@zero_consequences Not my point

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

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

so there is no contradiction

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.

So where's this fucking logical extreme bullshit coming from

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

Lol

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

A free market means free from force

well, a freer market is freer of force

Exactly

you didn't have that choice

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

Mind blown?

Lol

well, nobody is forced to engage in commerce

wal mart circa 2000

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

The market assigns a value to companies

Man must produce to earn wealth and trade

anyway

this is all stupid

yeah

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

Anti competition laws are force

And anti property

people think capitalism is mercantilism cuz they romanticize it

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

No Tucker said capitalism was helped by holding it back

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_

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

which I think needs more proof than Tucker's assertion

Is this any more of a contradiction than socialism, in Marx's own words, needing to come from a place of the wealth of capitalism before becoming "true"?

without capitalism, there are no industrial workers

Socialism is communism but not communism yet

without industrial workers, there is no socialism!

...

anyway screw this

MRRA is either trolling, or is too stupid to conceptualize anything more complex than sheer adherence to an ideology

*communisim hasn't really been tried yet*