Either we believe that free market capitalism is best for our country, or we don't.
IF we were under actual free market capitalism, you would be correct. We aren't operating under that and haven't been for decades. Crony capitalism doesn't allow for the system to work appropriately because it does everything possible to prevent it. Combine that with a fascist system, where governments are working with the largest companies to decide things, and you have an even more broken system.
Remember the whole big deal about the various "barons" a century ago? We're dealing with that right now, with no one in government using the anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books to fix the problem, and that's only half the problems.
It's like conservatives enjoy sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring what's going on while expecting things to just "work." The system isn't working properly so ignoring that and expecting it to is foolish.
Well I would argue that the ideology at the root of communism rewards those who spy and snitch on their neighbors, and the more you can silence, the more you are rewarded. The promotion of the man who killed Parler to the CEO of perhaps the most powerful company on the planet seems to be sending a very clear message to the American people in regards to who will be allowed to thrive in this new administration. Communists in the US hide behind the freedom of capitalism to hide their actions and they have done so for decades. Time to call it out.
But that isn't communism, and I'd go as far as to argue that a private business, by definition, can't engage in 'communism'. Outside of protected classes, businesses are always going to limit who can use their services and what messages they're willing to provide a platform for. Either it's always ok to give them that freedom, or it's never ok.
We can't extoll the virtues of the capitalist paradise of the US and then get all pissy when a business says 'I think you're bad for my business so I'm not going to host you anymore'.
I'm not a lawyer - full disclosure - and my current opinion is only informed enough to say that I think there's a definite conversation to be had about updating antitrust, monopolization and other provisions - section 230 for example - to contend with our modern reality.
That said, those laws don't exist right now, and we can't complain that no one is doing anything about something that isn't illegal. I am probably in the minority in stating that I don't think the end all be all is unfettered capitalism, and that there is a place for sensible government rules and restrictions to prevent monopolies from forming.
I think you are misunderstanding my post. I have no issue with the actual decision to making this man the CEO of Amazon...it's Jeff Bezos's company, so he can do what he wants with it as long as it's lawful and legal.
What I DO have an issue with, is rewarding people who make drastic actions that erode the foundations of freedom and America itself. I also think the rules and boundaries have changed since the introduction of the internet and social media. Now that it is basically where we live our lives, public squares like Twitter and Facebook should not have the ability to choose who can talk and who cannot.
We also aren't dealing with a single company here. We are dealing with a united front of the most powerful tech companies on the planet, unelected bureaucrats/technocrats, and prominent politicians in incredible positions of power all over the world....all of whom have declared themselves to be the arbiters of truth and justice.
This Big Tech situation is unprecedented and should not be compared to previous monopolies and/or communist strategies. We cannot assume that they are just innocent mega-corporations trying to make money and sound business decisions. Their goals are much bigger than that.
Like, regardless of how I feel about it, it's not. It's the free market. This is a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' moment for the right.
Either we believe that free market capitalism is best for our country, or we don't.
IF we were under actual free market capitalism, you would be correct. We aren't operating under that and haven't been for decades. Crony capitalism doesn't allow for the system to work appropriately because it does everything possible to prevent it. Combine that with a fascist system, where governments are working with the largest companies to decide things, and you have an even more broken system.
Remember the whole big deal about the various "barons" a century ago? We're dealing with that right now, with no one in government using the anti-monopoly and anti-trust laws on the books to fix the problem, and that's only half the problems.
It's like conservatives enjoy sticking their heads in the sand and ignoring what's going on while expecting things to just "work." The system isn't working properly so ignoring that and expecting it to is foolish.
Well I would argue that the ideology at the root of communism rewards those who spy and snitch on their neighbors, and the more you can silence, the more you are rewarded. The promotion of the man who killed Parler to the CEO of perhaps the most powerful company on the planet seems to be sending a very clear message to the American people in regards to who will be allowed to thrive in this new administration. Communists in the US hide behind the freedom of capitalism to hide their actions and they have done so for decades. Time to call it out.
But that isn't communism, and I'd go as far as to argue that a private business, by definition, can't engage in 'communism'. Outside of protected classes, businesses are always going to limit who can use their services and what messages they're willing to provide a platform for. Either it's always ok to give them that freedom, or it's never ok.
We can't extoll the virtues of the capitalist paradise of the US and then get all pissy when a business says 'I think you're bad for my business so I'm not going to host you anymore'.
Just curious, what's your opinion on anti-trust laws and (specifically tech) monopolization?
I'm not a lawyer - full disclosure - and my current opinion is only informed enough to say that I think there's a definite conversation to be had about updating antitrust, monopolization and other provisions - section 230 for example - to contend with our modern reality.
That said, those laws don't exist right now, and we can't complain that no one is doing anything about something that isn't illegal. I am probably in the minority in stating that I don't think the end all be all is unfettered capitalism, and that there is a place for sensible government rules and restrictions to prevent monopolies from forming.
I think you are misunderstanding my post. I have no issue with the actual decision to making this man the CEO of Amazon...it's Jeff Bezos's company, so he can do what he wants with it as long as it's lawful and legal.
What I DO have an issue with, is rewarding people who make drastic actions that erode the foundations of freedom and America itself. I also think the rules and boundaries have changed since the introduction of the internet and social media. Now that it is basically where we live our lives, public squares like Twitter and Facebook should not have the ability to choose who can talk and who cannot.
We also aren't dealing with a single company here. We are dealing with a united front of the most powerful tech companies on the planet, unelected bureaucrats/technocrats, and prominent politicians in incredible positions of power all over the world....all of whom have declared themselves to be the arbiters of truth and justice.
This Big Tech situation is unprecedented and should not be compared to previous monopolies and/or communist strategies. We cannot assume that they are just innocent mega-corporations trying to make money and sound business decisions. Their goals are much bigger than that.