oh ok then

not corporatism 😳

I would argue that what is morally good is non-aggression and the state is an inherently aggressive institution. Massive corporations/monopolies are created by the government. Capitalism allows the people to really vote (as tired as the expression is, I think it still reigns true) with their dollar. The will of the people will find its way. Capitalism is all about serving, which is what the community welfare is all about. There is no profit without service. The greatest profits are made by those companies who serve those of the community the best. Capitalism inherently promotes this. Capitalism is what creates wealth, etc

Capitalism doesn't inherently promote the common welfare it's a system focused on personal gain

If you want to see how monopolies are formed a good thing to look at is the industrial revolution

in a time where the government sent in troops to stop union workers on strikes. The government barely intervened in the economy compared to something like today and these monopolies that removed smaller businesses were forming

What you seem to be promoting is a message but you don't have the backing for it

like when you say massive corporations are formed by the government and that Capitalism allows people to "vote with their dollar"

which is just not true, other factors override their supposed choice

in who will be able to stay

all you do with capitalism is remove the power of the people to forcibly remove people that aren't contributing to the common good

Its a system focused on service

They can not pay those people

Id say thats pretty forceful

It isn't though

not at all

The refusal to purchase a company's products

forceful is going to the place and kicking them out

not paying for products doesn't do anything if other factors make not paying them wishful thinking.

Why is violence ok if the company isn't being violent

many people might not want walmart or target but it'll be there anyways because in reality poor people are factored out of that equation

Also, if the company is committing violence, i think its not only just, but proper that the community take violent action against them

violence is ok because they don't have a right to the land if they're not contributing to the common welfare

It's not about if the company is committing violence

it could be that, but it's more than that

ok so what gives you the right to property is whether or not you contribute to the common good?

If someone is crippled are they not allowed to own property?

What gives them the right to own it in the first place?

Thats what I just asked you

what gives you the right to *control a part of industry* is if you properly obtain and operate it

property rights are based but owning industry is different because it affects other people in a way having private property wouldn't

Now that you have the jacket, no one else can have the jacket

works the same way

youve deprived the community of a jacket

sounds like you just dont believe in the validity of property rights

what?

I'm talking about industry not property rights

"affects other people in a way having private property wouldn't"

yes

having private property adversely affects the community in a similar way

owning industry affects other people in a way having private property wouldn't