This has ALWAYS been capitalism.

Just now, we're seeing what capitalist policies do to another nation, and that nation is us.

Capitalism is when... the government says you can't launch your product? That sounds very free-market.

For many, "capitalism" has lost all original meaning and is instead a synonym for "republicans" or "MAGA".

Sounds like many people are idiots blinded by ideological lenses.

Trump just says plainly what the republicans have always been for. Now its just without euphamism.

Some of us remember "Trickle down economics", from Reagan. More like pissed-on. And Reagan treated HIV like a 'gay plague that would solve itself'. And 'welfare queen' was a euphamism for 'inner city black people'. Or the fact that Regan thought Murphy Brown was a real reporter.

Point being is its the same party, same postures, same intent. Now, its without euphamism. 'Eating cats and dogs' versus 'those people'.

Capitalism is any time rich people do bad things.

And the more bad they are, the more capitalist it is.

Capitalism and free markets are distinct things often conflated.

One can market socialism.

One can have crony capitalism.

Eh, this isn’t new to the US either. You can’t, for example, buy a nuclear weapon on the open market because we recognize the broader societal risk.

I have a feeling the latest incremental release of ChatGPT is maybe less threatening to the survival of all living species than a nuclear weapon, but I’m no expert so could be wrong.

Sure, but it’s a bit of a strawman. Define what you think is the appropriate level of risk to society without resorting to the extremes and it becomes a more productive conversation.

Is it just short of a model that can be used for bioterrorism? Security vulnerabilities that can cripple banks? Or just undermining the current capitalist incumbents? There’s a broad spectrum

I'd say something like: If you provide it to one company then you have to provide it to all companies. If you aren't comfortable with that, then either nationalize it or accept that no one gets it.

A strawman? “Don’t resort to extremes”? It’s the example you proposed!

The strawman I was referring to was the binary option of "threatening to the survival of all living species...or not". Perhaps "false dichotomy" would have been a better description.

The GGP point was that this level of control has been normal when dealing with other nations. The nuclear point was that it has also previously been applied internally, so the original framing of "other nations vs us" is not particularly good.

If your counterpoint is "yeah but that's ok when it's based on existential risk" that doesn't support your first point, it just reorients the framework from "external vs internal" to "risk based". If you change the goalposts to the latter, you are actively undermining your original point. That's a fine point to make, just not coherent with your original one.

You are far too focused on the meta of this conversation and trying to head off every possible response. This isn’t conducive to discussion.

You proposed nuclear weapons as an example, that got us off on a very strange foot. That is all I was attempting to point out.

I’m the one who is trying to bring it back to the original point. I also brought up healthcare and aerospace. There are many examples of government limits on business that go against your thesis of “this has always happened externally and is only now being applied internally”.

I literally said nuclear was an example. You apparently didn’t draw the line to the broader principle.

I think we are past the point of productivity and should both move on. Have a good rest of your weekend mate.

It is certainly difficult to have a productive conversation when someone refuses to engage in discussing their own point.