25 ms·
I agree we are freer than we could be. But the poor are not nearly as free as the rich, the black as free as the white nor the citizens not as free as the corpo
by sqeaky 10y ago
I agree we are freer than we could be. But the poor are not nearly as free as the rich, the black as free as the white nor the citizens not as free as the corporations.
Too bad we don't have as much freedom as our richcorporations.
- faragon 10y agoSure. There are places like e.g. North Korea where "rich corporations" don't abuse the "poor". In my opinion "rich corporations" are necessary, because Civilization requires economy of scale. And because centralized/planned ("socialist") economy is not flexible, better you learn to deal with "rich corporations" and hope where you live citizens keep their rights while dealing with a complex context.
- bigbugbag 10y agoYou lost me when you jumped from "rich corporation are necessary" to "civilization requires economy of scale". There were no rich corporation until very recently in the history of civilizations, this pretty much debunks the part where rich corporations are necessary.
- faragon 10y agoSure, you don't need economy of scale if economy of subsistence is enough for you.
- sqeaky 10y agoI think you are artificially connecting the two. I think you can have economy of scale without having rich corporations. There are many kinds of wealth and risk aggregation schemes that are potentially better than giving huge amounts of wealth to a single point of failure.