and as someone mentioned, it would help people making hitpieces I guess

Take the good with the bad

In reality it should be 3d to account for "I did this" vs "This happened to me"

A lot of modern Republicans are very close to the center, what we are seeing is the "Left" and the "Liberal Progressives" as they call themselves moving further and further to the left and higher and higher into the Authoritarian spectrum. "Intersectionality" at this point is easily confused with the dogma exposed in Mien Komf.

@Khanclansith I find myself agreeing with many of his comments about sloppy questions, it is why I don't think my compass is exactly right, I usually come down in the "Right Libertarian" a bit too far right than I think I am because i am answering some questions "The closest of two things I don't really agree with"

To be honest, I just don't entirely understand the 'right' spectrum of economic policies. Corporations have shown time and again they are willing to conspire and twist the system in spite of the desires of the public market.

left and right are both economically resource focused, the right is from the perspective of the individual and what he can earn, the left is from the collective and what they deserve.

I think you'd find that very few people actually argue for unregulated markets.
But that also doesn't mean your first reaction to everything should be regulation.

i think theres far to many people arguing for unregulated markets. often either people on the right who are brainwashed into following the free market at any cost or people on the left who use threats to corporations in order to strong arm ideology in a global market dominated world

Free markets is the best regulatory policy.

Especially a free market in government, or at least in money.

free markets arnt the best regulatory policy, we can see clearly that many of the problems we are having right now are due to the free market. in a free market the idea is that people can vote with their wallet, however if the country itself cannot unite against any common threat, meaning that any choice that corporations make that disadvantages one group in society is proportionally supported by another group in society who are against those that the corporation are disadvantaging, voting with your wallet doesn't work, because democracy has also failed at the same time.

one would think that corporations would want to sell as much of their product as possible and thus would treat everyone equally however this fails to address several issues that equate to a different result when they are factored in

1: people are not all the same: some people within an economic environment are going to be more aggressive by default than others because of natural levels of ambition that are associated with ideological positions, people who think thing A are more prone to also think thing B, but people who think things C are less likely to think either. this is why you see the left in the west able to push corporations to discriminate against an unprotected group of people who they disagree with ideologically who also wont stoop to the same tactics.

2: different people are attracted to thinks disproportionately: the left got to the internet first, and while the right has been surging in recent years, the left had the first stronghold, this means its quite possible the left have more people using the product than the right do, thus corporations have more incentive to favor the left with the choice making for the product than they do the right who not only are probably less numerous but are also being driven from the product at the same time meaning even less exist now or the future

3: monopoly: an opposite to point 2 is that some products only exist because of one big corporation and are difficult to find and use. thus the corporation can mistreat its consumers as much as it wants without any threat of its consumers voting with their wallets, because they actually cant, and in a true free market there's no way to regulate a monopoly nor is there any incentive for the free market to not form a monopoly most often from the pioneers of a new industry.

a corporation will act as a government when there is no government to act as a government, everything bad about corporations is when a corporation acts like a government, everything bad about a government is when it trys to act like a corporation. people you buy your food to and people you pay taxes to should never be the same people regardless of how you managed to get to that point.

and if you think taxes wont exist without government, then what is rent?

Rent is not theft. Social contracts are invalid. There is no problem of monopoly in a free market.

Are you saying in a free market, a monopoly cannot exist, or a monopoly causes no problems in a free market?

if you type halfthink's name into the search on this server i think youll find your answer, also his name is a hint

@Bookworm depends how you define monopoly.

If you define it in a way that it is possible to exist in a free market, then they are not a problem in a free market.

A free market requires no state, though. That doesn't mean no government, just no institution having a monopoly on the provision of government services.

If the government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, private property does not exist, except unless you count everything as the private property of the state.

In a statist society, it would make more sense to call property rights property privileges instead.

```free markets arnt the best regulatory policy, we can see clearly that many of the problems we are having right now are due to the free market. in a free market the idea is that people can vote with their wallet, however if the country itself cannot unite against any common threat, meaning that any choice that corporations make that disadvantages one group in society is proportionally supported by another group in society who are against those that the corporation are disadvantaging, voting with your wallet doesn't work, because democracy has also failed at the same time```

Exactly!
You have to see the "free Market" as a game, either a sports game or a computer game.
both show that you need to have some clear rules for it to work well. And if you don't have rules and enforce them, you have people who don't give a shit and at worst kill the opponent to "win the game".

Its the same with the Market. You need to have rules and enforce them hard....

but here is the real Problem: We can't judge Companys with the presumption of innocence. You see that with the Paypal and Subscribestar shit. That looks like Collusion with Patreon. In this case it is better to have them prove that they are innocent and didn't work with Patreon to get rid of a competitor.

Either way, Paypal should be fined as should Patreon in this case because it looks like a Cartel that doesn't allow competition...

I agree

How can the problems that exist now be blamed on a system that isn't what's being implemented?

Because the System how it is right now is exploited hard by the Companys.

@Stefan Payne guilty until proven innocent then?

isn't this already here ? #metoo

*>In this case it is better to have them prove that they are innocent and didn't work with Patreon to get rid of a competitor.*

If there is reason to think that there is some shit going on.

you need to be mean to billion dollar companys

You need to be mean to government. End the fed.

isn't that how the IRS handles it?

The existence of the IRS is Treason.

It is necessary

Necessary for what?

Theft?

So you want Mexico or Canada to come in and take your shit?

Does not follow.