You are probably right there. I think what tends to happen in so-called "liberal democracies" is that politicians come to power on certain promises that they make to win elections. In some cases they may even be serious about the promised policies. — Apollodorus

Yes -- check out Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson. Lays it out nicely.

What you are saying seems to refer more to particular political parties and the position of individual politicians within those parties.

By state I meant more the organizational superstructure consisting of executive, legislature, judiciary, armed and police forces, etc., i.e. the thing that stays in place whilst governments or ruling parties keep coming and going. — Apollodorus

All of those players are picked either directly or indirectly by the executive and legislature, at least here in the UK.

Yes, but it doesn’t follow that the state has no desire to stay in power. — Apollodorus

Correct, I was just saying it's not fair to say desire to stay in power is its main priority when there are sometimes principled people that stand for office.

In the Brexit example, Prime Minister David Cameron called the referendum under pressure from the electorate and the UK Independence Party (UKIP).

However, (1) he was under no obligation to do so, and (2) he agreed to a referendum because he thought that the Remain camp would win. — Apollodorus

Yes, although weaker than the examples I gave, this is another example of the government acting on the will of the people. The government could have done nothing about the political pressure.

Corbyn is a different matter. There is no way telling what he would have done if elected. He operated in tandem with trade union leader Len McCluskey, an old-style Marxist who may have chosen to go for Remain.

In the event, Labour’s Marxist left wing was ousted by the Fabian Socialist right wing that was pro-EU and pro-Remain. And that was the end of Corbyn’s left-wing takeover. — Apollodorus

C'mon, decades of voting against his own party and government, sacrificing his career, he was bound to be a PM guided by his principles.

There is a stark contrast between the 2017 General Election where May lost her majority and the 2019 General Election where Boris got a historic result, destroying the red wall. The history surrounding this shows it was about Brexit.

This being said, the majority of Corbyn's MPs voting no confidence in him and attacking him in the media for years all the way up to the elections certainly helped the government. I think he could of won the 2017 GE if not for his own parliamentary party working against him, I remember seeing an article that just a few thousand votes in some swing seats and he would have been Prime Minister. Some of those in his own party that smashed him in the media, were later made Lords by the government.

Apparently you missed the “in the sense of dogma” part. — Xtrix

What about Universities? Hospitals? The Western philosophical tradition? They're also part of what was left by 'The Church'.

In a time of peace and extensive globalization, the role of the corporation seems to be huge. They seem to wield huge power through lobbyists and the revolving door of politicians and officials turning taking corporate jobs and vice versa. Nation states court them to get them investing in their countries and can seem to bend over backwards to please them.

I would think that this is a mirage thanks to the peaceful times we live in. People could have argued that corporations hold the most power prior to WW1 as the World back then enjoyed nearly similar globalization as now. In fact, I would argue that corporations are actually the weakest and most fragile institutions when compared to states or religions (churches). In the end corporations or companies are just written contracts, legal entities, that can be dissolved easily by a judge or by bankruptcy or simply by some other corporation buying them. Then all the those who worked in the corporation or who owned it's carry on as if nothing: the people look for other work and the owners either take new stock or cut the losses (in a bankruptcy). Brands come and go. Who remembers now the most powerful corporation, Standard Oil?

(An old cartoon of Standard Oil. Nothing new under the sun.)


A corporation is just a job for some and and an asset for other people. Job and owning a stock go just so far. Yet being a citizen of a state or being a member of a religion defines people differently. And even if you wouldn't care at all about just what your nationality and you would be a total atheist, the outside World does categorize you by your nationality is and by the religion you were born to. No company cannot create brands like that. And no judge in Texas can decide that let's say the country of Iran is illegal and should be dissolved. A lot of Iranians would still think they are Iranians.

I would agree with that religion is waning in the West, Nietzsche got it all correct, yet I wouldn't count it out. The same goes for ideologies: they can make a comeback with people wholeheartedly taking on a mission.

Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-driven Political Systems by Thomas Ferguson — Xtrix

:up:

Church, state, and corporation leaves out the entire non-profit sector of society which at least in the US, and in some states, is a major component of society. Granted, many non-profit operations are church spin-offs, may be partially supported by corporations and states, and perform what in many countries are state duties, but at the same time, are not a church, a state, or corporate entity.

People quite often devote a lot of time to the care and feeding of non-profits, like Planned Parenthood, Medicine Sans Frontier, Masons, gay softball leagues, local festival organizers, and so on. Service organizations are often where people express their identities as responsible adult actors, they are almost always non-profits. (Sometimes they are not only non-profit, they can be altogether unprofitable for everyone concerned, yet go on for years and years.).

The State, the Church, the Corporation — Xtrix

I'd opt for all three. Let them be at each other's throats, that'll keep them busy and out of our hair! :lol:

:up: Quite true, and often overlooked.

No slavery I know has at-will employment, where both employee and employer can terminate the relationship whenever they choose and for whatever reason. No slavery I know allows bargaining between both parties. No slavery I know permits a slave to be an employer himself. In slavery one is forbidden to leave, has no say in the relationship, and is subject to the arbitrary whims of their master.

It’s weird to me to expect democracy from a corporation, with votes and such. Democracy is a form of government, not a business model. More than that, running a company is also work, and owners are workers. They accept more risk, acquire the means of production, the property, pay the overhead, build the clientele, and employ human beings. He runs it because it’s his project, his property, the fruits of his own labor. Without him there is no opportunity to participate in it.

Nonetheless, there is “workplace democracy” out there. Any worker can become an owner. Anyone can start a company and run it as he chooses, even to the point of letting his employees oversee everything from wages to vacation pay. The question is, to those who lament the corporation and business men, why won’t you do that? fundamentally changing the system?

We know why. Confiscating the means of production is the path of least resistance, and a coup d’état is easier than a proper revolution.

C'mon, decades of voting against his own party and government, sacrificing his career, he was bound to be a PM guided by his principles. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Well, the fact that one guy is "principled", doesn't really show that a party, government, or state is not motivated by the desire to acquire or maintain power. Certainly as far as parties are concerned, politics seems to be about power regardless of political orientation. That's why they put so much effort and money into winning elections.

And, at the end of the day, he wasn't elected so there isn't much point speculating what might have happened had he won the elections.

No slavery I know has at-will employment, where both employee and employer can terminate the relationship whenever they choose and for whatever reason. No slavery I know allows bargaining between both parties. No slavery I know permits a slave to be an employer himself. In slavery one is forbidden to leave, has no say in the relationship, and is subject to the arbitrary whims of their master. — NOS4A2

I guess you never have heard about about the Mamluks then.

Slavery came in various ways in history. Not all were the type of slaves that were seen as sub-humans as in America.

No slavery I know has at-will employment, — NOS4A2

Wage slavery. I’m not talking about chattel slavery.

Selling yourself and renting yourself. That’s the difference.

It’s weird to me to expect democracy from a corporation — NOS4A2

Because you’re a heavily indoctrinated neoliberal with no imagination and an incapacity (or unwillingness) to learn anything new.

More than that, running a company is also work, and owners are workers. They accept more risk, acquire the means of production, the property, pay the overhead, build the clientele, and employ human beings. He runs it because it’s his project, his property, the fruits of his own labor. Without him there is no opportunity to participate in it. — NOS4A2

More Ayn Rand bourgeois ass licking, as usual.

The fruits of the workers’ labor, not the owners. Wal Mart could easily be run without the Waltons pocketing the profits from their Yachts. In fact that’s exactly what happens, except thanks to gifts from the state (which is supposed to be “small”?) only a handful of people decide what to do with the profits that the WORKERS produce— by law.

You make a great apologist for chattel slavery. “The slave owner runs things his way because it’s his property— he takes on more risk, pays the overhead, etc.”

Old, tired ways of thinking. Neoliberalism through and through.

Anyone can start a company and run it as he chooses — NOS4A2

In your fantasy world. In reality, almost no one in the world runs a corporation. The owners— the major shareholders — are extremely rare. Maybe a basis point of the population.

Yeah, that’s “equal opportunity.” More bullshit slogans.

The question is, to those who lament the corporation and business men, why won’t you do that? fundamentally changing the system? — NOS4A2

Hmmm…well I suppose if I inherited 400 million dollars and 1.5 billion shares of a company my great grandfather started on the back of slave labor, I may do just that.

But for those without their heads up their asses: co ops exist all over the place. Some very successful. All worker owned. Mondragon is often used as an example, but plenty of others. Ocean Spray is one close to home for me. So it’s done quite often, and is not simply an abstraction. One simply has to see through the years of indoctrination which make it too “weird” to understand.

Abolishing the slave system was “weird” for many people too. Especially for the slaveowners. But in many cases (as in yours) even the slaves. You’d have made a great Uncle Tom.

So sad to see working/middle class people so utterly brainwashed that they’ll defend such a sick system, and a class that both loathes and shits on them. They’ll go to their graves with this sad perspective.

They can’t go quickly enough.

If forced to choose one institution, which would you choose as the most powerful in the world today? — Xtrix

The institution of contempt.

Well, the fact that one guy is "principled", doesn't really show that a party, government, or state is not motivated by the desire to acquire or maintain power. — Apollodorus

It shows that a state can be principled. That one guy, if Prime Minister, picks the rest of the government, and institutions of a state.

Certainly as far as parties are concerned, politics seems to be about power regardless of political orientation. That's why they put so much effort and money into winning elections. — Apollodorus

The trouble is, to put your principles into practice you must win power. Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character.

Oh dear, the business owner cracking the whip on the backs of their voluntary slaves. Such entitled nonsense. There is much to be said about employment, but I’ve had too many jobs to believe in a concept like wage slavery, and I would never expect ownership of a company I did not create. That’s just me.

The cost of registering an LLC or corporation was about $100 in the state I’m from, the last time I checked. So it’s a lie to imply only the rich can start a company and incorporate. Starting a business takes plenty of time and dedication, lots of risk, maybe some borrowing, sure, but one needn’t be a trust-fund baby to do so.

Never mind that governments, too, employ vast amounts of people. There are millions of American slaves grinding for wages in your precious state machinery right now, all so people like you can beg them to pick up the slack wherever you refuse to. Where’s the foam at your mouth now?

It shows that a state can be principled. That one guy, if Prime Minister, picks the rest of the government, and institutions of a state. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I agree that in some countries government and state are more or less the same thing. The ruling Communist Party of China, in any case, that has been in power since 1949, is the supreme authority.

But I tend to believe that in general the state and the government are two different, though related, things.

The state consists of legislative, executive, judiciary, military, police, secret service, financial, economic, and educational institutions, media and propaganda organizations, etc., whose supposed collective purpose is to ensure the security and safety, as well as stability and well-being of society. But the state must preserve itself in order to provide security, safety, and stability in the first place. So, presumably, it must have a desire to stay in power.

Government, on the other hand, is the executive branch of the state, or executive instrument of the legislature. Like the state, it also has a desire to stay in power. But it can do so only to the extent that the legislature and the constitution, i.e. the state, allow it. Its powers and time in office are limited by the state, usually for four to five years after which it must participate in elections.

In your UK example, parliament is the legislative institution of the state and the supreme political power. We can ignore the House of Lords as it doesn’t have much power. But the House of Commons where the real power is, is formed of members of parliament (MPs) who are elected, not picked by government.

The remaining state institutions may be differently managed under different governments, but they stay in place as part of the state. In fact, the whole political and economic system tends to stay the same. The system doesn’t change from constitutional monarchy to socialist republic or from liberal capitalism to communism and vice versa with every election.

Even in political parties there is a tendency to retain the same power structure and if possible win and hold on to power.

Once you are in power you want to stay in power. Your principles or policies might change over time but the desire to win power and stay in power remains unchanged.

For example, Labour started off claiming to represent the working classes and has ended up representing minorities, as a means to win power and on the calculation that as minorities become more numerous it makes strategic sense to side with them.

Similarly, the Tories held the referendum hoping that the Remain side would win. The Brexit side won and the Tories had to implement Brexit as per the referendum result. However, the question arises as to how principled a government is if it liberates the country from the EU only to make it dependent on China. Incidentally, the latter has always been Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plan. If he now changes that plan under pressure from his own party, then he is an "unprincipled guy" and the state is "unprincipled" if we compare them with Corbyn and his hypothetical Labour government.

It follows that political leaders, governments and political parties in general may appear to do the “will of the people” when pressured to do so, but ultimately they have their own agendas.

With every pyramid scheme there will always be an individual at the very top. He is the one with the most power and decides who fights with who and who wins. He controls all the money which is the real god this day and age. Rendering governments, religion, and businesses puppets in his own hands. Without money these things would die out to the ones that do. The fake image of money is the most powerful image to date and each individual feeds it with his own thoughts and actions by using it.

Is Sky News one of the main news stations in Australia? For a while YouTube was recommending clips of it to me, and it was just like Fox News. UK's Sky News is pretty balanced, probably due to broadcasting rules.

A related question for discussion: religions are epistemic authorities and states are deontic authorities, but what are corporations? If by corporations what we really mean are capitalists, the wealthy who own all the things, then they seem to be another kind of deontic authority, inasmuch as they are the owners of things who therefore have say over who is permitted to use those things.

If so, what then is the analogue of that in the realm of epistemic authority, standing next to religion the way capital stands next to the state?

The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question?

If so, what then is the analogue of that in the realm of epistemic authority, standing next to religion the way capital stands next to the state?

The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question? — Pfhorrest

Not everything has to be symmetrical enough for you to draw one of your diagrams of it. Some things actually come in threes.

Is Sky News one of the main news stations in Australia? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don't know how big an audience it gets, but it's nationwide and has a hard core of fans. Sky After Dark hosts a rabid bunch of climate-change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and right-wing conspiracy nut propogandists.

Once you've won power there's no point having that power unless you put your principles into practice, or use it for your own benefit, depending on your character. — Down The Rabbit Hole

The problem is that those in power believe they are putting principles into action, but really serving themselves and their constituents.

Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides.

It’s an uphill battle.

but I’ve had too many jobs to believe in a concept like wage slavery, and I would never expect ownership of a company I did not create. That’s just me. — NOS4A2

Again, because you don’t listen — either consciously refusing or unconsciously. Given your age, it’s likely unconscious. But who knows.

“Wage slavery” isn’t a radical concept. It was prevalent in the Republican Party during Lincoln’s day, in fact. The idea of renting yourself was seen by many at the time to be degrading and dehumanizing — for example, the factory girls of Lowell and Lawrence MA (close to where I live) in the 19th century. I agree with them.

I said absolutely nothing about a “whip”. You continue to pretend as if I don’t distinguish very clearly between chattel slavery and wage slavery. As I’ve said many times, and which you refuse to understand: they’re not the same thing; they’re very different in how they function.

As for ownership — why should the fact that you’ve filed for articles of incorporation entitle you forever after to exploit your workers for profit while giving them no say in where to allocate those profits? Workers “create” a company just as much as investors, founders, legal “owners,” board members, or anyone else. There would be no company without them. Unless you can run everything yourself, which is possible and we often see in small family businesses— sole proprietorships — the workers should have say. Otherwise it’s what Dewey called “industrial feudalism.”

The fact that you defend the worst aspects of capitalism is telling.

Workers who run the companies should control the companies. Just try applying all your criticism about “big government” to “big business.” You won’t find a less free place than within the confines of a corporate job. Why decry one and not the other, if “freedom” is a value?

There are millions of American slaves grinding for wages in your precious state machinery right now, all so people like you can beg them to pick up the slack wherever you refuse to. Where’s the foam at your mouth now? — NOS4A2

:yawn:

Anyway— yes, any job that exchanges your life and labor for an hourly wage is wage slavery. Whether government or private business.

You’re again not listening. The government is a partially Democratic institution, and we demand it be more so— or profess to. Are you in favor of democracy or not? You’re too intellectually immature to know for certain, but I would assume you are in favor of it, in principle.

Given that assumption, we should criticize the government for failing to be democratic. We should push to make it more Democratic.

We should do the same in the workplace. If we believe in democracy.

That doesn’t even mean abolishing “capitalism” necessarily.

religions are epistemic authorities and states are deontic authorities, but what are corporations? — Pfhorrest

There’s a bit of epistemic and deontic elements in both the state and in religions. I’d argue that capitalism is a religion, in many respects. Nationalism and statism too.

Corporations are legal creations, really. But they represent the current organization of an ideology— the worldview— of the merchants. The bourgeois. This is basically capitalism, but also at heart materialism.

That’s what I alluded to in the OP. This is why I argue that it’s dogma (ideology) that truly rules the world today. I associate dogma with the church, so the answer to my own question is “the church.” If I were forced to pick. That’s an unconventional definition, though, so I don’t hold it against anyone for missing my point. The Church of Materialism (in the form of money or capital) has ruled the day. To me, materialism is basically nihilism.

The real culprit is philosophy. Or I wanted to get around to making that point eventually anyway. By philosophy I mean Greek answers to basic questions, including the question of questions (seinsfrage).

The media, perhaps? Should they be a fourth option in the OP’s question? — Pfhorrest

Sure. Education is another. Both play very important roles. I’m rolling in both as either in service of the state or corporate sector, however, in my OP. But they certainly are important enough to warrant separate attention.

Corbyn was a decent guy, but not a fighter. Even if he pushed through, the issue then becomes one of enacting the policies. Reminds me of Bernie. Probably wouldn’t have been able to do much without the Congress, the appellate courts and Supreme Court, or the state legislatures — almost all of which are completely dominated by far right Republicans and moderate Republicans (Democrats). Not to mention the huge media attack on both sides. — Xtrix

Yes, you are right. Arguably what Corbyn should have done is remove the whip from those attacking him, as it is a breach of the party's rules to bring the party into disrepute, and selected fresh candidates to stand at the General Election. I guess he calculated this would do more harm than good, but at least he would have had MPs that would vote through his policies if he had won.

I think Labour's fundamental problem is that it was founded by the Fabian Society and trade unions which were two different camps. The agreement was for the unions to provide members and funds, and for the Fabians to provide the ideology, write policy papers and manifestos, etc.

Most Labour MPs were members of the Fabian Society and this applied in particular to party leaders. So, the Fabians have been in charge of the party ever since. The unionists may attempt a takeover once or twice in a century, but the Fabians remain firmly in control.

For example, the Fabians reasserted their control with Tony Blair after Labour didn't get anywhere with Neil Kinnock, and again, with Keir Starmer after Corbyn.

The tension between the Fabian right wing and the unionist left wing will always be there and the Fabians will always stay on top. The only way for the unionists to be in charge would be for them to form a separate party.

I’m well aware of the concept of wage slavery. I just don’t believe it is accurate at all, especially when used to describe employment in general. Voluntarily working for a wage does not rise to the level of slavery, chattel or otherwise. What’s more, I have never subscribed to the theory of exploitation or the labor theory of value, so I am unable to agree with your description of employment in that respect. There is no valid reason beyond pure greed that an employee should own the company he works for by virtue of him working there alone.

The state, on the other hand, subsists entirely on exploitation in a way that is morally equivalent to forced labor: through taxation. I have to pay homage to the state with each purchase in the form of sales tax. If I don’t pay it I don’t eat. By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. As far as exploitive practices and greed is concerned, the robber baron pales in comparison to the state.

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor — NOS4A2

I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper.

I’m well aware of the concept of wage slavery. — NOS4A2

I've seen no evidence of that whatsoever.

Voluntarily working for a wage does not rise to the level of slavery, chattel or otherwise. — NOS4A2

I say it is. I guess that evens out.

Declaring it isn't so isn't an argument.

The relationship between master and slave, and employer and employee, are different.

This "voluntary" defense is so tired and so embarrassing it's barely worth responding to. Needless to say, one could make an equal argument that slaves were voluntary, too. They didn't have to be slaves, after all. They could have killed themselves, or tried to run away, or rose up in rebellion (all of which often happened, of course). True, those alternatives don't seem so great, but they were there.

Similarly, though less extreme, one makes the argument about renting yourself. "Well, you can quit if you want to." True, and face eviction, homelessness, starvation, humiliation, debt, poverty, stigma, etc.

Or you're forced to go to another job that perhaps treats you better. Wonderful. Many slaveowners were very decent people, too. Treated them well, housed them, had relationships with them, etc.

Is either of these facts an argument in favor of slavery as a system? Of course not -- although many did make such arguments. Fitzhugh is a good example. You seem to fit in well with someone like him. You're simply defending wage slavery instead of chattel slavery. It's that simple.

I have never subscribed to the theory of exploitation — NOS4A2

You're paid less than what you produce. That's not hard to understand. That's inherent in this system. That's exploitation. If people were paid the equivalent to what they produce, there would be no profit. There's nothing to "subscribe" to.

There is no valid reason beyond pure greed that an employee should own the company he works for by virtue of him working there alone. — NOS4A2

Yes, in your inverted world of alternative facts, it's the workers who are the "greedy" ones. How quaint.

"There is no valid reason, beyond pure greed, that a citizen of this country should get to vote by virtue of his living here alone."

So you're not in favor of democracy. Got it. No wonder you didn't answer that question.

The state, on the other hand, subsists entirely on exploitation in a way that is morally equivalent to forced labor: through taxation. — NOS4A2

So taxes are exploitation, but paying someone less than what they're worth -- isn't.

All capitalists are in favor of a very large welfare state. They couldn't survive a second without it. You cannot have defense, roads, or anything else without money, and you can't raise money without taxation. The rich want the following: pay as little as possible in taxes, let the working and middle class pick up most of the check. Then make sure that money goes to subsidies, bailouts, research they can then privatize, and infrastructure they can use. The state is absolutely essential for them.

I'll say it a thousand times: there are no "free markets." Certainly not in the United States. Your small government, free-market/ laissez-faire capitalism indoctrination was thrust upon you at some point in your life, and you should outgrow it. It's completely wrong. Which is partly why people on the forum (and probably elsewhere), including me, think you're mostly an imbecile. Doesn't have to be that way, though. Just takes listening and a willingness to learn.

By taxing my income, my property, they confiscate the fruits of my labor. As far as exploitive practices and greed is concerned, the robber baron pales in comparison to the state. — NOS4A2

Not at all. But even if it were true in absolute amounts, we have some say in what the state does with the taxes. 600 billion goes to defense, and I don't like. But billions goes to medicare and social security, which I do like. Billions goes to education and infrastructure, which is also good -- and I think far too little. We should have far more influence over where that money goes.

Now compare to a corporation. Take WalMart or Amazon. Billions of dollars of profits. How much say do the workers have in where those profits go? Zero. But importantly, they don't even have a say in who gets to make that decision for the company they all work for. The owners do.

If I employ you and another person, and I'm the holder of a piece of paper that says I'm the owner of the company, and all three of us generates $10,000 in profits, and I decide that I'm going to give it all to myself...if you're OK with that scenario, good for you. You make a good wage slave. In prior times, a good "house negro." But that's your issue.

I think that sounds a bit exaggerated. Yes, taxes do seem excessive but the state provides services in return. Without those services you would have to pay private companies to police your neighborhood, to collect refuse, to repair roads, etc., and I'm not sure that would come out much cheaper. — Apollodorus

In fact we know it doesn't. The quickest way to destroy anything is to privatize it. We know that from our healthcare system. The pattern is always the same for the people who want to profit off of what should be basic social programs, like healthcare or education: defund it. Defund it, then it fails. When it fails, you can swoop in with claims about how great it will be -- once we start treating it like a business, subjecting it all to those magical "market forces." Of course, it ends up a giant disaster, the state has to step in and clean it all up, and we repeat.

Older people like NOS and others are stuck in the cold war era of propaganda. where fear of communism was beaten into their heads, and capitalism was worshiped as nearly synonymous with "freedom," being the "American" system. Then came the "government is the problem" neoliberal program, which has been a complete disaster -- privatize everything, deregulate, cut taxes, etc. We're living with the results of all of this, and the prior generations who were taken in by it all. Milton Friedman, Sowell, Hayek, Ayn Rand, etc. -- these are the people they believe in, to this day.

Worth reminding yourself, too: this person voted for Donald Trump. These are the kinds of decisions that come out of this picture of the world. Sad.