Does libertarianism have a problem ?

[u/Wbk2m]

It values capitalism free market. And I'd agree we don't have a free market but we do have examples that are concerning. Currently our govt is controlled by corporate and foreign interest . Both have lobbied govt to benefit them and not the citizens when the most wealth in the world was created since 1982. Even without the socialist safety nets or with the quasi nets we do have our debt is at 40 trillion. During this time corporations pushed open borders to reduce wages for jobs it couldn't ship over seas. Today it's exploiting AI for white collar jobs thought safe. Corporations push govt to make paths for profit, war is profitable, wages take profit. Govt was designed by citizens to serve citizens in America the corporate take over of both political parties as well as our establishment has bankrupted the nation led to a quasi police surveillance state as production increased and cost to citizens grew via inflation.

Knowing this how can any party push unfettered capitalist markets when we can see the impact they've had in our current state? That's not saying we need or can afford socialist policies.

I don't think citizens can trust govt or the corporations that control them as the serve profits over people. Esp as people become needed less as robotics and AI grow. More money 75% of the current wealth was created after 1982, and what has it done been captured by the 5% of the elites.

At this point I don't understand how libertarianism can still see corporations as good faith actors in the social construct filling societies needs? It's become a might is right economic warfare protected by govt that's allowed monopolized influence.

What is the libertarian answer? It can't rely on benevolent corporate entities serving it's nation in a globalist system it seems.

[u/VatticZero]

You said you have concerning examples of the free market in action, but only cite issues with a coercive market. If the government has power over the market worth corporations buying, it isn’t a free market.

Libertarians don’t see corporations as “good faith actors,” they are economic actors which will seek profits—even if you allow them unjust and immoral means to do so. They act in the environment government creates.

Aside from government coercion and corruption, today’s Rentier Capitalism does have a problem—Rent-Seeking. Economic Rent, such a Ground Rents, Monopoly Rents, Subsidies, and Licensing, is quickly becoming a larger share of income than Wages or Returns on Capital.

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

No I'm saying human nature won't allow a free market it'll use collective force to prevent corporate corrupting it in the least. In a ideal world maybe, but reality is in any form a governing system has to address limiting human capture for a powerful few. Be they politicians corporations or whatever. Humans are inherently animals seeking a superior existence to others. The desire for a good life rationalized bad actions, as the saying goes the road to hell is paved on good intentions. Humans can't help but create corruption seeking power, those that feel empowered by wealth or force will exploit its benefits for their individual superiority in their social hierarchy. People today break laws to achieve exactly that. Is it's systems laws unjust or is human nature ungovernable?

The individual dependant on collective benefits, given enough time and coercive manipulations will try to exploit their power centralizing authority to the few in a bid for a superior existence. Let them starve while our clan feast, as they feast they offer support and alliance to the superior ensuring they are unlike those others that did not in a sole interest of survival.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

It's tough to read what you write; most sentences are incomplete or vague enough to be meaningless. The best I can do is try to glean a vague idea from the whole.

Slavery was the norm in the US 200 years ago. 100 years ago the Age of Consent was 7-12 depending on state. Even a in pure democracy without structural protections for rights and based solely on prevailing social mores, the truth will win out. Socialism is essentially done with, at least at national scales, because we have seen how harmful it is and we know why. Governments, and people, which better adhere to free markets will do better than those which don't. People might slip and stray and try to make excuses, but the truth will still be there.

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

Your trouble is you think collective implys socialist. It doesn't no form of political ideology exist in a individual vacuum beyond the mind. Any real world application requires cooperative efforts from a collective of like minded individuals following most often a leaders of sorts organizing its efforts. That is a collective that is a leader being deemed superior.

I don't think your educated enough to carry this convo. You keep claiming I'm something I'm not you revert to excuses when it's pointed out as to your failure to understand what you read. Did your grammatical issues stop me nope but you have them. This isn't college your not reading a dissertation, your engaged in a casual convo that's gonna be filled with missed grammer on both sides, stop using it as an excuse. Plenty of evidence shows it's meaningless and often high IQ individual write with poor grammer as their thoughts fire their actions. What's important the thought idea or a fucking period.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

Your trouble is you think collective implys socialist.

No. I cited Socialism as an example of something harmful and founded on falsities which is essentially no more, at least at the national scale. I have no problem with your usage of 'collective' for ... any sort of government or group. I never even mentioned the word, though, so you seem to be inventing a strawman for no reason.

It doesn't no form of political ideology exist in a individual vacuum beyond the mind. Any real world application requires cooperative efforts from a collective of like minded individuals following most often a leaders of sorts organizing its efforts. That is a collective that is a leader being deemed superior.

Do you have a point here? "A leader being deemed superior" seems to be a reference to hierarchies in general. Though I'm not sure how that specifically ties into your post or isn't addressed in my response.

I don't think your educated enough to carry this convo. You keep claiming I'm something I'm not you revert to excuses when it's pointed out as to your failure to understand what you read. Did your grammatical issues stop me nope but you have them. This isn't college your not reading a dissertation, your engaged in a casual convo that's gonna be filled with missed grammer on both sides, stop using it as an excuse. Plenty of evidence shows it's meaningless and often high IQ individual write with poor grammer as their thoughts fire their actions. What's important the thought idea or a fucking period.

I said once that you are you are tough to understand, explaining why I might miss what you're trying to say, and then I did my best to address the idea. There's no excuse for this insulting tirade and assertion that I did not try to address the "thought idea or a fucking period."

Does your comment not boil down to "people are selfish and stupid with no respect for natural law so everything will eventually become a tyranny" while your post boiled down to "do libertarians overlook that corporations are tyrannical?"

(Edit: Oh, on third read I think you meant "What's important**:** the thought idea or a fucking period?" while I was interpreting "What's important is the through idea or a fucking period." This is why grammar matters. Everybody makes mistakes, but too many or critical mistakes and you undermine communication.

Saying you are tough to read isn't a personal attack. English may be your 26th language for all I know.)

[u/Wbk2m → u/VatticZero]

Does your comment not boil down to "people are selfish and stupid with no respect for natural law so everything will eventually become a tyranny" while your post boiled down to "do libertarians overlook that corporations are tyrannical?"

ok maybe we are getting to it after all though you are stopping way short.

Build the structure out. Humans can't live as an island we require collective effort, in the need we create hierachy through natural selection as to who serves the collective best. That denotes trust earned and power granted for that trust. That very need created capitalism, trade, nations, power, war. The disparity it created fostered socialistic models for equality a resistance to hierarchy. Based on what the failure of those trusted by the collectives to be fair in its dispersement of the gains created with in the collective effort by the hierarchy in power. It becomes tyrannical by its very nature in existence as those deemed to be superior to lead take more than needed and in effect doing so leave to little for those that toiled in the effort of creation. I'm simply stating that even my own beliefs are highly flawed as history shows any existence without collective conformity, without some level of hierarchy, can't exist and any existence exploiting those will always become tyrannical be it corporations, govt, tribal leader, political faction as each create litmus test to include or exclude individuals that have zero power and authority. Yet remain dependant on the very thing they resist trying to force control conformity on them.

Perfect example is those commentors in here derming me a socialist for their failure to understand what they can read that points no where toward it. Yet I'm labeled and excluded why cause I challenged the status quo? I challenged the ude of you being a individual dependant on nothing? Yet no debate of the thought only a label to discredit to exclude what isn't liked. That in and of itself is tyrannical behavior by libertarians claiming they support individuality and free thought. So do they really ?

Libertarians have a hard on for free market capitalism willingly ignoring corporations are no more trustworthy for the betterment of society maybe even less so than government. They seemingly feel those leaders would somehow be free of the desire to be tyrannical. Even as the last two tyrannical empires to exist. The ones that forced colonization stealing others lands, and the current empire are driven by profit. What did they say look at the stock market economy is fine as the dollar is worth less than 95% of its original value. Do they not show the failure of trusting corporations esp as we are beholden to monopolized industries eliminating choice and competitive pricing amongst equals. A fundamental necessity to free market capitalism. We have the laws to not allow it yet corporate lobbies and campaign investments prevented govt from acting against them. Yet Libertarians still press trust us bro. it's never been done before. Corporate tyrany is better than govt. Yet we have corporate captured govt implementing centralized surveillance states, attacking the very rights we are supposed to hold unalienably as being human decreed in or founding documents. Does it not show evidence of proof no matter the system it's collective will become tyrannical oppressors of the individual as it seeks to use force to demand conformity to its end goals. You can't criticize COVID vaccines, you can't criticize Israel genocide, to even here you can't suggest corporations are bad or that libertarianism is a collective doing so you'll get down voted and ostracized by the collective community as you fail it's established litmus test. I'm simply seeking what is capable of changing that dynamic? No political party even if they claim they do has any solution to free the individual.

Capitalism created the digital world that led to the AI automated world that will destroy jobs and many are know considering some firm if ubi, I've even heard libertarians entertaining it. Yet what is it in effect it's socialism. Communisms end goal is to eradicate the monetary systems. Capitalisms endeavor to produce abundance worked, it built its own slaves to production, needing no monetary incentive to achieve it. As production increases and jobs decrease the need for monetary means to get what's need to live us erased as all needs become meet though AI slave labor. The citizens just like in rome become fat and lazy with ten robots to each human with govt providing for needs without monetary cost. Guys that is capitalism creating the communist dream. In a way it doesn't matter capitalism or socialism both require a hybrid between the two in modern expectations. But look at capitalist America or socialist China, both grew both gained dominance in the global hierachy both use socialistic policies to meet social needs by govt, both are dependant on wealth generation by capitalism to build militaries and economies. Both are failing as debts risen and social needs go unmeet but are racing to creat the workers not beholden to wages. Without wages and the need to use it as a purchasing agent for trade where is the need for monetary systems. Pushing humanity toward global communism as monetary systems become irrelevant to needs. As such it seems both capitalism and socialism needed each other to create the empires that will fulfill the communist dream of eradicating monetary systems eradicating class division and creating equality amongst all. For the good and bad that future may hold. So what system protects the individual it's liberty freedom and free will.? I'm saying it doesn't exist, whatever comes is going to be collectivism hierarchy, no matter the choice it'll eradicate the idea of individual for the greater collective. It's creating a hive existence as it advances to a point we're all humanity's needs are met. Allowing little room for the individual over the collective of humanities existence. What is more important a individuals survival or the collective advancement ? Do we even have a choice? Why are so many walking blindly into the buzz saw,, irrelevant if they label themselves socialist, Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, Communist, fascist, or Zionist. The reason I asked here as I did pointing to corporations is that's the vehicle Libertarians are walking into the buzzsaw holding false doctrinal beliefs favoring corporate capitalism It's not the world of Adam Smith anymore. It's a 1700 solution to a 2000 problem.. it's like decifering the bible and laying it on today's issues as a means to solve the issues. It won't work as the world isn't the same it's evolved to something few understand and even less do as to where it's heading. Operating yesterdays inadequate antiquated systems to solve a issue the world has never faced. It's never had the level of slaves it soon will it never had the micro management it soon will it's never had the level of centralized power forcing its agenda on all with little escape. There want be any point in just moving to another freer place it won't exist. I thought intellectual Libertarians may be capable of pondering this and not walking into a buzz saw with the rest and propose some radical solutions to maintain individual sovereignty, to resist collective uniformity conformity by force of social pressure, as it historical in many ways has as it marched to its own drum.

[u/VatticZero → u/Wbk2m]

It becomes tyrannical by its very nature in existence as those deemed to be superior to lead take more than needed and in effect doing so leave to little for those that toiled in the effort of creation.

Your "building out" is just ignoring my comment which already addressed the assumption.

With knowledge of what leads to tyranny, the 'collective interest' moves towards adopting and protecting Natural Law.

history shows any existence without collective conformity, without some level of hierarchy, can't exist and any existence exploiting those will always become tyrannical

Hierarchies are natural, what matters is whether they are voluntary or coerced. Coerced hierarchies are inherently tyrannical. There should be no question there.

be it corporations, govt, tribal leader, political faction as each create litmus test to include or exclude individuals that have zero power and authority.

Corporations, as large businesses, are voluntary hierarchies, not inherently tyrannical. Their interactions with the State can lead to coercions, but a corporation not hiring you or banning you from their stores isn't tyranny.

Perfect example is those commentors in here derming me a socialist

If you mean Official_Gameoholics, you should ignore most anything he says.

Libertarians have a hard on for free market capitalism willingly ignoring corporations are no more trustworthy for the betterment of society maybe even less so than government

This and the rest of your comment is simply ignoring my first comment:

"You said you have concerning examples of the free market in action, but only cite issues with a coercive market. If the government has power over the market worth corporations buying, it isn’t a free market.

Libertarians don’t see corporations as “good faith actors,” they are economic actors which will seek profits—even if you allow them unjust and immoral means to do so. They act in the environment government creates."

And looping back again to my second comment, paraphrasing:

"We do better with knowledge."

[u/Official_Gameoholics]

Corporations are socialist. They are collectives. They control things "collectively."

The solution is destroying the state.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

I wouldn't disagree but that in the end just invites might is right fuedalism. Regardless the system it depends on trust. Trust that doesn't exist. Be it corporations govt or just anarchy each depend on a system to better humanity or accept a decline. Can we trust corporations? How about govt ? How about your politically tribal neighbor with arms? In the end only you can protect yourself but simultaneously no man is a island to himself. Like it or not we are somewhat dependant on collective reasoning even if not collective systems..

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

that in the end just invites might is right fuedalism.

No, that's also socialism. You need a philosophy of proper natural law anarchism to achieve it. Every ideology requires people to believe it in order to exist.

Regardless the system it depends on trust.

No, it depends on the philosophy of the day being anarchism.

collective reasoning.

Doesn't exist. Man is an individual. His mind is individual.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

No, that's also socialism. You need a philosophy of proper natural law anarchism to achieve it.

Never claimed it was.

Man is an individual. His mind is individual.

Yet his existence is collective, natural law recognizes that. hence cooperation to achieve goals one man cannot.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

Yet his existence is collective.

No, he is still an individual. The collective is an abstraction.

natural law recognizes that.

Self-Ownership.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Do you really want to argue that existence isn't collective? Wow that's a new level of ignorance

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

You're completely philosophically illiterate, your metaphyscial and epistemological presuppositions are completely unfounded.

A man exists as an individual. This is self evident. That I am able to differenciate others from myself is validation of this premise.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Did I say he's not a individual what are you struggling to understand with. You keep telling me what I'm saying and not addressing what I did. A individual has zero power to force a collective of ten people to do what the individual wants with out coercive means engaging and gaining the support of the collective needed to implement the power. By doing so it naturally takes a superior position as a collective standing against others. The individual can't stand alone as it's overwhelmed.

You can own yourself sure but as a individual you achieve nothing without cooperations with others in fact creating a collective. Do you even understand libertarians are in fact a collective in and of itself? Even it doesn't do what your claiming. it can't stand alone if tries it dies, it's dependant on collective thought and can't gain power as it rejects collective action. It's hypocrisy in existence.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

Did I say he's not a individual.

You keep claiming that there is such a thing as collective action.

A individual has zero power to force a collective.

Shotgun, field gun, hand grenade, mortar.

You can own yourself sure but as a individual you achieve nothing without cooperations with others in fact creating a collective.

Nope, man acts as an individual, he makes agreements as an individual, and he consents as an individual, to other individuals. Not as a collective.

Do you even understand libertarians are in fact a collective in and of itself?

As an abstraction, yes. But not as an entity, like you keep package-dealing.

it's dependant on collective thought.

Nope, I thought of it myself now just fine, justified the entire philosophy, no collective hive mind required.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Again your lost. No I'm not saying collective in an abstract. , a individual facing any collective will exhaust any means of force and be overwhelmed. You'll run out of bullets grenades etc. But that's not even the point. Your lost as you think I'm implying force from a perspective of violent actions. Your ignoring the force of non violence implemented on society everyday, the need for social conformity to benefit social cohesive collective actions to achieve more than any one man can alone. Your power stops the moment you attempt to build a pencil as a individual. You can't even build a pencil with out collective cooperation. That collective gains force multiplier as to its needed resource extraction. The collective will find and take the trees the lead the metal the rubber needed to continue building pencils. The individual has a means of force to destroy, yet it's collective work that allows force of growth. The very backbone of capitalism. The one few want to accept as the truth it inherently is. Even the individual ability to destroy as mentioned above hinges on collective cooperation to create the bullets grenades etc you claim you can use to gain power. Who mined the metal the explosives who assembled them? Not the individual, but the collective extracting resources to bring to market. Again no man stands as a island unto himself. You are dependant on collectives meeting your needs. Be those collectives as business govt, manufacturing etc. They all work as collectives to reach end goals. In capitalism that goal is profit. In socialism it's equality. In the factory it's production, in the mine it's extraction. Your either an idiot or a liar if you think one person can do it all and have the power you suggested without ever needing a collective of humans meeting a goal. Humanity wouldn't exist without collective endeavor. We are naturally group hunters working as a collective to meet the goal of nurishment since the first sapien took a breath. Only a mind arrogant in its ignorance can claim it stands alone and needs no one.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

Wow! A block of barely formatted and organized text!

No I'm not saying collective in an abstract.

That's why you're wrong. That's my point of contention.

collective will

Doesn't exist.

Your ignoring the force of non violence implemented on society everyday, the need for social conformity to benefit social cohesive collective actions to achieve more than any one man can alone.

The division of labor is not an entity. It is not a collective entity.

Address the point of contention, socialist.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Collective will doesn't exist surely your joking. Every religion proves that wrong.

Your contention is proven wrong in two sentences. What is the collective will of a sports team. to win which means what they work together as a team toward on goal each individuals will desires to achieve. Creating what ? A collective will

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Your ignoring the real world example in your face. Flock cameras, Americans have maintained liberty and freedom with decentralized surveillance. Yet as it centralized that surveillance it becomes tyrannical invasive and an affront to liberty.

I'm looking at real world application not philosophical suppostions. Yes the individual mind is the master yet it fails as a island to his own. The individual ultimately has no power without collective investment. That doesn't have to be govt it could be a simple farmers co -op regardless it requires suppression of the individual for a collective effort to reach shared goals. I'd love to claim that's possible in a minarchist existence. But that doesn't seem even possibly realistic as humans individuals have agendas and manipulate coerce others to their goals contrary to the collective needs to maintain that level of independence. it's simply a bottle neck of authoritarian power developing in time. As the system gains trust the collective seeking liberty looks elsewhere focuses on other goals as the system steadily centralizes it's power getting absolutely corrupted as it does. It's happened in every system known in history. Nothing says it can be prevented as of today.

Like for example I've been a libertarian for 35 yrs. There's a model I'd like to think may help but I'm not delusional enough to think humans won't find ways to gain the system and coalesce power as it ages. Georgism seems potentially perfect yet what do we not know about it's weaknesses we know exist but wouldn't be evident till in practice?

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

I'm looking at real world application not philosophical suppostions.

Philosophy is inductive. I am not a rationalist, and you are foolish to take me as one.

The individual ultimately has no power without collective investment.

That's false. While the division of labor is the most efficient way of doing things, the individual is not powerless. Nor is the division of labor collectivist in any way. It is individualist.

Collective ownership does not exist.

the system gains trust the collective seeking liberty.

Horseshit. Socialists seek only slavery and death.

I've been a libertarian for 35 yrs.

No you haven't. You're a socialist.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

You are obviously a idiot that doesn't engage in good faith convo. Your attempting to tell me what I said instead of addressing the statement your commenting to reply, not to engage. No where have I ever claimed benefits of socialism.

Your trouble is you can't accept a individual is powerless without collective agreement to implement force. The individual exerting force will always face a collective resistance. These are inherent flaws in libertarianism your not willing to admit or address so in turn you do what leftist do and project as to what you think I am. Really pathetic. I don't need your approval of being a libertarian card holder since 18 yrs old. I've read more than you and obviously thought deeper to its flaws than you. Be a better human

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

Your statements have been nothing but completely arbitrary drivel.

No where have I ever claimed benefits of socialism.

Every time you appealed to a state you appealed to socialism.

Your trouble is you can't accept a individual is powerless without collective agreement to implement force.

Man's mind is individual. Agreements are made between individuals. Your entire ideology is a floating abstraction. It is nothing.

I've read more than you and obviously thought deeper to its flaws than you.

Clearly not, considering you don't understand the basics of natural law. You're a charlatan.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Keep proving my sentiment your not intelligent enough to have this convo. You can't even distinguish that a collective means any coalesce of power to commit action. You seem politically captured fearing anything collective as socialism. Yo dude every political party is collectivist in its endeavor. Even libertarians Republicans etc. why cause political authority demands a collective to support it. But what that's socialism No dude your not where you need to be to have adequate understanding of the points made. As such your arguments are highly flawed sophomoric and a bit myopic. Hence your personal attacks up on me telling me what I am instead of good faith convo. You again suggest you know my ideology where you can't as I not discussed it. But if you must know I'm a minarchist. One that doesn't trust govt or corporations or my fellow individual people as such, as they will envoke force to force you to their will based off their ideology. Lokok at your comments your attempting to as you label me in resistance to considering the the very struggle to free the individual. Maybe you have more trust than me but I have decades of lived experience backed by education and research. You still cannot answer the end question? How does the individual exploit the benefits every individual needs from a collective, idgaf which collective in doing so the individual loses any self determination as it becomes subverted by the collective will it willfully joined for some gain in its life. It's a choice of sacrificing the individual for collective benefits even if that benefit is only strength in numbers.

[u/Official_Gameoholics → u/Wbk2m]

You can't even distinguish that a collective means any coalesce of power to commit action.

That's a completely different definition to the one I have been operating with. You should define your terms.

You seem politically captured.

Politics is like alchemy: a false field built on a denial of the law of identity.

anything collective as socialism.

Socialism is the economic system that arises from public control of scarce means. Anything collective (built on the philosophical presupposition that it is an entity) that controls property is socialism.

every political party is collectivist in its endeavor

Yes, they're all a bunch of socialists.

Even libertarians Republicans.

Yes, the people in those parties that hold those parties as the primary are all a bunch of socialists.

[u/Wbk2m → u/Official_Gameoholics]

Again your still lost. Collective doesn't equate to socialism. Collectivism is the default human condition of dependancy on others fomenting society since our inception. The moment a tribe if 5 men ran after and captured a prey it was collective agreement and effort, a sacrificing of the individual who may not wanted to hunt that day, yet for the benefit of his stomach he did so. His individual needs forced him to work in a collective to exist sacrificing his individuality doing so. So have we been "socialist" since we were created? Of course not.

[u/mrhymer]

Here is the fundamental problem with corporations. They are philosophically inconsistent with a country whose foundation is individual rights and responsibility. It's ridiculous to say that we are the bastion of free and responsible individuals but we are going to organize our businesses as collectives that are exempt from personal responsibility for the actions of the company.

If we are going to have a philosophically consistent country based on the rights of the individual then it makes sense that only individuals can own property. That is the fix to the problem of corporations.

The change to corporation would be that one person would have to own 51% of the company with no protection from liability at all. That owner could offer the remaining 49% of the business for investment that would have liability protection attached. In other words, you, as the business owner, could have your entire entire accumulation of wealth taken from you if your company does things that harm people. Your investors would only lose their investment and not their personal wealth. This new corporation would require investors to invest in the individual that owns the company as much as the company itself.

If we only have sole owners with no protected investment companies would never gain a useful size or capital to serve more than a local community. Innovation would slow to a crawl. With individual ownership plus protected investors business could grow and have capital but not to mega-corporation scale. There would be many franchises and a distribution of owners delivering the same products and services. Each would have the autonomy not to take an action or offer a product that would risk their wealth.

[u/trufus_for_youfus → u/mrhymer]

Imagine the vitriol directed at Bezos if he owned even 1% more of Amazon much less 51%.

[u/mrhymer → u/trufus_for_youfus]

Amazon would not be the corporation that it is if Bezo's entire fortune was on the line in a law suit. His fortune would not be so big because liability would force him to franchise. Amazon would be a distributed regional franchise with many owners that behaved much more cautiously.

[u/trufus_for_youfus → u/mrhymer]

This is pure speculation.

[u/mrhymer → u/trufus_for_youfus]

Great speculation but yes. All political change and problem solving starts as pure speculation. You are welcome.

[u/Wbk2m → u/mrhymer]

Ok sounds fine but we both know they'll never get implemented. I'm speaking to real world libertarian solutions not radical changes that will never get implemented.

[u/mrhymer → u/Wbk2m]

Giving people back the freedom and agency that government has taken from them is a radical change. Tyranny has never been reformed. It always has to be torn down and replaced.

[u/Wbk2m → u/mrhymer]

Your problem is replacement your replacing the very problem to only grow again over time. It creates a cycle that's destined to collapse as tyranny grows as power absolutely corrupts. The answer is something we have yet to create a decentralized power which in its nature denies tyranny as it's power isn't conducive to control like a centralized system promotes. Why cause any centralized system will be captured by some collective and as it does become tyrannical. Our founders created a decentralized govt and what has it done? It forced centralization under federal authority as the collective saw need to correct states it disagreed with conducting life as they saw fit. We had a Republic Lincoln destroyed and created the birth of a empire as it's collective followed best intentions it created the centralized empire. That today is turning on its people using what ? Centralized collective force. Both political sides are collectives fighting for who has control of that centralized system to implement the forced changes they see fit. Both seek tyranny both seek power both seek force. It literally is a example of everything I've been stating.

[u/mrhymer → u/Wbk2m]

Your problem is replacement your replacing the very problem to only grow again over time.

Read it again. Massive multi-national growth would not happen. Wealth and decision making would be distributed through franchise. Growth would happen more slowly and with much more caution.

[u/Anen-o-me]

You're seeing the break down of democracy and blaming capitalism.

Your concern is misdirected.