Message from @zero_consequences

Discord ID: 518258351029878800


2018-12-01 02:50:25 UTC  

If the system doesnt live up to its logical extreme philosophical implications it is a contradiction of those implications

2018-12-01 02:50:35 UTC  

Tucker is not saying something contradictiory

2018-12-01 02:50:39 UTC  

he's saying something nuanced

2018-12-01 02:51:10 UTC  

If a system excedes a logical extreme it no longer stays itself.

2018-12-01 02:51:10 UTC  

that the system retained more of the benefits of capitalism by appearing to rein it in, than it would if it had been left to its own devices in a public way.

2018-12-01 02:51:11 UTC  

How do you get capitalism by holding back capitalism?

2018-12-01 02:51:22 UTC  

It becomes something else.

2018-12-01 02:51:25 UTC  

that the realpolitik had the effect of a more capitalist system ten or twenty years after the fact

2018-12-01 02:51:54 UTC  

because the alternative was not _never restricting the market_, it was _waiting for the next politician, who would restrict the market even more severely_

2018-12-01 02:52:05 UTC  

@zero_consequences Not my point

2018-12-01 02:52:27 UTC  

My point was if the system is not its logical extreme its a contradiction

2018-12-01 02:52:29 UTC  

the real political choice was not between restricting or not restricting capitalism

2018-12-01 02:52:38 UTC  

so there is no contradiction

2018-12-01 02:52:38 UTC  

Case in point, if a competative capitalist market thrives until one unit supercedes all other competition and becomes a monopoly, and drives all competition out it is no longer capitalism.

2018-12-01 02:52:50 UTC  

So where's this fucking logical extreme bullshit coming from

2018-12-01 02:52:54 UTC  

in order to produce the more capitalist outcome, a non-capitalist political policy was necessary

2018-12-01 02:52:56 UTC  

Lol

2018-12-01 02:53:14 UTC  

because, in lieu of that policy, an ever more strident anti-capitalist policy would take its place.

2018-12-01 02:53:25 UTC  

A free market means free from force

2018-12-01 02:53:37 UTC  

well, a freer market is freer of force

2018-12-01 02:53:39 UTC  

Exactly

2018-12-01 02:53:40 UTC  

you didn't have that choice

2018-12-01 02:53:54 UTC  

Forced to use a certain area of the market because all competition has been wiped out, is not a free market.

2018-12-01 02:54:03 UTC  

Mind blown?

2018-12-01 02:54:07 UTC  

Lol

2018-12-01 02:54:12 UTC  

well, nobody is forced to engage in commerce

2018-12-01 02:54:19 UTC  

wal mart circa 2000

2018-12-01 02:54:23 UTC  

(except when they are, but that's not so much what you mean)

2018-12-01 02:54:31 UTC  

The market assigns a value to companies

2018-12-01 02:54:40 UTC  

Man must produce to earn wealth and trade

2018-12-01 02:54:45 UTC  

anyway

2018-12-01 02:54:51 UTC  

this is all stupid

2018-12-01 02:55:06 UTC  

yeah

2018-12-01 02:55:10 UTC  

you assume that a proper free market was on the table as an option

2018-12-01 02:55:18 UTC  

Anti competition laws are force

2018-12-01 02:55:26 UTC  

And anti property

2018-12-01 02:55:49 UTC  

people think capitalism is mercantilism cuz they romanticize it

2018-12-01 02:56:02 UTC  

I would maybe say that there was a freer option, but Tucker isn't "dumb" for thinking that's not the case.

2018-12-01 02:56:41 UTC  

No Tucker said capitalism was helped by holding it back

2018-12-01 02:56:44 UTC  

you can't honestly tell me that you have conducted a thorough analysis of the political situation TR inherited, and _completely ruled out the possibility that a restriction was necessary_

2018-12-01 02:57:42 UTC  

you are basically just assuming that, in the real political situation of the time, you could make the market permanently freer and not be undercut by the next president