"Anything market-rational is also moral" is the plainest fallacy in all the world, and yet one of the most common and devastating. Clearly if you invest in something popular, you are assisting in its ability to be popular. That those consuming the thing are also at fault has no impact on that fact. That the next guy would do the same if you hadn't has no impact on that fact. You may very reasonably argue degrees, but anything else is nonsense to the point of being essentially a lie.
I don't think that is ever really the argument made by that kind of economics.
Even the most extreme free marketeers like Walter Block (author of "Defending the Undefendable") talk about pollution as a violation of private property. Climate change as a result of pollution definitely would come under that kind of argument. They would just say it's a matter for the courts, like everyone affected should sue the people who emit the pollution or something like that (yes it's not a very practical ideology when you get into things like that)
But businesses aren't run that way, so whatever some abstract theorist like Walter Block may say is not really relevant for the day-to-day reality of things.
And I've seen "anything market-rational is also moral"-shaped argument many times: on HN, in newspapers, company responses to criticism, pretty much any time someone defends crypto's negative effects.
Is it? If I buy EvilCorp stock from you for $1000000 how does that help EvilCorp? Assuming just a few rational actors, stock price should (in theory) stay roughly the same, near the "real" market value. Of course, if everyone did that, and EvilCorps couldn't even IPO, then it would matter, but that's a big if. But if that's the goal, we should strive to ban EvilCorps instead.
EvilCorp probably has unissued shares. A rising market cap thus gives them a lot of leverage to achieve their goals. They could pay employees, borrow against those shares, raise more capital with a secondary offering, etc.
Also, if EvilCorp is worth $10, I could just buy it and stop all the EvilActions.
>"Anything market-rational is also moral" is the plainest fallacy in all the world
I disagree that GP's argument depends on this.
I disagree that the principle you attempt to refute is even fairly characterized that way. You seem instead to argue against the idea that acting rationally in the market is amoral: i.e., not concerned with morality, and not requiring moral consideration.
But worse, it comes across that you imagine that moral viewpoints not agreeing with your own are inherently fallacious, or perhaps even that morality is an inherently objective matter that you have all figured out. That seems much more dangerous to me.
It's entirely possible for reasonable people to disagree with you. I personally feel that holding people culpable for the actions of others is a great injustice.
That said, it doesn't seem like you've actually explained anything:
> Clearly if you invest in something popular, you are assisting in its ability to be popular.
(e: Also, what poincaredisk said. This isn't necessarily the case at all.)
But suppose it did?
How does that make you responsible for the actions of others?
> That those consuming the thing are also at fault has no impact on that fact.
By saying "also" you beg the question. Why is the investor at fault?
Why does making it possible for others to do something cause moral culpability for those others actually choosing to do so?
Suppose I manufacture fertilizer. In this case, is it my, personal, moral responsibility to determine whether my clients are terrorists seeking to refine explosive materials? Why? In principle, how should I go about that?
Is the planet itself morally responsible for consumers using fossil fuels, simply because it provides those fuels? How about, say, the inventor of the coal-burning electricity plant?
Or does this only apply to investment for some reason?
> That the next guy would do the same if you hadn't has no impact on that fact.
It doesn't change what you did, sure. But you don't explain why this means you should be morally culpable for anything.
> but anything else is nonsense to the point of being essentially a lie.
You continue to argue by assertion and do nothing to actually explain your moral principles.
Incidentally: do you suppose that investors who enable virtuous actions are similarly virtuous, even though they neither perform the action nor cause it? Or does your premise only apply to the immoral?
