The economy isn't a thing by itself, the economy is a bunch of people.

The question doesn't make sense.

The economy is a collection of scarce resources that people use. People are also inside of the economy, it's a group.

Indeed it is, but don't mix that up with the economy. "The people" in the question, are the economy.

No Razor, because the government isn't all people, it's one group within the society.

Everyone is in the economy to some extent, not everyone is in the government.

^

That does make a little more sense.

The market. Corporations are designed top down because they're meant to do really well for a while then die, if we build our economy at large that way then... well I don't need to explain why dying is bad, do I?

Bottom up systems last for a long time.

@The Big Oof
A nation is a group of ideas, people and culture. So it's just like the economy question, if people are a part of it, it doesn't make sense.

The people are a part of the economy, the people are part of the nation. They aren't the only thing in the economy/nation though.

If all people died would a nation still exist?

No, you're replacing the word "Government" with "Nation."

^

But a nation doesn't serve or disserve people, the government does that. The people and their culture are what makes up a nation.

No.

Because the question essentially amounts to: "Should people serve people."

The nation *is the people,* and their culture.

People forge nations, if it's not for people the nation wouldn't exist.

These questions all amount to: "Should people serve people, or should people serve people?"

Not really. The nation is a group of people and their culture. The economy is people attempting to use scarce resources.

They're both people. So asking who should serve who is asking "Should people serve people, or vice versa?"

The question is unanswerable and doesn't make any sense.

None. Let the free market deal with it.

Just calling my statement, "opinion", is not a rebuttal, but whatever.

Yes. If an industry is dying under market conditions it means that it doesn't need to exist anymore.

Fine.

Could I get specifics on that?

The invisible hand will always deal with it. I need a specific scenario.

When a company dies it'll be replaced, what's the issue?

Or dies and gets replaced.

The government never needs to touch the economy, it'll always sort itself out.

That's bad.

If something is failing in the market don't fix it, let it die, then the gap will be replaced by a newcomer.

Why does the government need to get involved?

It is.

If people undercut something then let whatever is dying, die.

So don't let the government get involved.

^

Don't let them.

I know this stuff happens, it just shouldn't.

Illegal for who? The company?

If a corporation asks the government for something, the government should say no.

Big tech can collect all they want if that's what is outlined in the ToS.

Companies are groups of people...

Terms of Service. If they weren't a binding contract why would they exist?

If it says, "WE WILL COLLECT YOUR DATA", then you agreed to it, knowingly or not.

It should.

You should be careful as to what contracts you sign.

Yes.

Yeah.

Just read your goddamn contract.

Duckduckgo.com

The implications of contracts not being binding are severe. You can't say that that's just too bad a contract for it to be binding.

Then why are you mocking them being binding?

If you agreed to it violating your rights then you made that decision. Contracts are important.

An NDA is technically violating your rights.

Free speech?

@The Big Oof
you need to look at this on the level of individual choice. These individuals all consented to it.

Stop Emoji-ing my comments. They're not an argument!

If you sign a contract it can override your rights. YOU MADE THAT CHOICE!

Nobody forced you to sign a contract.

How do you sign a None Disclosure Agreement if a contract can't override your rights?

Just stating that isn't an argument.

Yes. The signer does know, and you should because you should be reading your contracts!

Then hire a lawyer to read it, or don't sign.

Not if you know the implications of the contract you sign in using it.

Then you can't use youtube, if it says that in the contract.

Stop restating that this fact on how society works is bad.

Not under market conditions.

Find me one big company that hasn't received government assistance.

Social media platforms are a market entity.

The government should get out of bed. If it did that then these governments wouldn't grow to the point of unavoidability.

Much free markets.

You have a justification for that?

Stop mocking me and make an argument

What was the argument?

Stop using emojis and mocking me in an argument over politics!

Sure.

To protect the four civil liberties of Life, Liberty, Health and Property.

Those are bad.

Actually, no.

That depends on who owns the building.

Or public place.

Okay.

Why?

Nationalism is great, I agree, but I think if we strip this country of all social programs and removed the corrupt incentives for third worlders to come here, we could open the borders.

Until then, it's necessary for the borders to remain close, which I think is an unjust usage of government.

Well. Hit me with a program, let's go down the list.

Tax benefits should not exist to anyone. 15% tax rate for each person.

People can pay for that with their own money.

Government funded fun? That should happen never.

You can use your own money.

Going to the movies?

I'll be back in 10 minutes.

Back.

As I was saying, going to the movies on taxpayer money is stupid.

If you make money on the market you can pay yourself.

Wasn't it gov funded?