121–125 of 125 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> corporation that is in no way on the hook for anything towards the common man. It is, because corporations have stronger incentives than governments to benefit the common man.
Megacorps only need to benefit a large number of people, where democracies need to benefit a majority. In theory.
Not at all. See “concentrated benefits and diffuse costs”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not that simple. Policy can increase or decrease competition. Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. Overall governments increase standards which can lead to few players but it can also help an industry grow quicker and allow for more complex/value products/services which creates an industry around it helping support it (shopify)
> Breaking up Ma Bell as an example. The Ma Bell monopoly was created by government in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I highly doubt anarcho capitalists would want to replace the government with another, even worse government
But perhaps they wish companies became independent of the Federal Reserve, and more in control of the value of their own currency, both in terms of exchange rates and the ends to which they can be used or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But perhaps they wish companies became independent of the Federal Reserve, and more in control of the value of their own currency, both in terms of exchange rates and the ends to which they can be used or not.
They also happen to be a conglomerate who’s a EULA-change away from pushing at the very least millions if not more people into this. From a person’s point of view there’s no freedom to be gained here and those people generally tend to be about personal freedom.