465
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2025
465 points (99.6% liked)
Technology
74055 readers
3059 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When I read your message, I get the impression that you think of "The Government" as this independent actor. I see it as a system that is primarily controlled by wealthy people. Either directly or through their funding advertisements (including astroturfing/bot-farms) to promote what they want.
So the larger companies do get government assistance... because they are the government. And this isn't some kind of weird coincidence. It's fundamental to capitalism's operation. You can't have a system that's based on capital and then have it be unbiased towards entities who have vastly more capital!
It's odd that you think it's fundamental to capitalism when it's exactly the opposite. True capitalism is an unfettered marketplace.
What we have now is a system here the profits are private, but the losses are socialized.
You may think that's an effect of capitalism, but it most definitely is not.
You are conflating a system of governance with a system of economics. And I get it, because in a controlled economy, the government is usually the one doing the controlling.
What we have is something in the middle, taking the worst aspects of truly free-market capitalism, and marrying it with the worst aspects of a controlled economy.
Our government the picks winners in this setup we have. Instead of letting the market decide.
Your issue is that you see all the things this half-breed, partially-socialist economy gives us, and you blame it on the market. But the market didn't get us here.
History tells me what will happen if we finally give in, and give total control of the economy over to the politicians. And I do not want that for my children, or their children.
In an unfettered marketplace, what stops a dominant player from introducing fetters?
Competition.
Without force, how can they stop a small player from offering a competitive option?
Whoah, whoah. Why'd you rule that out?
Your business plan: quality goods at reasonable prices. My business plan: hire some goons to kill you and take your stuff.
Historically, this has a lot of precedence.
Because I'm not an anarchist. There is a role for government in maintaining its monopoly on the use of force.
But nothing else.
OK, cool. That definitely helps things.
I think where we're disagreeing is that I think in a capitalist society the promise of money will inevitably corrupt the government (because it's made of people). Maybe it can be avoided if the government performs additional regulatory action to stop anyone from getting too wealthy, but that sounds like beyond the limits that you want to set for government.
There's no need for the government to prevent people from becoming wealthy.
The only ways to become that wealthy all involve monopolies.
But every single monopoly that has ever existed, has only managed to become a monopoly due to help from allies in government. AKA Regulatory Capture.
When governments are large, and filled with bureaucrats that aren't answerable to the public, monopolies are far more likely to emerge, as those same bureaucrats enact more and more regulations that make entering the market more and more difficult for those of modest to little means.