there are many other dimensions to add then, so useless.