81–90 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. But democracy is a threat to freedom.
It's only a threat to the freedom of the privileged, but it protects the freedom of the vulnerable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of big government, big corporate will become defacto government even more easily.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Government is unique because of its “social license” to govern, meaning that the vast majority of people recognize its authority to do things other people or groups cannot do (like make laws, imprison people, or collect taxes). Corporations don’t have that social license, which is why they need to cozy up with government to take advantage of that unique authority.
A small / weak government can't do anything to stop them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of big government, big corporate will become defacto government even more easily.
Not necessarily. Big corporations actually depend on the State for their very existence, and leverage corruption, regulatory capture, etc., to grow larger and more powerful than they would naturally.
Instead, I think technology is the culprit. Technology pushes out the boundary where economies of scale give way to diseconomies of scale. Mom & pops can't compete with Amazon not because Amazon has a few senators in its pocket. They can't do it because Amazon's immense scale (multiple robotic warehouses, in-house shipping and logistics expertise, etc.) makes it impossible to compete on price and quality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of big government, big corporate will become defacto government even more easily.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Government is unique because of its “social license” to govern, meaning that the vast majority of people recognize its authority to do things other people or groups cannot do (like make laws, imprison people, or collect taxes). Corporations don’t have that social license, which is why they need to cozy up with government to take advantage of that unique authority.
Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
150+ years of “guidance” by experts, stewards of industry, and government making claims of operating roughly along that framework
And this is where we are
Humans are the problem with every social system they have built. Humans bring it down because humans get sick of propping up the dead past
These silly abstractions rely on getting everyone on board and the ones that aren’t are treated as heretics
Capitalism has never been about a free flow of capital and information
It has since its beginning been inherently about benefiting the owners who, due to HUMAN nature, not government which is used as a straw man, an abstraction away from reality (humans are doing this, not “government”)
Our economics, including capitalism are, like Trump, a byproduct of the broader cultural feelings. The words and attitudes flow; might and power bring gains. I will fight to protect them. Capitalism
You can wave the math around and I’ll say ok yes they followed the rules of math. But it’s applied to the wrong context
Humans are corruptable, emotional first animals. Capitalism manipulates that reality to favor conversation and action in support of owners
It’s inherently intended as a framework to control conversation; protect my stuff and way of life
It’s another religion. Belief and support of it are rewarded. Anything else and you starve
In the land of the free. Ha
Anti free market hit piece disguised as an article using questionable interpretation of history. This is propaganda for the middle and upper class.
uh, how would this not be propaganda against the middle and upper classes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a bit similar to claiming that communism is great, because all the times when it was tried and there were problems weren't real communism. If capitalism tends to inevitably lead to corruption of government and the undermining of democracy etc in the long run, then that's an interesting critique, which can't just be swatted away with "yes but the result isn't capitalism".
If capitalism tends to inevitably lead to corruption of government That's a pretty big if.
Simple answer: No. More nuanced answer: not exactly. Not Capitalism per-se anyway. But clearly you can see an unhealthy degree of commingling of big government and big business, in a way that is damaging to society at large. But to my mind: a. that's corruption, not capitalism b. that's an argument against big government, not an argument against capitalism
The nature of Capitalism is always to press for this. Like a liquid, it will find any crack in your Democratic system to permeate.
The answer is not no, or even not exactly, the answer is probably always at least a little. Democracy's job is to make it as little as possible.
In America it seems we have gone the other direction once you start to dig in. See: political ad season and SuperPACs.