[Eisenstein]

> Because the empirical result of that sort of thinking every time it's been tried on a national scale is widespread poverty where nobody is able to help anyone because everyone is starving.

You think that keeping corporations from buying local resources needed for citizens has consistently resulted in everyone starving? I'd love to see that empirical data.

[Ajedi32]

No, I'm saying that "that sort of thinking", where you naively design your economic systems around "First, look out for people, then figure out efficiency." rather than "efficient systems first, then work within those systems to help people" when taken to its logical conclusion and "tried on a national scale", is communism. Communism always sounds like such a great idea to people who think they know better than markets, but it consistently results in everyone starving, or at least being in abject poverty, every time it's tried at scale.

"keeping corporations from buying local resources" is a much weaker application of the same philosophy which will cause significant harm on a smaller scale for much of the same reasons, but probably not enough to impoverish a whole country unless combined with too many other policies based on that same sort of thinking.

[Eisenstein]

> No, I'm saying that "that sort of thinking" ... is communism.

Wow, you really fell for the propaganda. There is a huge middle ground between 'free market solves all problems' and 'communism'. I suggest looking into it.

> "keeping corporations from buying local resources" is a much weaker application of the same philosophy

The philosophy that property rights should not be more important than the basic needs of people to live may be 'a much weaker version of communism' but so is 'a corporation shouldn't be able to dump toxic waste wherever they please'. If you are so extreme that you think that leads to full blown communism then I don't think we have anything in common that can be discussed.

[Ajedi32]

Now you're blatantly ignoring my argument and attacking a straw man. The position I'm expressing: "efficient systems first, then work within those systems to help people" is a middle ground.

You asked why not reverse the order of that and design economic systems around helping people first, and efficiency as a secondary concern. I'm pointing out that the reductio ad absurdum conclusion of that logic is communism, which we know empirically isn't good at being efficient or at helping people. Your position is flawed.

Regarding dumping toxic waste; that's an externality which needs to be accounted for by taxes or regulations in order for the market to function properly. We already talked about that. See: NYC's congestion pricing, carbon credits, and that Wikipedia article you previously linked on Pigouvian taxes.