i think you should research deflationary spirals.... before saying you dont want the government involved in the economy

also i hope you know the free market is nothing but a toy model which assumes externalities dont matter

except in reality, externalities do matter

hence the free market is *not* ideal

@Green Syndicalism the govt has some role to play for a true free market to exist.

Corporate anarchy isn't a free market, and neither is government overreach and overregulation.

The ideal economy is one where fair rules are established and enforced by the govt so that corporations can't have a limitless cap on profit through dishonest practices.

Putting all of, or sections of, the economy into the govts hand is just as likely to cause stagnation, malpractice, or harm to the consumer, as corporatism.

Corporate anarchy is a contradiction. The corporate structure is state provided

Also I often see the externalities argument fall apart when examples are given. What would be your real-world scenario, @Green Syndicalism ?

@Green Syndicalism
They tried a closed market system.
I spent a week of VERY sleepless nights convinced WWIII had started and waiting for the nukes to rain down. (It didn't help that HBO was playing *The Man Who Saw Tomorrow* at the time.)

@Beemann
*"The corporate structure is state provided"*
¿What? 🤨

Corporation is a state formed designation. Corporations also benefit from the state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6C6_NVj964
In response to this video someone said, *"YouTube and the rest of big tech need to be reformed."* And he's right; They are natural monopolies, and that's fine, some industries are that way. We have a solution for that... The alternative being they become public sector industries. Pretty sure ***NOBODY*** wants that.

... ¿Where the fuck is @Shire! btw?

Climate alarmists should be imperialists.

If you really believe the climate will be irreversibly damaged in the next 100 years, and that we (the developed world) have a responsibility to ban plastic straws and the like to stop it, then you should also support the developed world going into the infinitely poorer nations and forcing them to stop the major amount of pollution.

I see so many fucking non interventionists talking about how plastic in the ocean is the worst thing possible and I'm like "why don't we just invade Asia and blockaid the 3 rivers responsible for the majority of our oceans pollution then."

Don't get me wrong, I hate pollutants on the ocean, but if you think using reusable straws in the US is making a difference, your kidding yourself. The US does a pretty good job recycling, poor Asian countries are where your focus should be.

Dem China's give no fucks.

The problem with that attitude is that the one time I actually made that argument to someone, they proved to be such a commie bootlicker that they actually agreed.

Reminder that full blown commies want global communism

Of course they'd agree

You do realize that a blockade is an act of war, right?

Which could potentially get China and Russia involved, both nuclear powers

And I doubt those smaller Asian countries would just allow the United States to invade them with zero resistance

I don't think he's seriously proposing it

The logic that just because a bunch of people in the US are advocating for the use of plastic straws to limit the plastic in the ocean means that they are hypocritical and should *go to war with some of the largest nations in the world* in order to avoid that is utterly ridiculous and I doubt you even spent over 2 seconds thinking that over

I mean, suggesting that people who advocate for metal straws should also agree to invade China and potentially start a nuclear war literally makes no sense

Yeah, I do agree that China and other poorer Asian nations dumping shit into the ocean is a pretty bad thing

But you shouldn't pin those countries' practices on people in a country thousands of miles away who literally cannot change any of those countries' policies or what the politicians there decide to do

People are not hypocritical for allowing a country thousands of miles away to make poor decisions.

They are if they make the argument that banning plastic straws is the duty of the USA to save the world.

If the goal is saving the planet, and as climate alarmists generally agree were close to or past the point where it can be reversed, then stopping pollution from the largest sources of it should be priority number 1.

And any means to prevent the world from ending would be justified.

Besides, most third world countries would likely benefit from colonialism if done right.

Not that I believe we should actually have the govt get involved.

I'm actually a non interventionist. Though I do believe all these climate advocacy groups should spend less money in advocating for banning straws in the US, and instead invest in solutions to figure out how to recycle and repurpose all the shit flowing from Asia.

Everyone gets 1 metal straw and no more, guard it with your life

Unless you're in the UK, then they give you a..... Fuck, just don't use straws.

In the UK, you suck things through a dick

Preferably Muslim dick

It's diverse

Biodegradable

and best of all, not racist

Yay!

>Also I often see the externalities argument fall apart when examples are given. What would be your real-world scenario,

climate change obviously. *When externalities are included, as in a 2015 study by the International Monetary Fund, the unpaid costs of fossil fuels are upward of $5.3 trillion annually – which works out to a staggering $10 million per minute.* Do you think this is baked into the price of oil? Of course not, even if you discount the subsidies given to fossil fuel companies, *the vast majority of people would buy and use fossil fuels without regard to the damage it is causing, hence the externality cost wouldn't be baked in to the price if the government wasn't involved*

>They tried a closed market system.

who is "they"? you mean the soviets? you know a closed market just means *not being open to business with other countries*. how is that relevant to me advocating for *not having a free market*? These are almost completely separate issues

@DJ_Anuz to be fair, im an imperialist in a certain sense. i think america should invade and expropriate the capital in tax havens using the military -> legal routes would be too cumbersome and probably fail. If you're going to engage in corruption, don't be surprised if the people's representatives justify taking your wealth away. Also, we should be using economic sanctions/embargoes against countries with poor climate protections, and if they're being egregious enough, military intervention could be justified too. the problem isnt interventionism, the problem is *what interventionism is typically used for*, and most of the time interventionism doesn't serve the interests of the general american populace at all.

@Green Syndicalism I can agree with that.