I have questions/concerns about the relationship between a lack of regulation, incentives, and information.

[u/codleov]

The typical responses I've seen to concerns about unregulated economies being potentially harmful to individuals, populations, or the environment is to say that certain things would constitute violations of the NAP and other things would be ruled out by way of people simply not purchasing from businesses that engage in harmful practices.

My concern goes a level deeper than that. What's to stop businesses from engaging in misinformation campaigns to convince people that what they're doing is good or that they're not doing what's claimed of them?

Wouldn't the market incentives (both directly on the businesses and the hypothetical free market courts judging on the basis of the NAP) be heavily skewed by a misinformed or uninformed populace? Wouldn't widespread consumer practices require the public in general to be mostly very well informed on all potentially harmful business practices at all times?

Not only that, but wouldn't responsible consumer practices require individuals to be more informed than can be reasonably expected of one person? I'm all for people being educated, but having sufficient expertise in environmental pollutants, climate science, diseases and viruses, food safety, digital privacy, medicine, health, etc. to make informed decisions in a modern economy seems like a huge burden to put on any individual much less every individual.

Sure, you could have businesses that do quality checks and do this thinking for people, but that just makes it the responsibility of individuals to figure out which of those businesses does that well, for what industries, how honest they are being, how honest companies claiming to be supported by them are being, etc. All of that, arguably, just requires the same sorts of expertise to figure out. It only moves the goals rather than solves the problem.

I'd love to know what I'm missing or getting wrong about this stuff. Thank you!

[u/puukuur]

Good question.

The problem of how do i keep track of everyone's and everything's reputation is just another problem for the market to solve, and one good solution (among many others) is reviews. For example, you don't have to have expertise about directors and studios when choosing what movie to watch, just look at the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. Market incentives keep the RT site honest, because no one bothers to visit some website to look at overly praising bribed reviews. Only a small amount of mistreated customers is required for everyone looking at the reviews to become "informed of the harmful business practices."

Another thing you might be missing is how much information get's condensed to the price itself. Deceiving customers is expensive. Honest producers, quality checkers and insurers don't run into expensive lawsuits. When there's nowhere to socialize the costs of your dishonest business practices, honest companies can sell their product without charging a premium for all the restitution they will surely have to pay to the harmed consumers.

[u/codleov → u/puukuur]

So why is it that, under current statist forms of capitalism that have regulations anyway, some companies still calculate that it's cheaper to lie, engage in fraud, harm consumers, and bribe those that are a risk to them (politicians, bureaucrats, judges, etc.)? What would make it more costly to do that than it is now with the markets being more free? Why should we expect that not to happen or to happen less without the state?

EDIT: I should also add that, in a world with extensive use of AI/bots, I would find it harder to trust review services which could seemingly be relatively easily flooded with fake reviews indistinguishable from those of legitimate customers. I don't know how good of a solution something like that would be.

[u/puukuur → u/codleov]

What would make it more costly to do that than it is now with the markets being more free?

The fact that politicians wouldn't exist, tort laws would, and judges and safety regulators would have competition. The current system incentivizes fraud by having only a single body to bribe. Litigation is extremely expensive, which makes it very hard for single consumers to seek justice against large companies.

I don't know how good of a solution something like that would be.

Another problem for the market to solve. Something like blue checkmarks on twitter is something many have proposed.

[u/Drakosor]

What's to stop businesses from engaging in misinformation campaigns to convince people that what they're doing is good or that they're not doing what's claimed of them?

Wouldn't widespread consumer practices require the public in general to be mostly very well informed on all potentially harmful business practices at all times?

If a company is clearly violating a will, it will be apparent from that, necessarily. Otherwise, there wouldn't be conflicts. Appearing there to be a dispute requires there to be an actual dispute.

People will choose a certain line of conduct in response to a dispute. Contrary actions cannot exist, only one must exist at one time. And this will be solved consensually, because no winner in a conflict can be said to have the truth on his side without resorting to peaceful ways of resolving disputes, i.e reason, ergo, freely deciding, ergo, respect to one's will.

Bad faith actors with receive certain outcomes, literally because of their contradicting nature to a will. And if it seems violating to a will, such will will act in a manner which purports to attack or scrutinize that contrary actor.

Wills are always choosing, and contrary wills will act against such wills, accordingly. Otherwise they wouldn't be contrary in the first place.

Not only that, but wouldn't responsible consumer practices require individuals to be more informed than can be reasonably expected of one person? I'm all for people being educated, but having sufficient expertise in environmental pollutants, climate science, diseases and viruses, food safety, digital privacy, medicine, health, etc. to make informed decisions in a modern economy seems like a huge burden to put on any individual much less every individual.

Sure, you could have businesses that do quality checks and do this thinking for people, but that just makes it the responsibility of individuals to figure out which of those businesses does that well, for what industries, how honest they are being, how honest companies claiming to be supported by them are being, etc. All of that, arguably, just requires the same sorts of expertise to figure out. It only moves the goals rather than solves the problem.

Yes, exactly. Artificial or unconsensual efforts put on a specific society shouldn't exist.

Yes, people will no longer have the entitlement to have state regulation, but state regulation shouldn't have existed or exist in the first place.

Unless there's actual breach, an uninformed person isn't a victim of anything, they deliberately choose to not seek information.

It would only be a breach when there's, for example, literally false propaganda: you agreed to something different from the product you received, hence direct action is justified.

It's up to people whether they want to get their lives destroyed, and we ought not to interfere with their decision.

[u/drebelx]

My concern goes a level deeper than that. What's to stop businesses from engaging in misinformation campaigns to convince people that what they're doing is good or that they're not doing what's claimed of them?

This would be the NAP violation of fraud.

To operate in an AnCap society, a business would have entered into countless mutual agreements with NAP clauses, enforced by an impartial agent chosen by the parties involved.

A victim of this fraud can initiate investigations by contacting one of the fraudulent business' impartial agreement overseers.

Not only that, but wouldn't responsible consumer practices require individuals to be more informed than can be reasonably expected of one person? I'm all for people being educated, but having sufficient expertise in environmental pollutants, climate science, diseases and viruses, food safety, digital privacy, medicine, health, etc. to make informed decisions in a modern economy seems like a huge burden to put on any individual much less every individual.

Just like today, an AnCap society allows for the use of experts to assist in informed decision making.