Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

  • AmidFuror
    link
    fedilink
    9719 days ago

    Unregulated anarchy vs nanny state. There’s a wide spectrum in between we can argue about, but let’s not get too far toward either extreme.

    • @Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      3019 days ago

      Kinder eggs should NOT be banned, and Americans have an inferior product because of it.

      …but also I agree with the banning of Red dye #3.

      • @OceanSoap@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        1919 days ago

        It’s banned in the US because we’re sue-crazy. Companies can’t rely on the common sense of their customers here. Even if the egg comes with a blinking neon sign that says there’s a non edible toy inside, someone would sue (and win!) claiming that it’s not enough and the toy shouldn’t be there in the first place.

      • ElectricMachman
        link
        fedilink
        English
        519 days ago

        I was about to protest, but grog calls for red dye #2, so we’re all good.

    • @throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      419 days ago

      In a right wing “anarchy”, dangerous foods will appear in the markets all the time.

      In a left wing anarchist society, the community would consult their experts on food safety then band together and colletively stop making such foods, and stop importing those from other communities.

      • @Asetru@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        15
        edit-2
        18 days ago

        That’s anarchy? Wow, that’s dumb. They should not just collectively decide something. They should write down what they decided so that people who couldn’t attend or that later come from outside the community know what has been decided. Or, even better, if I know I can’t participate in the decision (or don’t want to) I should be able to pass my voice to somebody who’s there who I trust. Or, even better, just in case that person spontaneously gets sick or dies, to a group of people. Maybe, to get some consistency with people getting to know the details of the decision making process and the prior decisions, only redistribute these stand in votes every few years or so. Just to get the anarchy organised a bit.

        • IndiBrony
          link
          fedilink
          English
          12
          edit-2
          18 days ago

          That sounds great!

          Wait a minute… That doesn’t sound like anarchy… That sounds like democracy!

      • AmidFuror
        link
        fedilink
        719 days ago

        I have to admit I never really understood how anarchist societies were supposed to work. Now that you’ve pointed out they are just people banding together to make collective decisions based on expert information, I can’t fathom why I ever thought they could go wrong.

        • MolochAlter
          link
          fedilink
          English
          15
          edit-2
          19 days ago

          Simple: they wouldn’t work that way.

          Left anarchism, like everything left, only works on paper.

          Here’s a few holes:

          • Who decides who is and isn’t an expert? Jim Jones was considered an expert by the Jonestown people, RFK is considered one by maga.

          • Assuming we find a way to establish an “expert” category of citizens, that’s already hierarchical. You now have a ruling class since these people get more of a say than the average person by virtue of their role, and don’t have a completely flat anarchist society anymore but instead a sort of representative technocracy.

          • Moreover anarchist societies are supposed to not employ coercion, so even if you had experts whose opinion dictates norms, how are you going to enforce them?

          Anarchists (left and right) reinvent the state, just shittier, less consistent, and without founding principles, every time they are put in front of the practical needs of a society where not everyone agrees with them.

          Some go as far as inventing authoritarian oligarchies, just ones they happen to agree with and thus support.

            • MolochAlter
              link
              fedilink
              English
              318 days ago

              Oh god you have no idea how many believe this in earnest (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

            • MolochAlter
              link
              fedilink
              English
              518 days ago

              They are authoritarian and marxist leftists, they are not mutually exclusive, if anything they are more likely bedfellows than not, by necessity.

              You can’t have a free economy without decentralised price controls (i.e. a market) and you can’t have a market without ownership, so you will eventually end up having a control economy if you remove private ownership from the equation, and control economies are fundamentally authoritarian.

              The ultimate means of production is the person, and you don’t get to own it exclusively, even if it’s yourself.