Isn't that precisely why this is happening? Because it's doing exactly that, and the people in power in these countries don't like it?
If you're asking which one of the three I think we should focus our attention for change, I think the obvious answer from both a moral and logical standpoint is capitalism. The combination of democracy and free speech means money is political power. Allowing individuals to amass this much political power is both unjust and destabilizing. That goes for companies as well. If companies are going to be amorally motivated purely by money, we need to do a better job of pricing in externalities to put reins on that amorality.
Blaming capitalism for what's happening in America is like blaming an engine for a car not having seatbelts.
If you want to use a different definition of anarchism that includes a legal system and police force then that's not the kind of anarchism being discussed here.
Also, I may not have as robust understanding of anarchism... Does anarchism incorporate game theory and account for tensions between competition and cooperation?
We should treat existing fortunes as bugs and correct them.
They've had decades to move to Dubai or New Zealand or whatever other magical country doesn't tax its residents. I wonder why they choose to stay in one of the richest countries in the world instead?
Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
Sure, but I wager not being in the US means less money. And thus less influence
> Do you really live in that much of a US-centric bubble where you don’t realise outside influence exists?
Adding any friction to their influence is a good thing, in my eyes.
When you read history, you would see that many Mawali were scholars, and you can read about the Mamluki empire. This was never seen anywhere in human history.
As discussed elsewhere in this thread, the slavery that you're thinking of is still permitted in capitalist america, not to mention other forms that exist today in broad daylight, but are more subtle, so people don't say anything (and those are prohibited by Islam).
Correction, scholars were Mawali
They're trying to do the same with Islam, enormous amounts of money are being spent, but Islam has the advantage of an extremely strict and rigorous scholarly heritage and preservation, thank God. We are under no illusion that the battle will be an easy one. Much of what's happening today has been foretold in our texts.
And I don't even think these are the best ideas. But they have "a proven track record".
I used those words in the context of the rise of companies like Meta and people like Zuckerberg. I trusted the people reading what I wrote to know that. A response telling me the US is a republic adds nothing to the conversation but allowing an individual to bask in their own pedantry.
The idea that democracy doesn't exist in the world is not something that I currently agree with. Did you mean to say direct democracy?
Very similar take on free speech vs absolute free speech. Did your definition mean to include exceptions for libel, fraud, child exploitation? Etc.?
You seem to be insinuating something about me by saying "it's interesting you felt..." But you are the one who put the "unrestricted" qualifier next to capitalism and no such extreme anchors on the other two concepts.
It's also interesting that you chose to imply something about my character instead of reflect on your own choice of words and their objective meanings.
To end any possible confusion, "unrestricted capitalism" meant capitalism without enough restrictions. It was used to cover a range of related concepts and ideologies such as laissez-faire, Anglo-Saxon, and neoliberalism. It was used to indicate that my problem was not with more basic capitalistic ideals like private property and competitive markets.
In your original comment you made the specific point "societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix". I then pointed out that "unrestricted capitalism" isn't actually being practiced anywhere, which is true. The reason I pointed this out can be reframed as a question: "What society actually thinks that unrestricted capitalism is sustainable?" or alternatively... "No societies are practicing unrestricted capitalism, so why would a reckoning be necessary?".
Your response was to then claim "Neither does democracy nor free speech [exist anywhere in the world]" which is clearly false.
Where I think we stand now: My opinion is that the reason these problems are mounting in the USA is due to when it exists in the money-government-power-system-life-cycle. There are surely lessons to learn here, but "unrestricted capitalism" is a misnomer and not relevant, and therefore a balance between it and other factors is by extension irrelevant. The core problem is corruption and a shift in government from prioritizing the wants of individuals to the wants of corporations. This is manifesting as both too many bad laws and not enough good laws, and a breakdown in how laws are written and maintained. There are several critical regressions, but a big one was citizens united. Overall, this particular instance of the system is at the end of its life, and requires substantial renewal. It's a messy and complex problem, and in many ways probably inevitable. It has nothing to do with unrestricted capitalism.
I admit that my original comment was insufficiently clear in representing my point and it would have been better if I had elaborated.
I am also disappointed by your continued Ad Hominem. It's exchanges like this that turn me off HN for a while.
I assumed that by "unrestricted capitalism" you meant laissez faire, or in alignment with how it's defined in textbooks, Google, or any modern LLM model, etc...
- tobacco company execs lied under oath in the USA and killed millions for profit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Berkshire
- fascist-owned CNews keeps spreading illegal (under french law) fake news yet noone is jailed, the fines barely make a dent in the profits, and their nationwide TV channel continues to receive license despite breaking all regulations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNews#Warnings_and_sanctions
That's just scratching the surface.