^

Doesn't all that contravene article 107 of the treaty of the functioning of the eu?

fuck em

time to make people realise that things arent free

working should be better off than being a lazy dole fuck

Isn't it interfering with competition? And free markets

Not granting benefits to parasites leads to less competition?

put them with the local councils, means you can have 20 people holding up a brush instead of 12

I dont believe in free markets

You should, it's what made the western world

Good punchline, but potentially any subversive company can thrive in a free market

I don't think there's ever been a truly free market.. it needs a lot of regulation to maintain consumers freedom

But stopping monopolies is different to banning businesses with the wrong opinions

No, I would ban subversive ones

Opinions isnt what I'm talking about, look at the shady practices that go on, to block consumers from trying out the competition

Yeah I don't disgree with regulation to keep a free market a fair market, I disagree with ideological regulation

Why?

being more pragmatic on regulation will be more helpful then supporting it based on an ideological reason

We shouldn't have regulation for the sake of having regulation which is what adopting it as an ideological position can cause

Basically that, plus it shouldn't be necessary, as businesses that try subversion rarely end up doing well

If you start selling poison, people will stop buying

And if they keep buying, then it isn't the business that's the core issue, it is a symptom

And getting rid of a symptom doesn't cure the disease, which is likely due to societal changes from other sources

What if a company starts selling products or influencing minds, with a message that is essentially anti-national?

Legality is the quickest way to propagate anything, banning things is a way of limiting use or exposure

If your population is nationalistic (and they should be), it won't sell, if your population is already being subverted, then it might sell

Why not just cut out the middle man and prevent the snake from poisoning the well

Because if you reach the point that you have to ban subversive companies to stop their influence, it is likely the population will vote-in a similarly subversive government

Given the company has survived on it's current path despite being anti-majority essentially

And if that government is voted-in, you don't want them to have the power to ban businesses they don't like

https://twitter.com/HugoGye/status/1224076896645853187

Yes I do want to grant a government that power, as long as they have nationalistic interests

But if a subversive company has survived long enough and is effective enough that you need to ban it, then that company is most likely very popular

Therefore the populace and their preferred government likely won't have nationalistic interests

Popularity doesnt denote worth

People are very malleable in terms of what they desire

Mass media and marketing have been hugely influential; in informing the publics opinion on a number of subjects

But not in one single direction

If the market is fair, then alternatives will be created and potentially be successful

You're naive

https://youtu.be/_dKcCU_T5fw