• PonyOfWar@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    3 months ago

    Smoking. Millions of euros of taxpayer money spent every year on those lung cancer patients which could be well spent elsewhere. It’s also an activity that negatively affects not just the smoker but everyone around them.

      • Swordgeek@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’d qualify that as for-profit mandatory insurance.

        Canpt get a mortgage without home insurance. Canpt drive a vehicle without at least liability. Those rates should be strictly government regulated to be sustainable and non-profit.

        But if you want to insure your collection if priceless Whitworth wrenches, well maybe I care a bit (Just a bit!) less about insurance gouging.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        A throwaway reference to another thread on here …. Someone tried to sue a restaurant when he choked on a bone in his boneless chicken wings. The court ruled he can’t sue because “boneless” is just a style of cooking and doesn’t make any claim about whether that meal has bones. …. That kind of misrepresentation, and dodging responsibility should be illegal. All sorts of scamming the customer should be illegal and isn’t

        If I can go on a bit of a rant, I do believe in the power of the market to shape our lives, our economy, our society. Conservatives got that part right. But a market is only “free” when everyone plays by the same rules and has same facts and knowledge, free choice. A market is only beneficial when it is shaped by regulators to benefit society. A market is only sustainable when it incorporates externalities. If Conservatives are gung ho about free markets, they need to step up and do their part. While there’s a nice theory about the usefulness of Marketting, the primary use is to lie, subvert, fool, distort the market, and THAT should be illegal

  • nickiam2@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Billionaires. Nobody ever needs that much wealth. Resources better used elsewhere for the public good.

    • intensely_human@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Billionaire’s resources are used elsewhere for the public good. They don’t keep their money in checking accounts.

      • orcrist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        So why let the billionaire control them? If the resources are actually used for everyone’s good, maybe they should be public resources on paper.

        Or perhaps your mistaken and those resources aren’t used for as much good as you believe they are.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Because the system under which wealth concentrate privately, called the free market, results in a steady increase of wealth, improving health, steady reduction in hunger and privation generally.

          The system under which wealth concentrates socially, ie is controlled and redistributed by the government, tends to produce mass starvation. It is also associated with government controlled labor camps where political purge victims toil away until their own deaths, or are outright executed en masse.

          These outcomes are, ultimately, a reflection of the fact that the former system is based on consent and the latter is based on forcing people into economic relationships they wouldn’t otherwise choose.

          Under our current free market system, billionaires get their billions one consensual purchase at a time. Under socialism, the government gets is billions by wielding power at the end of a gun.

  • WagnasT@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Requiring the purchase or use of proprietary software or formats to view or submit public records.

  • smb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    In the US slavery should be illegal since ages but isn’t yet.

  • boatswain@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Making a profit from healthcare and health insurance.

    Or even just make private health insurance illegal.

  • Dae@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Surprised to see no one has said cigarettes yet. Not only are you poisoning yourself, it’s harmful to everyone else around you that has to inhale that shit.

      • Dae@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I would vastly prefer that gas cars be phased out. But I believe that this is a bit different:

        Cigarettes don’t offer any benefit beyond making you “feel good.” And you don’t need cigarettes to feel good, and, in fact, literally any other option is better for both you, and everyone around you, save for harder drugs.

        Gasoline cars, while poisonous to the world around us, also offer us far greater benefits: supplies and logistics, we can carry goods further, wider, and faster than we ever could without them. And because of that, without them, sure we’d pollute a lot less, but then we’d have a far harder time carrying critical resources to more remote parts of the world where trains and planes can’t reach, and people would starve or lack critical medicine.

        As it stands, EVs are not a reliable substitute. They’re getting there, I want them to get there, but I disagree with the notion that cars should be made illegal as things currently stand. I don’t think it’s nearly as cut and dry as cigarettes are. I can only hope to live long enough to see a world where gas powered cars could be outlawed without leaving hundreds of millions of people high and dry.

  • ssm@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    non-consensual advertising (consensual being things like steam discovery queue, where I actively want to be advertised to), “lobbying” (bribing), fossil fuels and friends, gerrymandering (US), the electoral college (US), publically trading your company

  • Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Supermarkets and businesses throwing food away and not allowing people to take it for free. (“If I can’t sell it nobody can have it”).

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

      Would only work if you also made them immune from lawsuits due to people getting sick from eating expired food.

      • eldavi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        they already are under the good samaritan laws; they use lawsuits as an excuse for their shitty behavior.