including the ones that believe state influence in economy leads to making said system less capitalistic.
I agree with libertarians very little, but this particular belief is obviously true, or at the very least the way the American regime influences the economy makes it less capitalistic. Airline bailouts, forcing citizens to buy healthcare products; many such cases. The government just paid billions in tax payers dollars to global mega corps and then tried to force us to take these "free" vaccines.
Now if we were talking about a theoretical government forcing an industry to stop making a harmful but highly profitable product then I would agree with that action (although it by definition would be making the system less capitalistic), but in almost all cases our actual government backs the harmful but highly profitable product up until the point where the harm can no longer be denied, which is worse than no interference at all.
You mean the system under which we live in? Yeah, I wonder why.
If you define "capitalism" as "the system under which we live" then ... well ... I'd suggest that your definition of "capitalism" is so overbroad that trying to discuss it with you would be fruitless.
I'd instead suggest that we just limit our discussion to "bogeymen" and in that case, I can agree with you that "bogeymen" are very bad indeed.
Yeah, and you blame everything on capitalism, so I'll take your opinions with a bucket of salt.
The regime interferes with the economy way too fucking much to call it capitalism.
I agree with libertarians very little, but this particular belief is obviously true, or at the very least the way the American regime influences the economy makes it less capitalistic. Airline bailouts, forcing citizens to buy healthcare products; many such cases. The government just paid billions in tax payers dollars to global mega corps and then tried to force us to take these "free" vaccines.
Now if we were talking about a theoretical government forcing an industry to stop making a harmful but highly profitable product then I would agree with that action (although it by definition would be making the system less capitalistic), but in almost all cases our actual government backs the harmful but highly profitable product up until the point where the harm can no longer be denied, which is worse than no interference at all.
If you define "capitalism" as "the system under which we live" then ... well ... I'd suggest that your definition of "capitalism" is so overbroad that trying to discuss it with you would be fruitless.
I'd instead suggest that we just limit our discussion to "bogeymen" and in that case, I can agree with you that "bogeymen" are very bad indeed.