3 ms·

I agree with everything you say up until: > The private sector can’t legally force me to pay for their projects, whereas the “public” sector can. What's stopp

I agree with everything you say up until: > The private sector can’t legally force me to pay for their projects, whereas the “public” sector can. What's stopping them from hiring a private military and enslaving you? Who will stop them? The government which they control in this scenario? Power is power, whether it is private or public. The main reason I argue with people on here and come across as annoying is that the reflexive defence of capitalism by people living under it is conditioned into them by society. I would like for people to recognize that "our guys" do a just as much harm as "the bad guys over there" instead of rushing to justify some atrocity because well, it's our atrocity.

animal_spirits 2y ago
Where I live, the U.S. Military (and the constitution by which they swear an oath to defend) is stopping them. That is the importance of the word “legally”. There is a role to play for state governments, and that role is solely to protect the individual liberties of its citizens. Not to provide services or products. Tesla doesn’t send policemen to my door to intimidate me to buy their cars. But if I don’t pay my taxes…
- wormlord 2y ago
  I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't think private firms need to be as ham-fisted as sending cops to your door though. If Tesla wants to increase car ownership, they just need to control a few key politicians to dismantle alternative forms of transporation. In an ideal world, liberal democratic governments would keep corporations under control while ensuring our individual rights, and corporations would provide goods and services at the lowest, most efficient rate. This is not the case in reality unfortunately.
  - animal_spirits 2y ago
    The only way politicians have the power over dismantling alternative forms of transportation is if the government has any control over building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, idk something like a Department of Transportation. Same goes for agriculture, finance, labor, healthcare… When we provide the government with these powers, it is within the self interest of corporations to control the politicians. If the politicians have no power to change these things, there is no use in corporations bribing them.
    - wormlord 2y ago
      This is becoming a circular argument. The corporations bribe the politicians because the politicians exist and have power. If the gov't didn't exist, the corporations would directly have power over you instead of indirectly. They would essentially be the new governing body. My entire point has been that power is power and authoritarianism can be private or governmental.
animal_spirits 2y ago
> Who will stop them? The government which they control in this scenario The private sector does not control the government in this scenario. That is the difference. The private sector only controls its own property. Now if there is public ownership of property, then yes the capital owning class will resort to controlling the state to control the property, and thereby controlling the military to enforce the rules the capital owning class wants.

animal_spirits 2y ago

Where I live, the U.S. Military (and the constitution by which they swear an oath to defend) is stopping them. That is the importance of the word “legally”. There is a role to play for state governments, and that role is solely to protect the individual liberties of its citizens. Not to provide services or products. Tesla doesn’t send policemen to my door to intimidate me to buy their cars. But if I don’t pay my taxes…

wormlord 2y ago
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't think private firms need to be as ham-fisted as sending cops to your door though. If Tesla wants to increase car ownership, they just need to control a few key politicians to dismantle alternative forms of transporation. In an ideal world, liberal democratic governments would keep corporations under control while ensuring our individual rights, and corporations would provide goods and services at the lowest, most efficient rate. This is not the case in reality unfortunately.
- animal_spirits 2y ago
  The only way politicians have the power over dismantling alternative forms of transportation is if the government has any control over building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, idk something like a Department of Transportation. Same goes for agriculture, finance, labor, healthcare… When we provide the government with these powers, it is within the self interest of corporations to control the politicians. If the politicians have no power to change these things, there is no use in corporations bribing them.
  - wormlord 2y ago
    This is becoming a circular argument. The corporations bribe the politicians because the politicians exist and have power. If the gov't didn't exist, the corporations would directly have power over you instead of indirectly. They would essentially be the new governing body. My entire point has been that power is power and authoritarianism can be private or governmental.

animal_spirits 2y ago

> Who will stop them? The government which they control in this scenario The private sector does not control the government in this scenario. That is the difference. The private sector only controls its own property. Now if there is public ownership of property, then yes the capital owning class will resort to controlling the state to control the property, and thereby controlling the military to enforce the rules the capital owning class wants.