3 ms·

>Everyone loves to drum their chest about capitalism but in this case it isn't working Your comment assumes that capitalism is in place in the US. It is not. C

• ubernostrum 12y ago
  Your comment assumes that capitalism does not have an inevitable degenerative end state of cronyism and other ills. The balance of history suggests strongly that it does.
  • ancap 12y ago
    It sounds like you don't know what capitalism is. Here's the definition Google spit out: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." Seeing as cronyism necessarily requires state influence and capitalism requires the lack of state influence, your conclusion falls on its face.
    • ubernostrum 12y ago
      Capitalism as ideally defined is a period an economy often passes through extremely briefly; one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired. Unless you would like to argue that no true Scotsman would ever abuse a position to make a buck...
      • masmullin 12y ago
        Capitalism is the free and willing exchange of goods. Because the state has colluded with certain companies to remove the 'free' from the above statement, the US internet is no longer a capitalistic system. Your statement about all capitalism eventual collapsing to fascism deserves more evidence. If you could truly prove your point, you'd win a nobel prize.
      • ancap 12y ago
        >one of the exit paths is consolidation of enough power/wealth/influence in a handful of individuals or corporations to begin effectively purchasing government actions as desired. The prerequisite to purchasing government actions is the government having the power/authority to take action. There's a reason lobbyists do not approach you or me.
        • caseydurfee 12y ago
          The prerequisite to purchasing government actions instead of purchasing mercenaries to enforce ones' will directly is the government having the power/authority to take action. Getting rid of government doesn't change the ability for the powerful to use money to apply coercive force against the powerless. You know that, right? It just means they have to do it themselves. Would you rather $EVIL_CORP own a Senator or own weapons of mass destruction?
          • ancap 12y ago
            The definition of government is a monopoly on violence/force. Furthermore, no monopoly can be sustained without the force of government. Absent the government I'm not even certain there would be weapons of mass destruction. It is the state who demands these weapons to maintain its monopoly on force. A business, on the other hand, is interested in making a profit. Absent government coercion, a business must provide a worthwhile good/service to make a profit, all while competing in the marketplace. Anything an "$EVIL_CORP" might do pales in comparison to actions we know governments have done. One must only tally up the hundreds of millions of lives lost during the 20th century in senseless wars, democide, etc.