What effect has slavery in the working american class?

In fact I would go further and say that capitalism is good because we can through free markets make purchasing decisions that drive out those who employ illegals. Employing illegals is less like capitalism in my mind because the worker has artificial restrictions placed on the marketing and sale of labor.

>I blamed the people who chose to reduce their labor costs by supporting the exploitation of a black market labor pool.
Gotcha, I thought that you were implying that capitalism was responsible for the rich exploiting workers.

Attached: 1517991791168.jpg (480x530, 21K)

Nah senpai, that's just straight greed and sociopathy.

>Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone.

Attached: Paul Maynard Keynes.jpg (620x465, 19K)

Capitalism is a tool. Like any, can be used for good or bad. Do you also blame firearms for shootings, or are you instead aware enough to recognize that is caused by the humans who use them? It's really the same kind if magical thinking to say that an economic tool can take a mind of its own and we are helpless to not use it in such a way.

>Capitalism is a tool.
I disagree, capitalism is an ecosystem, the state is a tool.

>Do you also blame firearms for shootings, or are you instead aware enough to recognize that is caused by the humans who use them?
It's caused by the humans that use them. Were I disagree with you is that capitalism is an ecosystem and the state is the tool used to influence. Capitalism is nothing more than the collective sum of buying and selling goods and services. The state is a tool that allows you to barter freedom for security. Voting for a strogner state essentially removes the Glock 19 the rich have pointing at your head and hands them an AR-15.

> It's really the same kind if magical thinking to say that an economic tool can take a mind of its own and we are helpless to not use it in such a way.
Again. the state, not capitalism.

Attached: 1517991753809.jpg (270x190, 10K)

Right, but capitalism ultimately affects/regulates human behaviour. Like easy access to firearms that can shoot rapidly and powerfully, it's not abstract.

Anyway, capitalism insofar as it's based on a market system is basically a good thing. The issue with our capitalism today is that the market is dominated by a few huge players who can afford to drive everyone else in the market out of business, and who also have their thumbs up every politician's stinky brown puppethole.

Ok using your analogy the outcome is the same either way: there is still a gun pointed at my head. Why is that necessarily a part of the system?
For example, I have lived as a capitalist my entire life. Surely I have encountered situations where I could exploit others to maximize my gains. I have employed people with mental disabilities, and instead of taking advantage of the fact that they face barriers to collecting the agreed upon wage, my moral inclinations led me to simply live up to the agreement. I'm sorry, I won't ever blame an economic system for moral failures. I do discriminate though when it comes to personal freedom, and if you can show a better way for me to choose the method with which I am 'subjugated' I will of course prefer it. Communism, for example, takes that choice out of my hands and forces the system upon me. So it is not my preference. In contrast, no one is going to use state power to enforce that I must give my labor to a specific entity or for a specific price, when it comes to capitalism. To again use your analogy, if one where to point a gun at my head, under capitalism I can simply fuck off to my own realm and ignore the gunman. If enough people make that choice, the gunman's gun is diminished to nothingness.

>Ultimately affects/regulates human behaviour
As does all social interaction. Which system allows me the greatest freedom of choosing the method with which I am regulated? Are there any outside of capitalism that do not require the power of the state to maintain it's existence?

>Surely I have encountered situations where I could exploit others to maximize my gains.
Capitalism is voluntary, you can't exploit anyone without force.

>To again use your analogy, if one where to point a gun at my head, under capitalism I can simply fuck off to my own realm and ignore the gunman.
No, you get shot.

>If enough people make that choice, the gunman's gun is diminished to nothingness.
If you mean vote for a smaller state, then yes but simply ignoring the state will get you killed.

Attached: 1518252394756.jpg (637x630, 81K)

>you can't exploit anyone without force
What is deception?

You view "The State" as a totally separate self-interested institution. Of course, like any, it will try to safeguard its own existence. But I view the state as made up of people, who ideally are just like you and I. Alluding to what I said earlier, the state especially in the US and other western countries, have become a puppet to impossibly rich corporate entities. In most countries (when they aren't corrupt police-state shitholes or religious basketcases), it is these fabulously rich who have their hands on the steering wheel -- not ordinary folks who have an interest in public service or a well-maintained state. By voting for less government control, you are voting for increased corporate control. Corporations are not answerable to the public, but to their shareholders.

Experience shows that corporations are, if they can achieve it, very happy to be the sole provider of a service/good, and are very happy to charge you as much as they want for it. It's not a service for the public good, but a source of capital.

Sure "big government" is a concern, but weakening states at the expense of even more impunity for corporations (off-share tax havens are prime evidence of the ability to ignore states' power) is an even bigger concern.

>By voting for less government control, you are voting for increased corporate control.
Look up the definition of corporation and get back to us before you embarrass yourself.

Attached: 1520030462681.jpg (500x640, 39K)

Sidestepping and not an argument. I'm well aware of what a corporation is, thanks.

Your argument:
>By voting for less government control, you are voting for increased corporate control.

Definition of Corporation:
>a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

>Sidestepping and not an argument. I'm well aware of what a corporation is, thanks.
Apparently not.

Attached: 1519212687346.jpg (645x729, 81K)

Thanks Dr.Wikipedia. Now do you have a point to make, or are you really this autistic and/or naive?

Do you really think multi-national corporations, in this era of globalization, give a shit what one particular countries' laws are?

Voting for parties that reduce and hamper legitimate government oversight of corporations (or other types of businesses if you're this autistic) leads to a regulation vacuum that is filled with whatever corporate ethics stands in for 'regulation'. You also see how this backfires when companies, take Google for example, adopt a SJW morality

Hello, Betsy DeVos, is that you?

Too much gov is shit, sure, but at least government is accountable to its owners, the voters.