More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
I think it's Francis Fukuyama who in his book on Political Order states that in the places where the monarchy was weak and the aristocracy was strong, you had local tyranny and national weakness (e.g. Poland). In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia). In places where they are both strong, they balance each other out, and you get liberty (e.g. England).
Right now, we have the first case. We have corporate tyranny. And you can say that people get what they 'deserve'. Fine. But I don't want things to go to hell because of people's ideological commitments to 'free markets'. I want things to get better.
And it's very simplistic to state that people are voting with their wallets, when these megacorps are monopolies. Their monopolistic power must first be broken, and then maybe the free market will function properly.
More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.
These companies are a) not actually private, and b) extensions of government power. The only way you can cause these companies to actually take a loss, *is to keep them from leeching off of the government's vast stolen wealth.
lawl at England being an example of a liberty focused country. The country where people get arrested for hate speech and rapists go free because they're a "protcted class".
More government is never good, and is literally how we got into this mess. Remove 230 protections and watch these social media sites crumble. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and all central banking, and watch actual competitive sites flourish. Until those things happen, "more government" isnt going to do jack shit but make the problem worse.
I think you're a good guy, but very misguided.
More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.
I think it's Francis Fukuyama who in his book on Political Order states that in the places where the monarchy was weak and the aristocracy was strong, you had local tyranny and national weakness (e.g. Poland). In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia). In places where they are both strong, they balance each other out, and you get liberty (e.g. England).
Right now, we have the first case. We have corporate tyranny. And you can say that people get what they 'deserve'. Fine. But I don't want things to go to hell because of people's ideological commitments to 'free markets'. I want things to get better.
And it's very simplistic to state that people are voting with their wallets, when these megacorps are monopolies. Their monopolistic power must first be broken, and then maybe the free market will function properly.
Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.
These companies are a) not actually private, and b) extensions of government power. The only way you can cause these companies to actually take a loss, *is to keep them from leeching off of the government's vast stolen wealth.
Regulation is neither socialism nor Keynesianism - an Keynsianism is not socialism.
Regulation is an aspect of Socialism.
Keynsianism is absolutely Socialism.
Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.
Ergo, neither Keynesianism nor Regulation are 'socialism'.
Read the third paragraph again. It's exactly what I said. If that's too much for you to read, let me quote the part where it says that.
Powers have to be balanced for there to be liberty.
lawl at England being an example of a liberty focused country. The country where people get arrested for hate speech and rapists go free because they're a "protcted class".
More government is never good, and is literally how we got into this mess. Remove 230 protections and watch these social media sites crumble. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and all central banking, and watch actual competitive sites flourish. Until those things happen, "more government" isnt going to do jack shit but make the problem worse.
Maybe the use of 'aristocracy' in the context of Poland should have tipped you off that we are not talking about 2021.
Im only interested in the present, thanks. England has a very strong government and is a Orwellian laughing stock.
Then maybe don't start screeching about the present when people are talking about the past.