Comments

  • Ukraine Crisis
    How long do we think this war will carry on for, now that the Russians have Mariupol?
  • Scotty from Marketing
    Very glad to hear some good news. I hope it translates into climate action.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Who's to blame for Russian boots on Ukraine soil. I'd say Russia. — Hanover

    Of course. Again— I don’t see who’s denying this.

    ↪ssu


    I’m not in favor of increasing nuclear weapons — so I disagree.

    A lot has changed since 1993, incidentally.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Anyone working in a system with private property (in terms of land, means of production) will have decisions about how to run their business constrained by the conditions of that system - such as a need for sufficient income to pay the rent/mortgage, and a reliance on the returns from that system (product value) to cover them. — Isaac

    Certainly...but again, we're talking about capitalism. If one argues that private property is the defining feature of capitalism, then to talk of dismantling capitalism would have to be a discussion about how to abolish private property. That could very well be true, but if we define capitalism as being what it is because of its relationship of one class to another, then it's this relationship which should be the target -- and so abolishing this relationship topples capitalism. I think worker ownership/control can do that -- co-ops being one model, a step beyond unionism.

    But ultimately yes, I think the entire idea of private property should eventually be phased out. It's just that private property can exist in a non-capitalist system as well...as can markets...as can profit-making.

    All the while these constraints are in place, democratisation of the decision-making only widens the number of people whose decisions are thus constrained. It doesn't actually work to remove any of those constraints. — Isaac

    With the above being said, my response would be that while worker control doesn't solve the problem of private property, it would be tending in that direction.

    If I could snap my fingers and make the system of private ownership and private property disappear, I would. But we're a long way from that in my view. Cooperatives already exist, unions are (weak, but) around, our state legislatures and local governments are there to experiment with, etc.

    Also, China has gone much further than the US towards your point, with limited rights on private property -- yet they too have capitalist enterprises (in the sense I mean). Huawei is an example; Alibaba, etc.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    I don't think anything was going to deter Putin from invading Ukraine except its membership in NATO. He thought he could just waltz in and take over the country. — RogueAI

    Who knows what Putin was thinking. Whatever he was thinking, this was a stupid decision.

    But to argue nothing would have deterred him from invasion except for NATO membership, when there's reason to believe that it was NATO's advancement that contributed to the decision, is pretty unrealistic -- in my view.

    I tend to listen to the likes of John Mearsheimer on this issue. Pretty good scholarship there. Been lecturing about this for years.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    But there's the anti-US team that thinks everything bad happens because of the US and is extremely unhappy about anything taking the focus off from how the bad the US is. Their main argument is that it's the actions of NATO and the US which lead Russia to start the war and hence it's the fault of the US. And the rest is just ad hominems. — ssu

    "Everything bad happens because of the US" is, of course, an exaggeration. Who believes this? Think about it. Does anyone believe this?

    No.

    So let's leave that aside. Has the United States, as the world superpower, contributed to this mess in Ukraine? Yes, of course it has. Does anyone argue that this isn't the case?

    So what the fuck are we talking about here?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And thus Putin's narrative (propaganda-style) has been adopted and propagated. :up: :grin: Worked. — jorndoe

    And same stupid arguments are given on page 245 as in the early 10's and 20's.

    Somehow not interested to reply to such bullshit.     — ssu

    There's a lot of Russian propaganda around -- but listening to the reasons given has to be done, no matter how absurd one thinks they are. Sometimes there's a kernel of truth in it, other times a surprising amount of truth.

    It's far harder to make the attempt to understand than it is to cheer for the home team. I don't think Russia is in the right here -- they're not, and military aggression like this is unacceptable. That's fairly obvious. But if we care about Ukrainians, we have to do more than cheer. We can see if and how we've contributed to this situation and make moves in the direction of peace. Can anyone argue that the United States' actions over the last 30 years have encouraged peace? I don't think so, any more than one could argue it for the middle east.

    I don't see anyone on here claiming Putin is a good guy or is in the right.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Hmm, but without eliminating or curtailing the private property form, are we eliminating capitalists, or expanding the pool of capitalists such that everyone gets to be one? — Streetlight

    I think of worker control as public control. It’s simply putting the power in the hands of the community (represented by the workers) rather than a handful of wealthy owners. It’s not public in the sense of being state-owned, but it skips over the state in that respect and goes directly under community control.

    But on the other hand, you’re right — a co-op corporation that’s worker owned can also become national or multinational in scale and so disconnected from local communities. Production for profit is still there as well, even if not the sole motivating force — and this can turn into a problem as well. And I can anticipate a flaw in my argument you probably notice: workers controlling a factory or business isn’t the ENTIRE community. Not everyone gets a vote or input into how the company functions. But since I’m assuming the workers represent the community, that this will work itself out. Plus other channels for public input can be created by governments or companies themselves.

    Maybe abolishing private property altogether is the ultimate answer. I tend to agree with this. But my (perhaps nitpicking) point was about abolishing capitalism (as I understand it) rather than every necessary condition for capitalism. That’s what my initial question was getting at: if we’ve eliminated the employer/employee (or owner/worker) distinction, then we’ve eliminated the one feature that (arguably) distinguishes capitalism from other socioeconomic forms— like feudalism.

    But let me assume market-dependency is the primary problem. I’m interested in hearing potential solutions.

    It seems a small trifling thing to call even a worker democracy capitalism, but the worst thing than can happen is to believe we are beyond capitalisn even while we remain firmly in its grip. — Streetlight

    Absolutely. Which is why it's important to have these conversations. As I said at the beginning, I don't pretend to know exactly what will happen. It's largely speculative. But we do know how it's currently organized, and we can see very clearly how that's turning out. So some new goals need to be talked about either way.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    I'm a complete rubbernecker when it comes to your threads.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    ↪frank


    You've had 10.9 thousand tries. But I hope you're right.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm


    That had me laughing.

    This thread is dead. What a shocker that NOS finally put everyone to sleep.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    ↪frank


    Sure, once you say anything whatsoever of substance. Or by all means continue dropping your Twitter-like one-liners on every thread that gets made.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Anywhere where exchange is not impersonal: families, friends, strangers asking for directions in the street, co-workers passing pens to each other across the room. Market exchanges make up a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of our lives. It just so happens their influence is unimaginably deep. Their extensity does not match their intensity in society. Markets are parasitic on non-market exchange that happen everywhere, all the time, among everyone, at all levels. I'm not even charging you for this
    — Streetlight

    This is utter nonsense.     — frank

    It's exactly right, in fact.

    There's my Twitter response for a Twitter post.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    I think this is the first time in my posting on this philosophy forum that I have not successfully gotten the gist/understanding of the OP and further exposition on the OP on this thread. — L'éléphant

    Edit 2: I think it exposes my lack of understanding of capitalism. This is the only sane explanation I can come up with. — L'éléphant

    It's commendable that you admit this rather than pretend the opposite. I think our way of life (including economic way of life) often gets overlooked precisely because it's taken for granted -- like gravity. "Just how things are." When challenged or questioned, it takes some getting used to.

    Capitalism is something that rarely gets challenged, even today. You have to really seek it out. Marx's name gets thrown around a lot, of course, but much like other classics -- highly praised and rarely read. This could be a reason for the difficulty or lack of understanding?
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    To the degree that capitalism ultimately makes a change at the level of production so that production becomes production-for-market, so long as this remains in place, I think what we have is still capitalism. A key notion here is that of market-dependency. If our social (and thus life) arrangements are dependent on markets to reproduce themselves, then, to put it bluntly, we're in trouble. It's simply a matter of imperatives and necessities: if even a democratically governed workplace will be subject to market imperatives, there's every chance that the planet-killing imperatives to further commidification and assestization will chug along regardless. — Streetlight

    This is important to dwell on I think.

    It helps me to take an example. Take energy. Is there a market for energy? Obviously. But there’s no reason we have to get our energy from fossil fuels. It’s often argued that what’s produced is produced due to market pressure, but as you know this is usually complete nonsense. The fossil industry in particular loves to frame things this way. The reality is that choices simply don’t get presented — by industry or by government.

    My point is: as political policies can change depending on who’s in power, both output and markets will change depending on who’s in control of production.

    Cars are another example. There’s a market for them— but there’s also a market for public transportation. (Or at least a desire for it.) But public transportaiton really isn't offered, because there’s little money in it -- despite it being better for the environment, the population, for traffic and smog and so on.

    If you eliminate the owners, then businesses get run not by far-removed individuals from some headquarters but by the local workers, which will definitely have communities in mind -- what's needed, what's useful, etc. So this would tend to cut down on externalities— much harder to pollute, for example, when it’s your own back hard you're polluting.

    Market dependence needs to go lest we recreate similar issues— I think that’s right. I think production should be driven by needs and by use. But since it’s the capitalists that create many markets to begin with, deliberately trying to cultivate desire and demand -- even when that demand is harmful to the population or to local communities -- I would speculate that if you eliminate the capitalists, the markets will improve as well.

    But as I said to @Benkei, I don't pretend to know for certain. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Even if IN the co-op it is now democratic and presumably fair, then it's interaction with the rest of the world isn't. — Benkei

    One potential consequence is that our political governance changes along with corporate governance. Externalities and foreign trade would still exist, but would be much less of a problem — because the state would be acting under different pressures from a different set of interests. It wouldn’t be “profit over everything”, there would be less short term thinking, more investment in communities and general welfare.

    Of course I have no certainty of this— it’s speculation really. I wouldn’t pretend to know how it all pans out. There’s bound to be flaws in any system. But unless we move in this general direction, I don’t see how we survive much longer as a species. That alone is reason enough to push for it.

    I hope you push back a little on this and elaborate, because there may very well be scenarios I’m overlooking.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Land - and capital - starts to belong directly to merchants, or, at this point, capitalists. — Streetlight

    :up:

    Certainly a far more conciliatory capitalism than we know, but to the degree our conditions of life are dictated by markets - and not the other way around - this would still be a case of capitalism ascendant. — Streetlight

    That makes sense.

    It’s a matter of definition, but here my own answer would be “no.” I think if workers controlled production— if we essentially democratize the workplace — then it’s no longer a capitalist system, despite the fact that markets, production-for-markets, and profit-making continues. It implies that people will decide what to produce, where to produce, how to do so, and what we do with the profits/surplus — so I see this changing the markets/conditions of life you mention as a natural consequence. But this is speculation on my part.

    The co-op model is a real world example. All that’s really changed is throwing out the small group of owners — which is what so much of this system creates and is designed to perpetuate.
  • What Capitalism is Not (specifically, it is not markets)
    Interesting.
    It is at this point, where the general mode of production becomes geared towards the market, that capitalism proper can be said to come into being. — Streetlight

    A necessary thread indeed.

    My only comment is that I’m surprised you didn’t include the existence of owners/employers as a distinguishing feature of this socioeconomic system.

    We can imagine a world where production was controlled by workers and yet geared towards markets. Would this still be considered capitalist?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?
    — Xtrix

    That's because you are a coward.     — M777

    :roll:

    Okay— bye.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    And yes, there is a flaw in your logic, because according to it the most crazy dictator can get his hands on a nuke and rule the world by threatening to blow it up. — M777

    Which is why we should ban nuclear weapons. But even if a crazy dictator did get his hands on nukes— say the threat or possibility was real. Is it worth losing literally everything?

    This isn’t the same as sacrificing your life for freedom— or even many lives. I wouldn’t want to live under a dictatorship either, of course. But that’s not really the question. The question concerns the survival of the species. Is it worth it to sacrifice everything for a principle or ideal?

    I don’t think so. Much better to find another way. Dictators don’t live forever— neither do empires. Assyrian rule or Mongol rule was pretty bad, I’m sure. Would it have been worth it to destroy everything rather than be ruled by them?

    Our forefathers fought for a host of freedoms over centuries. To give them up is an insult and thankless, so I really don't agree. Mere survival, life without dignity is not enough. I don't believe Russia poses such an existential threat. China might eventually. — Benkei

    I agree it’s an awful choice. But would China rule, for example, be so bad as to warrant destroying everything? I’m talking specifically about nuclear war. Quite apart from whether a ruler orders a strike, ground wars increase the risk of accidents— which are very real.

    I would go so far as to say even a worse regime would still be worth enduring if it means the species survives. No regime is permanent. The annihilation of humans is.
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Question for everyone on this thread: If you could avoid countless deaths and possibly nuclear war by allowing Russia to take Ukraine, would you?

    The Russians aren’t the Nazis, after all, and Putin isn’t Hitler. It wouldn’t have been just, or fair — I don’t agree with Russia’s decision to invade — but a quick German victory in WW1 would also have been unfair; yet it would have prevented WWII if allowed to happen.

    I’d like to prevent WWIII. So to answer my own question: yes.

    Maybe one could argue doing so could have the unintended consequence of WWIII — perhaps even a greater chance of it. But I’ve yet to come across that argument.

    I suppose it’s irrelevant now. But I think this question gets to the foundation for offered solutions.

    A world under China or the USSR in the 20th would have been better than no world at all. Ditto Nazism. Many terrible regimes throughout history, and all eventually changed. I don’t see how anyone can justify a higher priority than survival of the species — without that, there is nothing else. Do we all agree with this or not? Is there a flaw in my logic?
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    It is not capitalism, per se, that is the corruption point, but rather the elevation of corporate over individual rights, and the over-concentration of capital. — Pantagruel

    Which is a natural consequence of capitalism left to its own devices.

    I'd like to think I'm realistic -- I realize that capitalism isn't going to be overthrown in my lifetime. I would like to at least see a move away from the more "laissez faire" side of the spectrum (neoliberalism) to a system that we had in the 1940s-70s, the era of "regimented capitalism." But that really isn't going to solve this issue long term.

    The issue, ultimately, is whether private ownership and private profit should be at the core of our economy. A society based on greed and personal gain will not only be an ugly one -- as the United States is -- but will potentially destroy the human species, as we're seeing with environmental destruction, global warming, and the war industry. I see no reason why replacing monarchy with plutocracy, which is what has happened, is the way to go -- even regulated plutocracy.

    The solution is democratizing the economy, and that starts with corporations. Other countries organize this much better than the United States. (I mention the United States over and over not only because I'm a citizen, but because it's the most powerful country in world history, and what it does has wide ranging effects.)

    Why a handful of owners -- a capitalist class (also the ruling class) -- should be given the power over economic (and political) life is the question. I don't think they should.

    If that's too abstract, take one S&P 500 or Fortune 500 company, public or private, and see how it functions -- and that's essentially the economy writ large: a handful of people (boards of directors) and executives (CEOs, COOs, etc) make all the decisions, and all do the bidding of the "owners" (usually major shareholders). The more shares you own, the more votes you have for board seats; executives' compensation is made up mostly of stocks, as well.

    People who defend such a system have very poor arguments, based on poor values and even poorer beliefs about human beings and human nature. Self interest, greed, and gain become "natural" -- as if these are the only human characteristics that matter. That's capitalism. I don't think it's oversimplifying things to say this needs to go.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    "If we abolish the state, people can cooperate and trade on their own. Have some faith in human beings!"

    This picture is missing one important piece: provided we get rid of capitalism first. Since it's precisely capitalism that is at the heart of most awful modern human behavior to begin with, it's laughable to want to abolish or minimize the state while keeping capitalism intact. Show me nearly any problem today (obesity, drug abuse, climate change, environmental degradation, social media-driven division, poverty, low wages, debt, poor healthcare, inflation) and I'll show you terrible behavior justified by capitalist principles at the core.

    It's like fighting the system of slavery by abandoning government...while ignoring racism.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    NOS is a statist to the bitter end.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    Your ability to earn it comes partly from your education, partly from your health, partly from your clean air, water, refuse collection, coworkers, laws, trade deals, security, policing... The taxed portion is you paying for all that. — Isaac

    It’s the same thing for corporate taxes. They want to conveniently forget this part. Since the state is always evil, taxation is seen as theft.

    Yet these are the same people who are fine with government subsidies, bailouts, patent protection, etc.

    It’s an oddly circular, contradictory, and mostly incoherent view.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    In case anyone is wondering what all this "laissez faire" talk is really cover for (or diversion from):

    Corporate profitability is not translating into shared prosperity.

    For this lack of shared prosperity, the allocation of corporate profits to stock buybacks bears considerable blame. From 2003 through 2012, 449 S&P 500 companies dispensed 54% of earnings, equal to $2.4 trillion, buying back their own stock, almost all through open-market repurchases. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of earnings. Scant profits remained for investment in productive capabilities or higher incomes for hard-working, loyal employees.

    Large-scale open-market repurchases can give a manipulative boost to a company’s stock price. Prime beneficiaries of stock-price increases are the very executives who decide the timing and amount of buybacks to be done. In 2012 the 500 highest paid executives named on proxy statements averaged remuneration of $24.4 million, with 52% coming from stock options and another 26% from stock awards. With ample stock-based pay, top corporate executives can gain from boosts in stock prices even when for most of the population economic progress is hard to find. If the United States is to achieve economic growth with an equitable income distribution and stable employment opportunities, government rule-makers and business decision-makers must take steps to bring both executive pay and stock buybacks under control.     — William Lazonick

    The neoliberal era for you. Neoliberal policies all approach laissez faire, and use the concept to justify them.

    The attitude shows up in the slogans. "Free markets." "Government is the problem." Etc. This is the era we're currently living in, and the above is but one sample of what's actually going on -- and that was back in 2014. It's continued.

    It always helps to take things from the abstract to the specific. So taking this one specific issue, the question (for laissez-faire proponents) becomes: is the state to blame?

    In a sense, yes. These neoliberal policies are implemented through government, after all. Deregulation among them -- like the rule that the SEC instated in 1982 that allowed for this behavior to go unchecked. All justified on "free market" principles, of course.

    The point is -- according to the laissez-faire perspective, wasn't the government (the state) doing the right thing back then? Isn't deregulation the right move?

    I wonder if anarcho-capitalists or "conservative libertarians" even care about this. Probably not, since it's out of the realm of the abstract, where any ol' person can bullshit in circles from their armchair.

    Meanwhile, it's had truly awful effects on the United States population and transferred trillions in wealth to the wealthiest people (according to RAND, around $50 trillion).

    Link to the Lazonick article.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    I might be missing something in the argument but I don't see how he can claim that only the people selling political influence are committing a crime and not those that trying to buy it. — dclements

    Well if we accept the belief that the wealthy essentially bribe government officials, we can talk about who bears more of the responsibility: the wealthy briber or the weak-willed official. Again, the key word there is "if." In that case, I would tend to agree with you. At the very least, they're equally to blame.

    But I don't accept that belief. The wealthy don't have to bribe officials any more than Murdoch has to bribe Sean Hannity. Rather, you don't get to be a high ranking government official or a media pundit with a wide audience unless you've already internalized certain beliefs and values -- the beliefs and values of the ruling class. There are few exceptions.

    This is a crucial distinction.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    In case I was too subtle:

    Arguing that the wealthy “purchase or influence” people in government is like arguing Sean Hannity says what he does because Murdoch bribes/influences him. Completely wrong.

    If this strikes you as weird, that’s understandable. But then it’s a good idea to perhaps re-examine such a fundamental belief.

    Your peculiar conception of “state=bad” crumbles with this belief, incidentally.     — Xtrix

    And that's the end of it. Just means, just transactions, just acquisition. If you want to read about different theories of distributive justice be my guest. This isn't philosophy 101. — NOS4A2

    I don't see how this response addresses anything I said above, which is the post you linked to.

    I’d like to think an old dog can learn new tricks. I’m proven wrong again and again.

    We’re the same age.     — NOS4A2

    I'm 40. I thought you were in your 60s or 70s. Regardless, it reflects even more poorly on you.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    The reason The Wealthy purchase or influence power is because the people with power are selling it. — NOS4A2

    In case I was too subtle:

    Arguing that the wealthy “purchase or influence” people in government is like arguing Sean Hannity says what he does because Murdoch bribes/influences him. Completely wrong.

    If this strikes you as weird, that’s understandable. But then it’s a good idea to perhaps re-examine such a fundamental belief.

    Your peculiar conception of “state=bad” crumbles with this belief, incidentally.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    It is almost a given that the uber rich are at least smart enough to know that if the State/government wasn't there to protect them there would be little to nothing to prevent the plebs that serve them from taking up arms and going against them. — dclements

    Not only that. Yes they exist with the aid of the state, and are protected— but the state also serves as the fall guy. A nice distraction. When you can divert the (legitimate) anger and discontent to a source other than your class, that’s valuable indeed.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    ↪Streetlight

    ↪Isaac

    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm

    ↪Pantagruel

    ↪schopenhauer1

    ↪Hillary

    ↪Benkei

    ↪dclements


    Excellent points, all.

    In a rational world, that so many people of such divergent views can recognize how silly an argument is would give the proponent pause — and perhaps be inclined to open his mind to new vistas.

    I’d like to think an old dog can learn new tricks. I’m proven wrong again and again.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    ↪NOS4A2


    That is what it means.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

    This thread in a nutshell.     — Xtrix
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    Laissez faire: cover for corporatism.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    What has been created by this half century of massive corporate propaganda is what's called "anti-politics". So that anything that goes wrong, you blame the government. Well okay, there's plenty to blame the government about, but the government is the one institution that people can change... the one institution that you can affect without institutional change. That's exactly why all the anger and fear has been directed at the government. The government has a defect - it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect - they're pure tyrannies. So therefore you want to keep corporations invisible, and focus all anger on the government. So if you don't like something, you know, your wages are going down, you blame the government. Not blame the guys in the Fortune 500, because you don't read the Fortune 500. You just read what they tell you in the newspapers... so you don't read about the dazzling profits and the stupendous glitz, and the wages going down and so on, all you know is that the bad government is doing something, so let's get mad at the government.

    This thread in a nutshell.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    ↪ZzzoneiroCosm


    It’s nice to have such an amorphous, abstract term like the “state” to blame as the root of all evil. Never mind the fact that the state consists of real people who have real beliefs and real values — and who make real decisions.

    The “wealthy” is also general, but much easier to define. The wealthy are those individuals with wealth.

    It’s a nice story to believe the State is the devil. If only the State were less of a weak-willed asshole susceptible to bribes by the wealthy. How can we blame the wealthy for lobbying the State the way everyone does?

    :lol:
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    Let’s abolish the oppressive state so that we can work jobs for monopolies that definitely don’t oppress anyone — because it’s all voluntary.

    Laissez faire, baby.
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    The reason The Wealthy purchase or influence power is because the people with power are selling it. — NOS4A2

    Imagine actually believing this.

    Put yourself in these shoes and consider it.

    Frightening, isn’t it?
  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    This thread is just more statist doctrine dressed up.

    Little something for you:

  • Why do we fear Laissez-faire?
    ↪NOS4A2


    Lol. So you have no argument.

    Let's go over how this is relevant yet again. (Remember I'm not writing for you -- you're hopeless. Go back to sleep, it's irrelevant. Skip it.)

    For anyone else:

    * Laissez faire is complete nonsense. You cannot have an economy without some governance.

    * The impossible goal that is laissez faire serves one purpose: to convince those who are not in the ruling class to cheer "small government," when in reality it's just a cover for maintaining big government for the corporate sector while cutting taxes and deregulating industries (the part they want "hands off").

    * The state has democratic participation. Corporations do not.

    * The corporate sector owns and runs the state.

    With all that fairly well understood, this thread is absurd from the start. It's a cover for the state, nothing less.
Home » Mikie