Words can have more than one meaning. Liberalism means one thing politically and another philosophically. Arguing it means only one thing is misleading and wrong.
They still believe in the concept of a free market and capitalism being good. What we’ve seen with attempts to regulate is either the companies ignore it because the fines are less than what it’d cost to follow the law, skirt around it in some way, or just buy up people to then strike it.
Companies still dump untreated waste water right into water ways even with regulation. I just see it an endless chase of the capitalists one step ahead at all times at least, often more because it takes time to draft regulation. Capitalism has only brought “prosperity” to a few from the continued exploitation of others. It still believes growth infinite in a closed system.
I think punishments of anything to that degree of bad should be immediate bankruptcy with a ban on holding any C suite position for the rest of your life or face that ban in prison. We’re not harsh enough on them, and so they feel like its not a problem even if they get caught.
No matter what, if you can buy and sell ownership as a shareholder, then you have a fundamental misalignment from the direct stakeholders of a firm. This is why I find unions and regulations to be band-aids.
A capitalist system is fundamentally misaligned and it will always work to undo those regulations with capital accumulation and regulatory capture. The only way to fix that is to require direct stakeholder ownership whether that be worker-consumer coöps, syndicates, public ownership, or what have you. The ownership and decision-making must needs be aligned with the people benefitting or who are otherwise impacted by the operations of a firm. That is Socialism and that is not the regulation bandaids that Liberalism trys to paste over Capitalism’s flaws and cracks.
You’ve seen attempts to regulate that are generally company-sponsored and ineffective in preventing the harms the regulations are intended to prevent. Or you’ve seen out and out corruption which buys democracy and breaks it. Liberalism, as I understand it (as a European) allows state ownership and a free market, in different goods and dependent upon conditions in that market, to prioritise people over capital
Yeah, Liberalism doesn’t align companies with their direct stakeholders at all and so any attempt to regulate will be under tension like trying to push two magnets together.
Liberal is shorthand for economically liberal aka free market capitalists, any other definition is wrong, fuck liberals
Words can have more than one meaning. Liberalism means one thing politically and another philosophically. Arguing it means only one thing is misleading and wrong.
But yes American liberals are not helpful at best
The classical definition is actually free markets with protection from harm, which is very different
The definition I’d go with is: “Anyone who is in favor of both free market capitalism and individual rights.”
Which, yeah, would be kind of neat if you could have both. But the former tends to erode the latter quite badly over time.
That’s called a classical liberal fyi
They still believe in the concept of a free market and capitalism being good. What we’ve seen with attempts to regulate is either the companies ignore it because the fines are less than what it’d cost to follow the law, skirt around it in some way, or just buy up people to then strike it.
Then you’re not regulating it properly are you?.. there are tons of regulations in play that do work.
Companies still dump untreated waste water right into water ways even with regulation. I just see it an endless chase of the capitalists one step ahead at all times at least, often more because it takes time to draft regulation. Capitalism has only brought “prosperity” to a few from the continued exploitation of others. It still believes growth infinite in a closed system.
I think punishments of anything to that degree of bad should be immediate bankruptcy with a ban on holding any C suite position for the rest of your life or face that ban in prison. We’re not harsh enough on them, and so they feel like its not a problem even if they get caught.
It will always be a fight of capital in politics that the c-suite would push to prevent this.
No matter what, if you can buy and sell ownership as a shareholder, then you have a fundamental misalignment from the direct stakeholders of a firm. This is why I find unions and regulations to be band-aids.
A capitalist system is fundamentally misaligned and it will always work to undo those regulations with capital accumulation and regulatory capture. The only way to fix that is to require direct stakeholder ownership whether that be worker-consumer coöps, syndicates, public ownership, or what have you. The ownership and decision-making must needs be aligned with the people benefitting or who are otherwise impacted by the operations of a firm. That is Socialism and that is not the regulation bandaids that Liberalism trys to paste over Capitalism’s flaws and cracks.
You’ve seen attempts to regulate that are generally company-sponsored and ineffective in preventing the harms the regulations are intended to prevent. Or you’ve seen out and out corruption which buys democracy and breaks it. Liberalism, as I understand it (as a European) allows state ownership and a free market, in different goods and dependent upon conditions in that market, to prioritise people over capital
Yeah, Liberalism doesn’t align companies with their direct stakeholders at all and so any attempt to regulate will be under tension like trying to push two magnets together.
If the market involve buying and selling shares, then that is still capitalism, just with social safety nets.
Great! Welcome to now