Yeah. Back in college as an assignment. I got as far as a basic file system and execution environment before I decided PLEASE GOD NEVER LET ME HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS STUFF AGAIN. Now I'm quite happy to pay someone for an OS. Having said that, I do wish that they were a little more desperate and beholden to me and my personal wishes, but I don't pay enough for that privilege.
I wish we could leave it to the owner, but in USA, I'd expect owners to sue the manufacturer when the battery life comes up unexpectedly short because of the owner's abuse. Even if the lawsuits are frivolous, making such lawsuits go away becomes expensive. Given that, it seems prudent to me for the company to produce a device that works to some specific spec and the customer buys that specific spec rather than a device that the user can use how they want. Then if they jailbreak, they know they're voiding their warranty and any guarantees the manufacturer provided.
Mathematically impossible? No one has yet put forth any such proof. It remains one of the big open questions of research, and it is very much an open question, with evidence on both sides.
It's really just another angle for the same worry about climate change because the melting ice may make eruption more likely. From the article: However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska. Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active.”
No where in any of that did I give my position one way or the other on assisted suicide. I never voiced my concerns -- I stated the concerns voiced by various sides of that debate, trying to highlight the libertarian analysis of that one topic. I thought that by documenting one historical example of a libertarian analysis that I had experience with that I might be able to highlight what I see as a flaw in that analysis. If I can get you to recognize the flaw in that narrow topic's analysis, I thought I might be able to then show you how that same flaw applies in a much broader context across a wide range of economic issues, and how that flaw encourages rather than discourages crony capitalism.
Please re-read my post and respond on the main point: does a libertarian who claims to want to maximize individual liberty do better by supporting or by opposing assisted suicide in light of the coercion argument?
I am trying to build up an answer to your challenge piecemeal because going directly to my thesis isn't going to work -- you've already shown several times that the axioms of your philosophy and mine are inconsistent. For example, what you call crony capitalism in the mortgage regulations is exactly what I would call the defense against crony capitalism. I think you and I would agree that today there are corporations who take advantage of the mortgage system and get away with terrible things, all protected by law. You see the existing mortgage regulations as enabling that criminal behavior. I see regulation as one of the major defenses that keeps that criminal behavior from being far worse. My contention is that if we moved the system to a more libertarian basis that the corporations would be far more powerful than they are today.
We are going to have to work backward to find which of us has a flawed axiom. Honestly, your position is as absurd to me as mine is to you. We can sit here and call each other idiots all day, but that doesn't do anything to help decide what kinds of changes might help our country and our world become a more satisfactory place to live. Are you willing to have that discussion or do you want to continue insulting me and my viewpoint on history, economics, and political science?
Many (I think most) unions have a clause that says "Not only can the boss not require us to work more than X hours, but no employee is allowed to voluntarily work more than X hours." There are similar clauses that limit an employee who wants to excel from being allowed to do so. Libertarians have told me these are horrible limitations, made worse when a government sanctifies that contract and enforces it.
The problem is that if you remove that restriction, you enter the realm of coercion. As a boss, which employee are you going to promote: the one who works a 40 hour shift and goes home or the one who works 40 hours and then adds 10 hours of voluntary overtime for free? Easy! The second one. It makes total economic sense. And it makes sense for the second person to do that volunteering because they get a promotion. Everyone wins in this libertarian scenario, except for the guy who slacks off.
Except... the whole point of fighting for the 40 hour week was to be able to escape the financial leverage of the boss so that an employee can have a work-home balance. If other employees are allowed to volunteer to work more hours and then get rewarded for that, it puts the financial leverage right back in the hands of the employer. What was voluntary becomes, effectively, an industry requirement. We see this happen all the time in the tech industry where software engineers are salaried, and over time, the expected number of hours just keeps going up de facto if not de jure.
Short-term liberty at the cost of long-term liberty.
This example is at the heart of why I equate libertarian positions with crony capitalist positions. To my eyes, the libertarian positions only work if everyone is trying to be nice and let everyone be free. It appears to me to continue to give economic power absolute authority, and giving power to those who have the money to leverage it creates exactly the situations where corporations can control the people and governments around them.
Maybe it wouldn't happen in a libertarian society -- customers would be outraged by a company that tried to leverage its workers into de facto slavery and stop doing business with that company. But what happens in practice is that Wal-Mart lowers prices and everyone buys more from them. I specify Wal-Mart specifically. The ruling family preaches and appears to practice libertarian ideals, and those ideals allow them to exploit workers and control suppliers such that they come out on top in every contract deal I've ever heard them be involved with. "You will lower your cost to us, vendor, or we will drop your entire product line." They oppose any government regulation that would get in the way of those contracts.
Economic coercion is the most devious force at work in our society, and no force, in my opinion, needs more regulation than how each of us is allowed to spend our own money, precisely to avoid situations where people are coerced into activities they would not willingly do. But libertarianism, as I understand it and see it practiced, finds that anathema.
That is my thesis in three forks. I'm willing to try to discuss this rationally. Let's see where it goes.
In parallel to the mortgage discussion, I'll spin up two other examples to discuss.
Doctor-assisted suicide. In the past, libertarians tell me that it ought to be legal for a doctor to help someone who wants to die kill themselves, and it ought to be easy and quick to prevent suffering. Nothing is more personal than timing your own death, and the state has no business sticking its nose in and limiting individual freedom.
Only Oregon in the USA currently allows the practice, and it has lots of regulations around it. It is neither easy to get approval nor is it fast to get approval. That is *by design*. There are many reasons the other states ban it entirely (religion being the big one), so I'm going to focus on the reason that Oregon regulates it so much: coercion. The financial incentive to kill the eldest generation and inherit their wealth before they "waste" it all on health care is huge. You can pour through case after case in history of families bumping off the grandparents early. Oregon reps reviewed lots of those cases when putting their law together. To prevent someone from killing a grandparent and then saying, "Oh, he/she asked me to help them commit suicide," and thus getting away with murder, there is a process. You have to acknowledge on three separate occasions, separated by a significant amount of time, that, yes, it is your intent to end your life, and then you have to do the final drug taking yourself under doctor supervision.
Other states have tried to pass assisted suicide laws. Most are stopped by religion, but a fair number are stopped by the cover-for-murder problem. There's also a coercion problem, but I'll cover that in the third parallel thread: unions.
@MarcusOutrageous I will try. See the post I just made to doctorvo parallel to your reply about mortgages. I am not confident that this discussion will go very far... the biggest problem I've had in the past in these discussions is that it is hard to point to real world examples of wide-spread libertarianism, so both proponents and opponents are left with hypotheticals, and it is easy for both sides to claim the other just isn't playing fair with the extrapolations. But we'll see. This is an intellectual bridge I've tried to build many times in the past, sometimes by myself, sometimes with a team of other progressive liberals helping out. I've never managed it. It's one of the things that concerns me most about the USA... some of these intellectual/cultural divides appear literally incomprehensible to bridge. (And this is frequently where a libertarian tells me "then you should let us live as we want and we'll let you live as you want" and the liberals (and the fascists, honestly) respond "but you live as part of our society and the way you want to live makes our society break down." And then the two sides glare at each other.
I'm going to continue this discussion, but I'm saying up front: there's a strong tendency among libertarians online to declare that anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand libertarianism. I'm continuing this on the assumption that you're open to critique.
Regulations of mortgages is my favorite example. The various US states each has a long list of rules and regulations that prohibit a whole range of behaviors when selling or buying a private property. This has been anathema to every libertarian I've ever discussed with because it interferes with the private contract between consenting adults. Such regulations limit freedom. And they do in the short term sense of saying, "Even though you own the property, you still are not free to do with it as you please."
Would you agree that opposition to mortgage regulations is a libertarian position?
Diversity is an advantage. Business should be oriented to achieve diversity. That does not mean directly hiring for gender. It does mean getting rid of the biases that prevent the genders from competing fairly. That means having practices that encourage women to apply, that discourage employers from kicking their resumes out of the pile sight unseen.
Does that make sense?
It does not mean a priori declaring that some gender has no business being in any given role, be that business or military.
> you openly argue for considering a person's sex, when making a hiring decision.
No. I openly argue for programs that encourage diversity in the workplace. In most cases, that means hiding the sex from the person doing the hiring -- exactly what happened in your musician example. I argue that we have to tell recruiters to make sure that there are resumes from women in the stack of resumes of the people doing the actual hiring decisions so that women aren't filtered out before hand, as has been documented to happen at several tech companies. In general, I advocate for an atmosphere where employers don't make a priori judgements about the qualifications of a person based on their gender in order to get a diverse work place.
Some other advantages: women generally have a smaller frame, which can help in search-and-rescue missions to have someone able to get under rubble. Also, women generally need fewer calories per day, which might reduce costs and food encumbrance without sacrificing ammunition carry. Given the advantages of women for spaceflight, I'd be interested in seeing a quartermaster workup for an army of all women and see what the financial picture looks like. I've never heard of anyone doing those calculations.
Well, one way I know for a fact: women embedded in Iraq were instrumental in gaining access to homes without fighting being necessary because they were a) women and could thus speak to the women in the home and b) presented less of a threat profile to the local men. The women weren't even supposed to be combat troops at that time, but they ended up on the front lines as supply drivers, Arabic translators, and other support roles.
But to your larger question: I can't answer because I am not a woman. I cannot tell you what insights that experience might provide on a battlefield. I know that any problem-solving venture I've ever been associated with benefits from a breadth of views. In journalism classes, I was sometimes the only male in the room, and I know I raised multiple issues that were particular to me seeing through the lens of being a guy. I am not a soldier, but my friends who are -- male and female -- lead me to believe combat is just as much in need of diverse voices as any other human venture.
Someday maybe a libertarian will actually establish a libertarian zone somewhere to move these discussions out of the hypothetical. In my experience, those who claim libertarian positions and who also seem to understand libertarianism, tend to take positions that champion short-term liberty at the cost of long-term. Maybe that wouldn't be true in a place where libertarian ideals are the basis of operation.
> You admit to pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity
Not for the sake of diversity -- for the sake of better engineering! The raw engineering is only part of the input to a well-engineered product.
Your logic doesn't make sense.
"then it must also be true"
No, that doesn't follow. Attribute X adds value. Attribute Y adds value. Given any set of people, it may be impossible to maximize both X and Y, so you may only get X or Y. But it does NOT imply the existence of situations where X is undesirable.
In other words, it may be that the best platoon that can be assembled at a particular moment is one of all guys. That does not imply that if you could find a qualified woman that it wouldn't be better to trade marginal skill for diversity.
Moreover, in this case, X and Y are independent values -- you don't choose between women and skill. There are plenty of women who give you both high skill, and there may be some who excel to the same degree as the absolute best among men. There may be situations where you don't have a woman available to provide that balance, so you maximize solely for skill. But to claim there's a situation where they add no value is the exact definition of sexism.
> demands stripping government officials of economic power
Strips it and puts that economic power where? In the hands of those who run corporations. You can say "it goes into the hands of individuals", but once someone has marginal economic authority over someone else, they can leverage that strength to ever further strength over that person. They aggregate that authority into a corporation. That's what happened with the company towns in the mining industry in the 19th and 20th century... the government was cut out and the power brokers were the people with the economic power to enforce effective slavery. We see it in all sorts of places around the world -- I saw it up close in the Caribbean where people were really held in thrall by the cruise ship companies. I've never gotten the cruise ship company's side of the story, but I kept thinking, "If only there was a government to step in to put these corporations in their place."
> Libertarians say that the public good is best advanced when individuals can act freely.
In my experience, liberty for individuals is not something that most individuals can defend on their own. It takes a systemic defense of liberty to maximize individual liberty. We give that systemic defense the name "representative government." It's not a perfect system, but I've seen no evidence that anything else works anywhere near as well. And Libertarians who advocate against it seem to me to be advocating against the very thing they claim to value most -- the maximization of individual liberty. They want to instead empower the "economic might makes right" that is the root of crony capitalism.
I don't think it's wrong to describe the two things as essentially identical.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Back in college as an assignment. I got as far as a basic file system and execution environment before I decided PLEASE GOD NEVER LET ME HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS STUFF AGAIN. Now I'm quite happy to pay someone for an OS. Having said that, I do wish that they were a little more desperate and beholden to me and my personal wishes, but I don't pay enough for that privilege.
Apple needs an asshole because otherwise the shit builds up? :-)
PopeRatzo was being sarcastic.
I wish we could leave it to the owner, but in USA, I'd expect owners to sue the manufacturer when the battery life comes up unexpectedly short because of the owner's abuse. Even if the lawsuits are frivolous, making such lawsuits go away becomes expensive. Given that, it seems prudent to me for the company to produce a device that works to some specific spec and the customer buys that specific spec rather than a device that the user can use how they want. Then if they jailbreak, they know they're voiding their warranty and any guarantees the manufacturer provided.
Mathematically impossible? No one has yet put forth any such proof. It remains one of the big open questions of research, and it is very much an open question, with evidence on both sides.
Wouldn't surprise me if there was such a patent back when flushing toilets were new.
It's really just another angle for the same worry about climate change because the melting ice may make eruption more likely. From the article:
However, he pointed to one alarming trend: “The most volcanism that is going in the world at present is in regions that have only recently lost their glacier covering – after the end of the last ice age. These places include Iceland and Alaska. Theory suggests that this is occurring because, without ice sheets on top of them, there is a release of pressure on the regions’ volcanoes and they become more active.”
*sigh*
We're done here. Have a good day.
No where in any of that did I give my position one way or the other on assisted suicide. I never voiced my concerns -- I stated the concerns voiced by various sides of that debate, trying to highlight the libertarian analysis of that one topic. I thought that by documenting one historical example of a libertarian analysis that I had experience with that I might be able to highlight what I see as a flaw in that analysis. If I can get you to recognize the flaw in that narrow topic's analysis, I thought I might be able to then show you how that same flaw applies in a much broader context across a wide range of economic issues, and how that flaw encourages rather than discourages crony capitalism.
Please re-read my post and respond on the main point: does a libertarian who claims to want to maximize individual liberty do better by supporting or by opposing assisted suicide in light of the coercion argument?
I am trying to build up an answer to your challenge piecemeal because going directly to my thesis isn't going to work -- you've already shown several times that the axioms of your philosophy and mine are inconsistent. For example, what you call crony capitalism in the mortgage regulations is exactly what I would call the defense against crony capitalism. I think you and I would agree that today there are corporations who take advantage of the mortgage system and get away with terrible things, all protected by law. You see the existing mortgage regulations as enabling that criminal behavior. I see regulation as one of the major defenses that keeps that criminal behavior from being far worse. My contention is that if we moved the system to a more libertarian basis that the corporations would be far more powerful than they are today.
We are going to have to work backward to find which of us has a flawed axiom. Honestly, your position is as absurd to me as mine is to you. We can sit here and call each other idiots all day, but that doesn't do anything to help decide what kinds of changes might help our country and our world become a more satisfactory place to live. Are you willing to have that discussion or do you want to continue insulting me and my viewpoint on history, economics, and political science?
Last one: unions
Many (I think most) unions have a clause that says "Not only can the boss not require us to work more than X hours, but no employee is allowed to voluntarily work more than X hours." There are similar clauses that limit an employee who wants to excel from being allowed to do so. Libertarians have told me these are horrible limitations, made worse when a government sanctifies that contract and enforces it.
The problem is that if you remove that restriction, you enter the realm of coercion. As a boss, which employee are you going to promote: the one who works a 40 hour shift and goes home or the one who works 40 hours and then adds 10 hours of voluntary overtime for free? Easy! The second one. It makes total economic sense. And it makes sense for the second person to do that volunteering because they get a promotion. Everyone wins in this libertarian scenario, except for the guy who slacks off.
Except... the whole point of fighting for the 40 hour week was to be able to escape the financial leverage of the boss so that an employee can have a work-home balance. If other employees are allowed to volunteer to work more hours and then get rewarded for that, it puts the financial leverage right back in the hands of the employer. What was voluntary becomes, effectively, an industry requirement. We see this happen all the time in the tech industry where software engineers are salaried, and over time, the expected number of hours just keeps going up de facto if not de jure.
Short-term liberty at the cost of long-term liberty.
This example is at the heart of why I equate libertarian positions with crony capitalist positions. To my eyes, the libertarian positions only work if everyone is trying to be nice and let everyone be free. It appears to me to continue to give economic power absolute authority, and giving power to those who have the money to leverage it creates exactly the situations where corporations can control the people and governments around them.
Maybe it wouldn't happen in a libertarian society -- customers would be outraged by a company that tried to leverage its workers into de facto slavery and stop doing business with that company. But what happens in practice is that Wal-Mart lowers prices and everyone buys more from them. I specify Wal-Mart specifically. The ruling family preaches and appears to practice libertarian ideals, and those ideals allow them to exploit workers and control suppliers such that they come out on top in every contract deal I've ever heard them be involved with. "You will lower your cost to us, vendor, or we will drop your entire product line." They oppose any government regulation that would get in the way of those contracts.
Economic coercion is the most devious force at work in our society, and no force, in my opinion, needs more regulation than how each of us is allowed to spend our own money, precisely to avoid situations where people are coerced into activities they would not willingly do. But libertarianism, as I understand it and see it practiced, finds that anathema.
That is my thesis in three forks. I'm willing to try to discuss this rationally. Let's see where it goes.
In parallel to the mortgage discussion, I'll spin up two other examples to discuss.
Doctor-assisted suicide. In the past, libertarians tell me that it ought to be legal for a doctor to help someone who wants to die kill themselves, and it ought to be easy and quick to prevent suffering. Nothing is more personal than timing your own death, and the state has no business sticking its nose in and limiting individual freedom.
Only Oregon in the USA currently allows the practice, and it has lots of regulations around it. It is neither easy to get approval nor is it fast to get approval. That is *by design*. There are many reasons the other states ban it entirely (religion being the big one), so I'm going to focus on the reason that Oregon regulates it so much: coercion. The financial incentive to kill the eldest generation and inherit their wealth before they "waste" it all on health care is huge. You can pour through case after case in history of families bumping off the grandparents early. Oregon reps reviewed lots of those cases when putting their law together. To prevent someone from killing a grandparent and then saying, "Oh, he/she asked me to help them commit suicide," and thus getting away with murder, there is a process. You have to acknowledge on three separate occasions, separated by a significant amount of time, that, yes, it is your intent to end your life, and then you have to do the final drug taking yourself under doctor supervision.
Other states have tried to pass assisted suicide laws. Most are stopped by religion, but a fair number are stopped by the cover-for-murder problem. There's also a coercion problem, but I'll cover that in the third parallel thread: unions.
@MarcusOutrageous I will try. See the post I just made to doctorvo parallel to your reply about mortgages. I am not confident that this discussion will go very far... the biggest problem I've had in the past in these discussions is that it is hard to point to real world examples of wide-spread libertarianism, so both proponents and opponents are left with hypotheticals, and it is easy for both sides to claim the other just isn't playing fair with the extrapolations. But we'll see. This is an intellectual bridge I've tried to build many times in the past, sometimes by myself, sometimes with a team of other progressive liberals helping out. I've never managed it. It's one of the things that concerns me most about the USA... some of these intellectual/cultural divides appear literally incomprehensible to bridge. (And this is frequently where a libertarian tells me "then you should let us live as we want and we'll let you live as you want" and the liberals (and the fascists, honestly) respond "but you live as part of our society and the way you want to live makes our society break down." And then the two sides glare at each other.
But I continue to try.
I'm going to continue this discussion, but I'm saying up front: there's a strong tendency among libertarians online to declare that anyone who disagrees with them just doesn't understand libertarianism. I'm continuing this on the assumption that you're open to critique.
Regulations of mortgages is my favorite example. The various US states each has a long list of rules and regulations that prohibit a whole range of behaviors when selling or buying a private property. This has been anathema to every libertarian I've ever discussed with because it interferes with the private contract between consenting adults. Such regulations limit freedom. And they do in the short term sense of saying, "Even though you own the property, you still are not free to do with it as you please."
Would you agree that opposition to mortgage regulations is a libertarian position?
I will try to clarify one more time...
Diversity is an advantage. Business should be oriented to achieve diversity. That does not mean directly hiring for gender. It does mean getting rid of the biases that prevent the genders from competing fairly. That means having practices that encourage women to apply, that discourage employers from kicking their resumes out of the pile sight unseen.
Does that make sense?
It does not mean a priori declaring that some gender has no business being in any given role, be that business or military.
> you openly argue for considering a person's sex, when making a hiring decision.
No. I openly argue for programs that encourage diversity in the workplace. In most cases, that means hiding the sex from the person doing the hiring -- exactly what happened in your musician example. I argue that we have to tell recruiters to make sure that there are resumes from women in the stack of resumes of the people doing the actual hiring decisions so that women aren't filtered out before hand, as has been documented to happen at several tech companies. In general, I advocate for an atmosphere where employers don't make a priori judgements about the qualifications of a person based on their gender in order to get a diverse work place.
Some other advantages: women generally have a smaller frame, which can help in search-and-rescue missions to have someone able to get under rubble. Also, women generally need fewer calories per day, which might reduce costs and food encumbrance without sacrificing ammunition carry. Given the advantages of women for spaceflight, I'd be interested in seeing a quartermaster workup for an army of all women and see what the financial picture looks like. I've never heard of anyone doing those calculations.
I'm just telling you what my experience is. I don't know any other way to phrase this reply. I wasn't trying to be insulting.
Well, one way I know for a fact: women embedded in Iraq were instrumental in gaining access to homes without fighting being necessary because they were a) women and could thus speak to the women in the home and b) presented less of a threat profile to the local men. The women weren't even supposed to be combat troops at that time, but they ended up on the front lines as supply drivers, Arabic translators, and other support roles. But to your larger question: I can't answer because I am not a woman. I cannot tell you what insights that experience might provide on a battlefield. I know that any problem-solving venture I've ever been associated with benefits from a breadth of views. In journalism classes, I was sometimes the only male in the room, and I know I raised multiple issues that were particular to me seeing through the lens of being a guy. I am not a soldier, but my friends who are -- male and female -- lead me to believe combat is just as much in need of diverse voices as any other human venture.
Someday maybe a libertarian will actually establish a libertarian zone somewhere to move these discussions out of the hypothetical. In my experience, those who claim libertarian positions and who also seem to understand libertarianism, tend to take positions that champion short-term liberty at the cost of long-term. Maybe that wouldn't be true in a place where libertarian ideals are the basis of operation.
> You admit to pursuing diversity for the sake of diversity
Not for the sake of diversity -- for the sake of better engineering! The raw engineering is only part of the input to a well-engineered product.
Sorry, let me be more explicit:
X is "a diverse viewpoint"
Y is "skill as engineer"
And, no, it is NEVER detrimental.
Your logic doesn't make sense.
"then it must also be true"
No, that doesn't follow. Attribute X adds value. Attribute Y adds value. Given any set of people, it may be impossible to maximize both X and Y, so you may only get X or Y. But it does NOT imply the existence of situations where X is undesirable.
In other words, it may be that the best platoon that can be assembled at a particular moment is one of all guys. That does not imply that if you could find a qualified woman that it wouldn't be better to trade marginal skill for diversity.
Moreover, in this case, X and Y are independent values -- you don't choose between women and skill. There are plenty of women who give you both high skill, and there may be some who excel to the same degree as the absolute best among men. There may be situations where you don't have a woman available to provide that balance, so you maximize solely for skill. But to claim there's a situation where they add no value is the exact definition of sexism.
Yes, you are being sexist with your last post.
> demands stripping government officials of economic power
Strips it and puts that economic power where? In the hands of those who run corporations. You can say "it goes into the hands of individuals", but once someone has marginal economic authority over someone else, they can leverage that strength to ever further strength over that person. They aggregate that authority into a corporation. That's what happened with the company towns in the mining industry in the 19th and 20th century... the government was cut out and the power brokers were the people with the economic power to enforce effective slavery. We see it in all sorts of places around the world -- I saw it up close in the Caribbean where people were really held in thrall by the cruise ship companies. I've never gotten the cruise ship company's side of the story, but I kept thinking, "If only there was a government to step in to put these corporations in their place."
> Libertarians say that the public good is best advanced when individuals can act freely.
In my experience, liberty for individuals is not something that most individuals can defend on their own. It takes a systemic defense of liberty to maximize individual liberty. We give that systemic defense the name "representative government." It's not a perfect system, but I've seen no evidence that anything else works anywhere near as well. And Libertarians who advocate against it seem to me to be advocating against the very thing they claim to value most -- the maximization of individual liberty. They want to instead empower the "economic might makes right" that is the root of crony capitalism.
I don't think it's wrong to describe the two things as essentially identical.