
Hank! No! You can't criticize capitalism! That's WOKE Hank! Don't do it! Hank!!!

Hank! No! You can't criticize capitalism! That's WOKE Hank! Don't do it! Hank!!!
But... I don't love capitalism. Capitalism fuckin' sucks.
Then you can complain about the price of gas!
Is there actually a free market somewhere, or is it massive money printing followed by bailouts for the rich everywhere in the world?
There can't be a free market with a monopoly on violence by definition of the word "monopoly," yet a free market requires the enforcement of basic rules ("no stealing" being the most obvious). Conclusion: "Free market" is a contradiction.
First point doesn't hold together. You're relying on the reader conflating senses of "free".
How so? Under state governance businesses are forced to pay a certain entity for security (policing) and other services through taxes on pain of loss of property. This is a monopoly on essential services enforced by violence, basically the most anti-free market thing ever.
Okay devil's advocate over, serious argument here: The monopoly on violence, by definition, comes with the ability to make and enforce various rules for the operation of the market. This is tax codes, zoning laws, labor laws, tariffs, environment protection laws, IP law, etc. The ideal of the perfect free market requires that these rules to be minimalist and "fair," but that's impossible to achieve because nobody can objectively decide which rules are necessary and fair and which are not. Therefore it's always going to be possible to argue that such and such isn't a true free market because this or that rule stifles competition, ultimately tying back into the point that a true free market can't be subject to arbitrary rules and therefore is incompatible with the monopoly on violence. The two senses of "free" are identical here.
I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument ("There is no such thing as a free market") that doesn't actually get you anywhere. If free markets don't exist, then personal freedom doesn't exist for the exact same reasons. But to get there, you have to rely on the idea that "you can argue" without examining whether those arguments have any merit. Nobody takes "free" to mean "absolute freedom". It's always relative. This is a silly semantic argu... oh. This is silly. Damn it. Why didn't anyone stop me.
I still think that you are being overly literal for an argument ("There is no such thing as a free market") that doesn't actually get you anywhere.
It does. Whenever you criticize capitalism or the free market, you invariably get a bunch of "free market enthusiasts" arguing that the problem is too much regulation and too little free market. Any time the "free market" produces brutally exploitative living conditions and colluding oligopolies, the claim is always the same: "This is corporatism, not capitalism. Government interference in the market did this. We should make the market freer." This is the idea behind the comment I was originally replying to, and my argument is a response to it. Since a free market is the capitalism equivalent of a unicorn, "this isn't a true free market" type arguments are basically all No True Scotsman fallacies. I'm shutting down a common counterargument to criticism of capitalism.
If free markets don't exist, then personal freedom doesn't exist for the exact same reasons.
Yeah true; both "true" free markets and "complete" (only constrained by the Harm Rule) personal freedom are models with varying degrees of accuracy depending on the situation. Thinking of a situation as described by a free market is like ignoring air resistance; it's not a useless abstraction, but ultimately it's still an abstraction and should be treated as such.
SMAE! I guess we have to not STFU, since...checks ntoes...breaking bad actor says so.
Which is funny, his character would be MAGA af.
Would he? He was up against a neo-Nazi group who was working with Walt until his dying breath.
It’s been a while since I saw it. Wasn’t it mainly Mexican cartels? Either way, he was a cop, so I’d give it a 95+% chance. Also his wife checks some boxes.
He was after the neo-Nazis because he was DEA and the Nazis were making meth lol. It had nothing to do with them being neo-Nazis.
Definitely would have voted for trump in 2016 though
right but consider his stance on mexicans and drug addicts. not much of empath
I can't remember him saying anything against Mexicans, did he? I know He loved his partner?
Tbf he wasn't aware of the Neo-Nazi group until
Spoiler
they arrived to gun him and his partner down.
That isn't to say he'd knowingly be allied with outright Neo-Nazis, but it doesn't mean his character wouldn't be a MAGA fascist.
Also, the only reason he got into conflict with the Neo-Nazis was because of Walter and the meth. Hank was DEA, his only real concern was arresting the makers of the blue meth.
Dean "sex gifs" Norris
Not sure if a dig against capitalism, or just STFU slaves!
I’m with you, I can’t really comprehend the underlying message of this.
I’m leaning towards him being pro-war because this is the price they must pay to maintain American capitalism, but then other commenters seem to have read it differently
Well he also said "Our prices are rising because of Putin’s actions,” “There isn’t enough supply. And the bottom line is if we want lower gas prices we need to have more oil supply right now.”
So still could be read either way of: support the oil war efforts or this is how fairmarket works
I agree. Tue people who voted for this shit love capitalism and deserve every bit of it.
you're all horrible -Europe
Europes just as capitalist, but with better safety nets so people don’t turn against it.
How come Spain was the only one to condemn the US while every other European government condemned Iran? How come you all sell weapons to Israel so they can commit genocide.
The west is all horrible, my country included.
The west is all horrible, my country included.
Same for Australia, our Green politicians condemned it but alas they're a small minoroty.
to be fair its the voters, when faced with a choice, they inevitably let the nation and the world down.
That's a non sequitur and false equivalence: opposing or supporting both Iran or Israel have little to do with capitalism as a way to govern and tend to be more rooted in self interests. Iran has capitalism as does Israel, now that most kibutzs are in name only it no longer has small scale communism to any real extent either.
I am not sure what you are responding to as it has been deleted but that really stood out. And as for the last sentiment I can thing of no government or organization that once big and powerful enough hasn't committed atrocities all the way up to genocide, be it the East India trading companies of the Dutch and British, the many empires through history (including the USSR and US), and all organizations that insulate themselves from criticism and their customers/employees (in the case of companies) or citizens/people (in the case of governments). The west is only notable today compare to most other nations by having more open reporting on what government decisions are being made and their negative impacts leading to more criticism that or more authoritarian regimes. This is typified by the reporting on the Spanish flu during world war 1 where the flu may well have originated in the US and was brought to the trenches killing millions but was reported on openly in the Spanish press while both the Entente and Tripple alliance supressed that news in their respective presses, leading to spain during that time being more representative or the wants of its people than the US, France, the UK, and Italy on the Entente side or Germany, Austria, and Turkey on the other (russia having bowed out by that point to start their civil war).
Nah, Dean Norris has seemed pretty cool everywhere I've seen him. He's an actor who naturally looks like a CHUD, so he gets cast to play cops and military dudes and things like that, but like 90% of his social media posts are trolling Andrew Tate-type morons and other right wing jerks.
The other 10% is

I hate it when I accidentally tweet what I'm trying to google and 13,000 people retweet it
Being relatable is part of why it's funny
Why does an actor have to give commentary against bumper stickers?
Reading the image is a bit like whiplash. But it doesn't read like capitalist support. If people love capitalism, then they shouldn't be complaining about the kakistocracy or false scarcity it always produces and thrives on. And if they want to complain about the knock on effects of capitalism, they should criticize it too. But all stated in the fascistic and bullying Style that Fox News viewers lap up and ador. All while being subversive.
Of course it's always possible it's so dumb and lacking self-awareness that it goes so far around the other way and almost seems deep and cryptic.
I don't think we can hold it against people to not have hot takes on literally everything Trump does.
He did speak up then, you numpty.
This was 2022.
Maybe read the article next time.
top 46 comments