@MaxwellsAttourney regulation has been continuously increasing, there is no moment where deregulation occurred unless you want to go back to the 19th century
Don't worry Comrades. Capitalism will murder itself when natural selection has chosen the most fit kings of capital to create the inevitable global finance capitalist USSR. One culture, one religion, one global prole farm by and for the bourgeoisie. That's what Marx meant when he predicted how capitalism will "dig its own grave." The bourgeoisie and their government friends laugh at how stupid the proles are. LoL.
Failure of a business is not market failure. It's the failure of the business.
The market in turn provides the method for which new business opportunity arises from the failure of bad business. Government intervention simply stops one aspect of a market while allowing the other to continue, of course at the expense of citizens. The crisis are created by huge unbalances formed by government intervention. Abolish Government in market, not market itself.
@Papi1304 market is a social construct, it doesn't exist. what does exist is people fighting for as much profit as possible. take government (the law) out of it, and you simply get more crime. there's no profitability in ethical behavior. profit itself is unethical and economically unnecessary.
@johnniefive80 You must be smoking some really high-grade bush if you can muster up the courage to say that profit-making is never ethical. Profit is the result of value added to society, unless it is being manipulated or stimulated by government in any form. If we are talking about the latter, that is not capitalism.
He says that he in someways is a marxist because capitalism must have a end...but he dont want us to get over it? Just have a peaceful critial discussion and everything will magicly become a new economic system?
Zizek is always like these, he talks like a liberal "on the one hand, on the other hand" he does not get anywhere, but he uses marxist language and talk to the left. That makes him more of a reactionary then revolutionary person in my viewpoint.
wow @Jonathanaconway.... hilarious that a Randian watches Zizek and then dismisses his ideas, claiming them to be "misguided"... let me key you into something man: no serious intellectual in the world takes Randian Capitalism seriously. The notion that you can seperate capitalism from centralized states with power over individuals is absurd. There are more anarchist communes functioning today than there are Atlas-Shrugged-esque hideaways.
@jonathanaconway The comment length restriction is *so* annoying.
text-upload(DOT)com/read.php?id=210837&c=8695257
I should add that to me, the possibility of a lawsuit implies a legislated prohibition on undesirable firm activity, which is a large part of what I am defending. I doubt you will agree, but I believe the main point of departure in our thinking is a priority placed on procedural justice (in your case) versus distributive justice (in my case.)
He's a brilliant Hegelian, but he's 100% mistaken. None of what he describes is pure capitalism. State intervention is the negation of capitalism. What is in the process of self-destruction is the mixed economy, not capitalism.
@jonathanaconway There is no such thing as "pure" capitalism. He goes over this in some of his other interviews; it's only demagogues who maintain that a system would be better if only it were more pure. Just as we've seen with communists who claim that the system failed because it was too contaminated by capitalist elements, so capitalists claim that the system is failing due to state intervention.
@Orangey222 Having completed this video, I would add @jonathanaconway that I now seriously doubt that you (1) watched the whole thing or (2) understood what he was saying, as he explicitly addresses the point about the idea of "pure" capitalism. He says that capitalism could not function if not for state intervention; it would have "abolished" itself without it. Do you have any reason beyond blind faith to controvert what he's saying?
@Orangey222 State intervention and capitalism are logical opposites, since the essential meaning of capitalism is the system of private control and disposal of the means of production, and since such private control no longer exists once the state has interfered. So to say that capitalism depends on its opposite is a contradiction. Of course, this is no problem for Hegelians, who believe that the universe itself is contradictory. I, of course, reject Hegel's metaphysics in favor of Ayn Rand's.
@jonathanaconway Yes, yes. We all know the definitions. What Zizek is saying is simply that a system of true capitalism would in practice self-destruct. One need not be a Hegelian to make this argument; folks like Chomsky have been making it for decades.
@Orangey222 The failure of various mixtures of capitalism and statism are not sufficient evidence that pure capitalism would necessarily fail. The reason pure capitalism has not yet taken root is that its most vocal supporters have not defended it on moral grounds, though moral grounds do exist. Any social system will deteriorate and collapse if it cannot be defended in reason.
@jonathanaconway In a pure capitalist society, is currency private? By what authority are contracts enforced? Are democratically, locally-imposed zoning restrictions/labor laws state intervention? If an unregulated private entity increases revenue or reduces costs by creating a negative public externality, does a self-determining community have the right to demand compensation? I'm not attacking your position, but consider the objections before dismissing 'statism.'
@0caterpillar00 Good questions. Yes, currency is completely private and market-based (the fed was at least partly responsible for most recessions in the US). There are no zoning restrictions apart from what private individuals agree upon contractually. All roads, land, etc is privately owned. (Consider the terrible congestion in the many state-run highways). Negative externalities (e.g. pollution) are dealt with by voluntary boycott and/or law suit, if someone's rights were violated.
@0caterpillar00 You also have to consider, in your objections, the fact that a capitalist society wouldn't emerge overnight, but would result from a gradual movement toward capitalism, not just politically, but in the dominant ideology of society. As the government moved away from intervention and focussed on protecting rights, the market would fill the gap, and many voluntary institutions would take care of functions such as infrastructure, care for the poor and aged, consumer protection, etc.
@jonathanaconway Ok,. then waht you are trying to say is the following: millions (if not billions) brain amputated left wingers all around the world are followers of those "fake" COMMUNIST MASS MURDERES such as Castro, Che, Mao, Lenin, (even STalin sometimes), as they are wearing t-shirts with pictures of them,, waving the Mao-bible and constantly want to tell us how life is/was in Cuba, GDR, Mao-China, SU .... what a ROTTEN piece of BULLSHIT!!
@Orangey222 It's true that true capitalism has never existed in human history, but this doesn't invalidate the *concept* of pure capitalism. The concept is still real, and refers to a social system which could *potentially* arise, if the predominant intellectual trend toward increasing statism was reversed, and came to be replaced with a *principled* stand on individual rights.
@jonathanaconway This is exactly the opposite of what Zizek is saying, and frankly, I gather nothing from your response that would persuade me that he is wrong. Not that you have any responsibility to do so, but I find it odd that you're on a Zizek video evangelizing "true" capitalism when that's precisely what he criticizes as ideological and dogmatic.
@Orangey222 Why odd? I'm convinced that capitalism is the ideal social system and wish to spread my conviction. Zizek is a smart guy, it's a pity he used his mind to develop and spread the irrational and evil ideas of Hegel.
La solución sería hacer todo lo necesario, fuera esto lo que fuera, para acabar con la desigualdad, es decir: cambiar las leyes para poder desposeer, a todos aquellos que tengan más de 1.000.000 de euros, de lo que sobrepase dicha cantidad. >>
@Ganbertuli Tell me you're joking. It's the Left that takes advantage of cheap emotional appeals and ad hominem like "the rich are greedy". Your either delusional or disingenuous.
As for actual arguments, Bastiat and Bohm Bawerk have made their demolition of protectionist and Marxist doctrines respectively. Capitalists are not exploitative since wages are discounted from their "full value" due to the element of time. Workers want money now and don't want to wait for the potential proceeds.
@truevoice08 That isn't Leftism, that is Liberalism. And, BAH, Basitiat and Bohm Bawerk are laughable. All of their work is full of straw man bullshit half assed arguments. Marx wouldn't even spend a second wasting his time talking to those losers.
@HTCEVOSONGS LOL that was just classic leftist wave-of-the-hand dismissal of an argument. I'd ask you to show me your knowledge of Bastiat and Bohm Bawerk, but I know you were bluffing, you idiot!
@truevoice08 And that was a classic right wing attack of generalising the left wing because you're incomparable of thinking of about things in more complicated terms!
@ThisIsWater7 No, I judge leftists differently. Some are respectable like Jon Stewart who is just ignorant in economics. Then there's Thom Hartmann types who are WILLFULLY ignorant and self-righteously push their nihilistic agenda. The worst are the Micheal Moores of the world who hate civilization despite being rich and fat. Most leftists are just ambitious individuals who got indoctrinated in government schools and trapped in delusion. Which type are you?
@truevoice08 Trapped in delusion? I'd say the ones that are trapped in delusion are the right wingers who have spent the last few years thinking that if we just privatise more things cut more taxes that the current economic crisis will just magically work out and we'll live in a free market utopia. I'm the left winger thats read too much. The one that realises that the term "free market" is an ideological one, not a scientific one, no matter what its proponents claim.
@ThisIsWater7 "if we just privatise more things cut more taxes that the current economic crisis will just magically work out and we'll live in a free market utopia." I'd say only leftists are utopians. You can't accept the reality that there will always be economic inequality just as there is inequality in height and IQ. You whine because society is not built according to your specifications. As for privatization, do you know how much governments all over the world have grown and centralized?!?
@truevoice08 Considering Engels crushed the Austrian school as a whole (And after he died that Von MIses fucker just created more straw man arguments) I wouldn't take them seriously. Fools is what they are.
@HTCEVOSONGS "Considering Engels crushed the Austrian school as a whole" hahaha. You wish. The only reason Marxism is so popular is that it flatters the masses and gives them a secular theology. Economics, on the other hand, describes the world using a scientific methodology.
Of course, if Leftism were really logically coherent, you'd be making actual arguments rather than this childish muckraking so typical of the Left. I wish you sweet dreams., cause that's what Leftism is.
@truevoice08 yea leftism is just dreams and capitalism is "logically coherent". that's why the economy is in such a good state and there are no people homeless or unemployed!
@ollieeSkate 81,000 pages of regulations added to the federal register under Bush. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 90& of American children in government schools, massive expansions of the money supply under Greenspan and Bernanke. Government spending comprising 45% of total health care spending. Promotion of a "home-ownership society" through low lending standards and under Bush. -------> AND YET YOU SAY THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS LASSIEZ FAIRE CAPITALIST???
No one said it was laissez-faire, you dolt. The pipe dreams of people like you who are in power only aim at a laissez-faire system - the results would be 10 times more calamitous if it actually HAPPENED. It's just so damn easy to poke holes in your "arguments", because they ASSUME so much
@GnomesAmok "the results would be 10 times more calamitous if it actually HAPPENED"
Really now? Geez, I wonder how much worse it could get.
I could just say that interventions and the size of government have been increasing over the decades (under BOTH parties despite GOP free market rhetoric) and things have become worse but I guess you've already proven that leftists are impervious to facts.
@GnomesAmok Still in college. I moved to the Philippines to avoid further Marxist-Feminist indoctrination in American universities, not to mention the high cost and low quality of education in the US.
Very good point - the state serves as insurance that corporations will not fail. However, I think that without the state, corporations will form a cartel of large property holders, and they'll take government's place. The solution is to set a limit on how much property/power any organization of people can hold.
@MaxwellsAttourney Point to a moment in American history when regulation led to market stability.
Papi1304 1 month ago
@Papi1304 point to a moment in american history when capitalism lead to human stability
johnniefive80 3 weeks ago
@MaxwellsAttourney regulation has been continuously increasing, there is no moment where deregulation occurred unless you want to go back to the 19th century
zilbiol 1 month ago
Don't worry Comrades. Capitalism will murder itself when natural selection has chosen the most fit kings of capital to create the inevitable global finance capitalist USSR. One culture, one religion, one global prole farm by and for the bourgeoisie. That's what Marx meant when he predicted how capitalism will "dig its own grave." The bourgeoisie and their government friends laugh at how stupid the proles are. LoL.
PrimeConsciousness 1 month ago
Failure of a business is not market failure. It's the failure of the business.
The market in turn provides the method for which new business opportunity arises from the failure of bad business. Government intervention simply stops one aspect of a market while allowing the other to continue, of course at the expense of citizens. The crisis are created by huge unbalances formed by government intervention. Abolish Government in market, not market itself.
Papi1304 2 months ago
@Papi1304 The question is whether there is a connection between the failure of business and the way market structures business.
MalditoNihilista 1 month ago
@Papi1304 market is a social construct, it doesn't exist. what does exist is people fighting for as much profit as possible. take government (the law) out of it, and you simply get more crime. there's no profitability in ethical behavior. profit itself is unethical and economically unnecessary.
johnniefive80 3 weeks ago
@johnniefive80 You must be smoking some really high-grade bush if you can muster up the courage to say that profit-making is never ethical. Profit is the result of value added to society, unless it is being manipulated or stimulated by government in any form. If we are talking about the latter, that is not capitalism.
Papi1304 3 weeks ago
He says that he in someways is a marxist because capitalism must have a end...but he dont want us to get over it? Just have a peaceful critial discussion and everything will magicly become a new economic system?
Zizek is always like these, he talks like a liberal "on the one hand, on the other hand" he does not get anywhere, but he uses marxist language and talk to the left. That makes him more of a reactionary then revolutionary person in my viewpoint.
BlueFrog83 2 months ago
wow @Jonathanaconway.... hilarious that a Randian watches Zizek and then dismisses his ideas, claiming them to be "misguided"... let me key you into something man: no serious intellectual in the world takes Randian Capitalism seriously. The notion that you can seperate capitalism from centralized states with power over individuals is absurd. There are more anarchist communes functioning today than there are Atlas-Shrugged-esque hideaways.
AnarchoSyndica1ist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AnarchoSyndica1ist I was offereing 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros to whoeevr is able to explain how Marxist/communist ideas can be realised
WITHOUT ending in
1) TERROR, DICTATORSHIP, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM
2) POVERTY; FAMINES; IN-EFFICIENCY, but in PROSPERITY.
I wopuld even pay another 100.000, if anybody were able to point out to ONE example of where communism/leftist agenda ever worked.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
.... HM VERY VERY....REAL
MrCanphoto 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrCanphoto "Marx wrote about in the communist manifesto"
Dimwit, ALL THOSE COMMUNIST SHITHOLES are based on Marx:
1) Abolition of private property and entrepreneurship
2) Abolition of the free market
3) Collectivization/Planned eco
4) "classless" society/material "equality"
Thats what communists all around are/were actively trying to accomplish and this is the EXACT reason for all THOSE COMMUNIST NIGHTMARES!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@jonathanaconway The comment length restriction is *so* annoying.
text-upload(DOT)com/read.php?id=210837&c=8695257
I should add that to me, the possibility of a lawsuit implies a legislated prohibition on undesirable firm activity, which is a large part of what I am defending. I doubt you will agree, but I believe the main point of departure in our thinking is a priority placed on procedural justice (in your case) versus distributive justice (in my case.)
0caterpillar00 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0caterpillar00 I pay you 100.000 € if you are able to eplaine WITH ARGUMENTS how to persue comm8unist/socialist goals WITHOUT
1) POVERTY; FAMINES, INEFFICIENCY, but PROSPEROITY
2) TERROR; FORCE; DICTATORSHIPS; but FREEDOM
:-) :-)
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
He's a brilliant Hegelian, but he's 100% mistaken. None of what he describes is pure capitalism. State intervention is the negation of capitalism. What is in the process of self-destruction is the mixed economy, not capitalism.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway Its definetly pure capitalism, unless you want to ignore the reality of modern global capitalism.
Tougemaster06 3 months ago
@Tougemaster06 It's not pure capitalism. Governments are heavily involved in regulation, taxation, tariffs, etc.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway There is no such thing as "pure" capitalism. He goes over this in some of his other interviews; it's only demagogues who maintain that a system would be better if only it were more pure. Just as we've seen with communists who claim that the system failed because it was too contaminated by capitalist elements, so capitalists claim that the system is failing due to state intervention.
Orangey222 3 months ago
@Orangey222 Having completed this video, I would add @jonathanaconway that I now seriously doubt that you (1) watched the whole thing or (2) understood what he was saying, as he explicitly addresses the point about the idea of "pure" capitalism. He says that capitalism could not function if not for state intervention; it would have "abolished" itself without it. Do you have any reason beyond blind faith to controvert what he's saying?
Orangey222 3 months ago
@Orangey222 State intervention and capitalism are logical opposites, since the essential meaning of capitalism is the system of private control and disposal of the means of production, and since such private control no longer exists once the state has interfered. So to say that capitalism depends on its opposite is a contradiction. Of course, this is no problem for Hegelians, who believe that the universe itself is contradictory. I, of course, reject Hegel's metaphysics in favor of Ayn Rand's.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway Yes, yes. We all know the definitions. What Zizek is saying is simply that a system of true capitalism would in practice self-destruct. One need not be a Hegelian to make this argument; folks like Chomsky have been making it for decades.
Orangey222 3 months ago
@Orangey222 The failure of various mixtures of capitalism and statism are not sufficient evidence that pure capitalism would necessarily fail. The reason pure capitalism has not yet taken root is that its most vocal supporters have not defended it on moral grounds, though moral grounds do exist. Any social system will deteriorate and collapse if it cannot be defended in reason.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway In a pure capitalist society, is currency private? By what authority are contracts enforced? Are democratically, locally-imposed zoning restrictions/labor laws state intervention? If an unregulated private entity increases revenue or reduces costs by creating a negative public externality, does a self-determining community have the right to demand compensation? I'm not attacking your position, but consider the objections before dismissing 'statism.'
0caterpillar00 3 months ago
@0caterpillar00 Good questions. Yes, currency is completely private and market-based (the fed was at least partly responsible for most recessions in the US). There are no zoning restrictions apart from what private individuals agree upon contractually. All roads, land, etc is privately owned. (Consider the terrible congestion in the many state-run highways). Negative externalities (e.g. pollution) are dealt with by voluntary boycott and/or law suit, if someone's rights were violated.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@0caterpillar00 You also have to consider, in your objections, the fact that a capitalist society wouldn't emerge overnight, but would result from a gradual movement toward capitalism, not just politically, but in the dominant ideology of society. As the government moved away from intervention and focussed on protecting rights, the market would fill the gap, and many voluntary institutions would take care of functions such as infrastructure, care for the poor and aged, consumer protection, etc.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway
a typo in my link:
"consider how the continued success" should be "consider the continued success"
0caterpillar00 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonathanaconway Ok,. then waht you are trying to say is the following: millions (if not billions) brain amputated left wingers all around the world are followers of those "fake" COMMUNIST MASS MURDERES such as Castro, Che, Mao, Lenin, (even STalin sometimes), as they are wearing t-shirts with pictures of them,, waving the Mao-bible and constantly want to tell us how life is/was in Cuba, GDR, Mao-China, SU .... what a ROTTEN piece of BULLSHIT!!
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@0caterpillar00 I was offereing 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros to whoeevr is able to explain how Marxist/communist ideas can be realised
WITHOUT ending in
1) TERROR, DICTATORSHIP, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM
2) POVERTY; FAMINES; IN-EFFICIENCY, but in PROSPERITY.
I wopuld even pay another 100.000, if anybody were able to point out to ONE example of where communism/leftist agenda ever worked.
joaquinveyron 2 months ago
@Orangey222 It's true that true capitalism has never existed in human history, but this doesn't invalidate the *concept* of pure capitalism. The concept is still real, and refers to a social system which could *potentially* arise, if the predominant intellectual trend toward increasing statism was reversed, and came to be replaced with a *principled* stand on individual rights.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
@jonathanaconway This is exactly the opposite of what Zizek is saying, and frankly, I gather nothing from your response that would persuade me that he is wrong. Not that you have any responsibility to do so, but I find it odd that you're on a Zizek video evangelizing "true" capitalism when that's precisely what he criticizes as ideological and dogmatic.
Orangey222 3 months ago
@Orangey222 Why odd? I'm convinced that capitalism is the ideal social system and wish to spread my conviction. Zizek is a smart guy, it's a pity he used his mind to develop and spread the irrational and evil ideas of Hegel.
jonathanaconway 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jonathanaconway I was offereing 1.000.000 of my CAPITALISTIC euros to whoeevr is able to explain how Marxist/communist ideas can be realised
WITHOUT ending in
1) TERROR, DICTATORSHIP, UN-FREEDOM, but in FREEDOM
2) POVERTY; FAMINES; IN-EFFICIENCY, but in PROSPERITY.
I wopuld even pay another 100.000, if anybody were able to point out to ONE example of where communism/leftist agenda ever worked.
joaquinveyron 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
La solución sería hacer todo lo necesario, fuera esto lo que fuera, para acabar con la desigualdad, es decir: cambiar las leyes para poder desposeer, a todos aquellos que tengan más de 1.000.000 de euros, de lo que sobrepase dicha cantidad. >>
ANGEL369able 4 months ago
What a nutjob! He still hasn't grown out the Marxist-feminist indoctrination in his college years.
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 Ad hominem. Try instead to counter with arguments
Ganbertuli 4 months ago
@Ganbertuli Tell me you're joking. It's the Left that takes advantage of cheap emotional appeals and ad hominem like "the rich are greedy". Your either delusional or disingenuous.
As for actual arguments, Bastiat and Bohm Bawerk have made their demolition of protectionist and Marxist doctrines respectively. Capitalists are not exploitative since wages are discounted from their "full value" due to the element of time. Workers want money now and don't want to wait for the potential proceeds.
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 That isn't Leftism, that is Liberalism. And, BAH, Basitiat and Bohm Bawerk are laughable. All of their work is full of straw man bullshit half assed arguments. Marx wouldn't even spend a second wasting his time talking to those losers.
HTCEVOSONGS 4 months ago
@HTCEVOSONGS LOL that was just classic leftist wave-of-the-hand dismissal of an argument. I'd ask you to show me your knowledge of Bastiat and Bohm Bawerk, but I know you were bluffing, you idiot!
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 And that was a classic right wing attack of generalising the left wing because you're incomparable of thinking of about things in more complicated terms!
ThisIsWater7 4 months ago
@ThisIsWater7 No, I judge leftists differently. Some are respectable like Jon Stewart who is just ignorant in economics. Then there's Thom Hartmann types who are WILLFULLY ignorant and self-righteously push their nihilistic agenda. The worst are the Micheal Moores of the world who hate civilization despite being rich and fat. Most leftists are just ambitious individuals who got indoctrinated in government schools and trapped in delusion. Which type are you?
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 Trapped in delusion? I'd say the ones that are trapped in delusion are the right wingers who have spent the last few years thinking that if we just privatise more things cut more taxes that the current economic crisis will just magically work out and we'll live in a free market utopia. I'm the left winger thats read too much. The one that realises that the term "free market" is an ideological one, not a scientific one, no matter what its proponents claim.
ThisIsWater7 4 months ago
@ThisIsWater7 "if we just privatise more things cut more taxes that the current economic crisis will just magically work out and we'll live in a free market utopia." I'd say only leftists are utopians. You can't accept the reality that there will always be economic inequality just as there is inequality in height and IQ. You whine because society is not built according to your specifications. As for privatization, do you know how much governments all over the world have grown and centralized?!?
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 Considering Engels crushed the Austrian school as a whole (And after he died that Von MIses fucker just created more straw man arguments) I wouldn't take them seriously. Fools is what they are.
HTCEVOSONGS 4 months ago
@HTCEVOSONGS "Considering Engels crushed the Austrian school as a whole" hahaha. You wish. The only reason Marxism is so popular is that it flatters the masses and gives them a secular theology. Economics, on the other hand, describes the world using a scientific methodology.
Of course, if Leftism were really logically coherent, you'd be making actual arguments rather than this childish muckraking so typical of the Left. I wish you sweet dreams., cause that's what Leftism is.
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08 yea leftism is just dreams and capitalism is "logically coherent". that's why the economy is in such a good state and there are no people homeless or unemployed!
ollieeSkate 4 months ago
@ollieeSkate 81,000 pages of regulations added to the federal register under Bush. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, 90& of American children in government schools, massive expansions of the money supply under Greenspan and Bernanke. Government spending comprising 45% of total health care spending. Promotion of a "home-ownership society" through low lending standards and under Bush. -------> AND YET YOU SAY THE AMERICAN ECONOMY IS LASSIEZ FAIRE CAPITALIST???
YEAH KEEP DREAMING
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08
No one said it was laissez-faire, you dolt. The pipe dreams of people like you who are in power only aim at a laissez-faire system - the results would be 10 times more calamitous if it actually HAPPENED. It's just so damn easy to poke holes in your "arguments", because they ASSUME so much
GnomesAmok 4 months ago
@GnomesAmok "the results would be 10 times more calamitous if it actually HAPPENED"
Really now? Geez, I wonder how much worse it could get.
I could just say that interventions and the size of government have been increasing over the decades (under BOTH parties despite GOP free market rhetoric) and things have become worse but I guess you've already proven that leftists are impervious to facts.
Talk about making unfounded assumptions.
truevoice08 4 months ago
@truevoice08
And what do you do for a living exactly, suckle off family's rich teet?
GnomesAmok 4 months ago
@GnomesAmok Still in college. I moved to the Philippines to avoid further Marxist-Feminist indoctrination in American universities, not to mention the high cost and low quality of education in the US.
truevoice08 4 months ago
Very good point - the state serves as insurance that corporations will not fail. However, I think that without the state, corporations will form a cartel of large property holders, and they'll take government's place. The solution is to set a limit on how much property/power any organization of people can hold.
juujuuuujj 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I hope this animal dies soon.
BrettDunbar 7 months ago
Brilliant mind...Brilliant
jcptexas9 8 months ago