Right, I understand the libertarian/anarchist position. I just don't understand how we get to this ideal state. History has not panned out this way. Decreasing government spending on social welfare will get us more privatization and corporate oligarchy. You don't get to just pick the parts of government that you want to get rid of and go from there. I would love to get rid of the US military but it is an entrenched power base. It's just an untenable position in my opinion. What is step 1 of this process?
And who is supposed to fill the power vacuum in this scenario? We already have a government that is essentially a pawn of the corporate oligopoly. The only real power they weild is the ability to arbitrarily bomb anyone on the planet.
It has in the past and could again in the future. What is the alternative you are proposing? Less government intervention? More corporate autonomy?
I never said the current government protects us from corporations. We have a corporate oligarchy in the US. The point is that it could, and without it, things would be much worse.
And? I forgot what we're talking about. Neoliberal capitalism favors monopoly.
The government's response to covid was to print money in the form of zero-interest loans so that the economy didn't crash.
You're right, my life would be so much better if government stopped interfering with corporations' right to exercise monopoly power and wage theft. I wish government would just let them do their jobs properly and compel us into total debt bondage.
J.D. Vance, who will then become president and have himself crowned King of America. If you think I'm joking, look the guy up.
Him, along with the entire political class. Thanks, NYT.
Scientist here. I encourage everyone to use a shadow library like Scihub to break the stranglehold that Elsevier and Wiley have on the free availability of knowledge. These are financialized corporations that add nothing to society and leach off of scientists' hard work.
Was looking for this comment so I didn't have to type it out. It's never about winning for Democrats because then they'd have to actually do what they said they would. It's much more convenient to have the Republicans blocking everything they do while they're in power so they can then demonize them.
What I am wondering is among that uninformed voter base are there people who think "hmm, maybe I won't vote for the guy that somebody just tried to kill."