Riot Games laying off 11%

The company is not mugging anyone. They are exercising their right to end a voluntary association. This is a perfectly valid choice that either party of the employment relationship may make. If you usually shop at grocery store A and you decide you don't want to any more and shop at grocery store B instead, you're not "victimizing" grocery store A.

And there's a systemic solution, called unemployment insurance, that every company is required to pay into, and they pay more when they lay people off. What else would you have us do?

These are grown professional adults we're talking about, not helpless wards of the state. It's not unreasonable to expect people to be able to take care of themselves.

I think that's a fair point when you hear stories about people who are hired and then laid off within a couple months (or sooner). Nobody can predict the far future with accuracy, but those kinds of stories usually just point to corporate incompetence and the company usually could have planned better.

But when it comes to cases where economic and business conditions have drastically changed, I don't think it's reasonable that we expect business leaders to have crystal balls for years in the future.

What about the millions of customers. Prices all go up then. Sort of goes against the bussiness priorities, most produce for lowest cost.

Anyone could have reasonably foreseen interest rate increases from historic lows, but of course company leaders got greedy and now those under them have to suffer for it.

most people would say on-call or responsible-for, both having vastly different connotations than accountable.

saying accountable isn't wrong per se but it's definitely not the connotations anyone would say on the spot when on-call or responsible-for are vastly more accurate.

in particular, on-call brings with it all the baggage that being on-call requires. responsible-for implies you have a responsibility, it does not imply a negative consequence if you fail to meet that responsibility (it doesn't preclude it, but it doesn't imply it either).

accountable implies being held accountable which implies a negative consequence.

saying you're held accountable for a system very strongly implies there will be a negative consequence for failure whereas responsible-for does not.

it's what's technically allowed vs what people actually say.

Your reference to the transatlantic slave trade and its erroneous association with capitalism is not only historically inaccurate but intellectually dishonest. Let’s be clear: the transatlantic slave trade resulted in the tragic deaths of approximately 1.2 to 2.1 million people, a horrifying figure. However, to compare this to the atrocities committed under Mao and Stalin, where the death tolls reached tens of millions - estimates suggest around 45 million under Mao and 20 million under Stalin - is not just deceitful but numerically absurd. Conflating the horrors of slavery with the principles of free-market capitalism, which fundamentally hinge on individual liberty and property rights, is beyond outrageous. It’s a gross misrepresentation of history and a blatant disregard for the millions who suffered under truly oppressive systems. Such distortion of facts is unacceptable in any serious debate about economic systems and their impact on human life and liberty.

The claim that the Dark Ages represent an era of capitalism is a fundamental misunderstanding of both history and the essence of libertarian capitalism. The Dark Ages, characterized by feudalism, lacked the core tenets of modern capitalism – namely, individual property rights and the principle of non-aggression. True libertarian capitalism, as we understand it today, emerged around the 1800s, bringing with it unprecedented economic growth and scientific progress. This system is founded on respect for individual rights, voluntary exchange, and freedom from coercion – principles nonexistent in the feudal societies of the Dark Ages. In stark contrast, collectivism and socialism, despite their relatively recent emergence, have consistently failed wherever tried, lacking the efficiency and innovation-driven growth inherent in capitalist systems. It’s crucial to distinguish between these vastly different epochs and ideologies. Modern libertarian capitalism is not only the most successful system in human history for advancing prosperity and human well-being, but also a cornerstone for scientific and technological advancement.

The supposed success of the USSR, which was indeed a threat to the US, was built on a foundation of resource exploitation, extreme violence, and suppression of individual freedoms. This model proved to be unsustainable, ultimately leading to the USSR’s collapse. The real threat was not its competitive prowess but its potential for global destabilization through military force and ideological expansion. As for the modern resurgence of collectivist ideas, now often cloaked in terms like ‘progressive,’ ‘social democratic,’ and ‘social justice,’ these are merely rebranded versions of the same failed ideologies. They promise equity and fairness but historically deliver devastation and disaster. This isn’t just a theoretical debate; it’s a matter of learning from history to avoid repeating catastrophic mistakes. The resurgence of these collectivist ideas poses a real threat to the future of humanity, as they undermine the principles of individual liberty, economic freedom, and innovation that have driven human progress. It’s crucial to recognize and resist these regressive ideologies for the sake of preserving and advancing a prosperous and free society.

Lastly, the assertion that the last 20 years of capitalism have led to the fastest falling living standards is factually incorrect. On the contrary, global living standards have significantly improved over this period. The World Bank and other international organizations consistently report reductions in extreme poverty and improvements in health, education, and overall quality of life worldwide, largely due to the spread of market-based economies. Furthermore, the greatest environmental challenges are often seen in authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, where there is less transparency, weaker environmental regulations, and less accountability. In contrast, many capitalist countries have been at the forefront of adopting sustainable practices and investing in green technologies. It’s essential to base our arguments on accurate data and acknowledge the complex interplay between economic systems and environmental outcomes.