You never said anything about people consenting to it.

The inequality now comes from that guy being taxed to high hell by government

It was implied, so they consent, what then?

Who does?

Why would the worker consent to a boss having more control over their lives, if the worker has control?

It's like asking why would the businessman not want workers to own the economy.

Believe me. some people don't want the hassle of counsels and all that, a company is able to find enough people who will do with a higher wage and a stabler job(they have to invest less)

I don't believe you.

What hassle is there?

It's not like it's mandatory.

That's why socialist countries crack down on people who want to do their own thing

This is a whole new government system we're talking about.

>Socialist

State Capitalist.

if there were no people who would want the new guy on block then it simply doesn't need to be banned

@Timo))) There would be no one who would want someone having a private means of production, because the workers are meant to own it.

It's the way the economy and government is structured in a true socialist economy.

That doesn't make sense.

How so?

So there would be no reason to ban it because they wouldn't exist anyway right?

There would be no point or need for them, unless someone was trying to subvert the nation.

The rejection of private control of means of production would be like the garaunteed right to freedom of speech or assembly my friend.

There'd be a point for the capitalist, he'll make more money and gets to do something he wants without the annoying counsel. and he'll always find workers because people will simply go work there, every society had that

Your second point, that simply means you'll ban people from owning their own business, that's something a business man would object to because it's his idea and 100% his risk if he fucks up

So you're saying he'll go to a different country?]

It's not 100% his risk

Ye, and that other country would be successful

The people he employs also suffer from it.

It's basic self-determination lol.

less than if they were in the counsel and had their own stake in the company (what you want)

Timo, you realize worker's cooperatives are, by statistics, more productive than capitalist companies right?

If it's a better system, then you don't need the state to force it

That's the point, capitalism won't force communist like companies to be banned today

That's like saying we don't need a state to enforce laws on not murdering people lol

because they simply don't work as well

you need some regulatory means to abide by the law

in our current condition

Not murdering someone is vital to a stable state

means of production for every single person is not

Okay, what about assault? Or someone putting lead in food to make it last longer, but potentially lethal to humans like in some countries?

If the last thing happens the business would go out of business