| > The implication I took away from this is that economic conditions are the direct result of "a choice that society has made". This is, IMO, far too simplistic. This argument you have ascribed to me is beyond simplistic. It's economically illiterate. Cartoonish. > You are correct that you've never said verbatim "the economy can be changed by dicta", but the implication I took from your post is that you believe it can, by, e.g., saying "corporations are no longer people" and expecting this to mean something. This other argument which I am supposedly advancing is likewise, idiocy. > That's not how substantive disagreements work -- it's how blind tribalism works. > That doesn't portend equality, it portends fascism. You were never having a substantive disagreement with me, but with some fictional fascist out to change the world through immoral means to achieve unrealistic goals for preposterous reasons. Responding point-by-point to all the caricatures in those voluminous posts is a fool's game. I have faith that readers worth reaching will interpret the exchange correctly without needing me to straighten things out. > I'm merely making the case that changing economies is not just a matter of issuing dicta and expecting everyone to willingly comply or conditions to magically shift (e.g., corporations are no longer people anymore, and therefore ... ???). That is a highly simplistic view. That's all so obvious it doesn't need to be said. Strip away all that, and the value judgment is what's left. It's commonly held and consequential -- so worth engaging. |