> Borg also said South Asian laborers working on NEOM were “fucking morons” so “that is why white people are at the top of the pecking order.” He also said Gulf women were “tranvestites.”
This is slavery which is the opposite of a free market. On a free market everyone's freedom is protected.
This might be the most misunderstood aspect of what a free market means. It does not mean that you're free to violate freedom of others. It means that everyone is free to buy and sell any product or service while consenting to do so under full information symmetry. You're not allowed to violate others right to do so; using violence, lying or any form of dishonesty, which happens in this case.
I'm not saying that free markets solve everything. For example, a worker might accidentally sign a contract which turns out to be exploitative. Which means that the laws about exploiting or harming anyone must override any free market contracts.
The contradiction I see is that the free market you mention needs a some organism that ensures violating other rights is punished. And this goes further, as far as anyone has resources to buy this same organism they will not suffer any consequences. That's what happen now in most governments. The state is just a way to protect billionaire's interests.
I am of the opinion that the Free Market is a fiction which has never existed and can never exist. The belief in a fictitious "Free Market" which is just a platonic ideal, is equally as ideological as a Marxist belief in a "new man" that arises from living under Socialism, however one of these ideas is considered hocum and the other is orthodoxy that is taught in elite universities.
People who defend capitalism will point out that "well there is some market inefficiency (government interference, authoritarianism, subsidies) that actually makes this not real capitalism". In this example Saudi Arabia is a monarchist petrostate spending government money on stupid projects, so that's actually "not capitalism".
This is the same as the meme of people saying "not real communism" when someone asks how they feel about Lenin murdering a bunch of people.
Instead we should understand that capitalism is about private ownership of property, NOT a fictitious "Free Market" as Milton Friedman tried to re-center the conversation around. Understanding that capitalism is about ownership, and not markets, makes it clear that authoriatrianism and capitalism go hand-in-hand, as a strong and violent government exists to enforce the property rights of the owning class. The power structure of Saudi Arabia is fully compatible with capitalism as it exists throughout the "west" or the "free world".
Public ownership or private ownership, the capital owning class is going to fight for power. The difference is, almost all societies put the power over military and laws and taxation in the hands of the state. With public ownership (read state ownership) the incentives for the capital owning class is to control the state and the means to force (tax) people to pay for ridiculous projects like this Saudi line city in order to save their asses. The private sector can’t legally force me to pay for their projects, whereas the “public” sector can.
> The private sector can’t legally force me to pay for their projects, whereas the “public” sector can.
What's stopping them from hiring a private military and enslaving you? Who will stop them? The government which they control in this scenario?
Power is power, whether it is private or public.
The main reason I argue with people on here and come across as annoying is that the reflexive defence of capitalism by people living under it is conditioned into them by society. I would like for people to recognize that "our guys" do a just as much harm as "the bad guys over there" instead of rushing to justify some atrocity because well, it's our atrocity.
> Who will stop them? The government which they control in this scenario
The private sector does not control the government in this scenario. That is the difference. The private sector only controls its own property. Now if there is public ownership of property, then yes the capital owning class will resort to controlling the state to control the property, and thereby controlling the military to enforce the rules the capital owning class wants.
Where I live, the U.S. Military (and the constitution by which they swear an oath to defend) is stopping them. That is the importance of the word “legally”. There is a role to play for state governments, and that role is solely to protect the individual liberties of its citizens. Not to provide services or products. Tesla doesn’t send policemen to my door to intimidate me to buy their cars. But if I don’t pay my taxes…
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I don't think private firms need to be as ham-fisted as sending cops to your door though.
If Tesla wants to increase car ownership, they just need to control a few key politicians to dismantle alternative forms of transporation.
In an ideal world, liberal democratic governments would keep corporations under control while ensuring our individual rights, and corporations would provide goods and services at the lowest, most efficient rate. This is not the case in reality unfortunately.
The only way politicians have the power over dismantling alternative forms of transportation is if the government has any control over building and maintaining transportation infrastructure, idk something like a Department of Transportation. Same goes for agriculture, finance, labor, healthcare… When we provide the government with these powers, it is within the self interest of corporations to control the politicians. If the politicians have no power to change these things, there is no use in corporations bribing them.
This is becoming a circular argument. The corporations bribe the politicians because the politicians exist and have power. If the gov't didn't exist, the corporations would directly have power over you instead of indirectly. They would essentially be the new governing body. My entire point has been that power is power and authoritarianism can be private or governmental.
Ultimately, I have seen millions die of starvation in one system and not in the other. So I'm going to take the latter. You argue the semantics and whatever terms you like.
I went from one to the other and life got better. Maybe you can’t pick but it turns out I can. Up to readers whether they want to be like you or like me.
Just want to point out private ownership of property, in the common sense, is also existent on socialism/communism. That is very different from private ownership of the means of production.
"Why do you hate billionaires so much?"