• gon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Damn ok. Yeah I get what you mean.

    I don’t think the problem is the companies necessarily though, or the erosion of ownership… The problem is ownership, private property and private production. As long as we’re dependent on private companies making our means of transportation, and as long as we insist on owning them, the more they will have leverage over what we can and can’t do with them. The only solution, in my view, is to remove ownership entirely, and simply provide a product to the public, that is shared and used and “owned” by the community rather than the property of an individual. Hence public transport.

    Fundamentally I suppose the fix wouldn’t be very different regardless of the perspective on the issue.

    Still, companies do have a right to do this, at this time, and I think it’s dangerously delusional to deny it. It’s indeed “crazy talk”, as you put it, but that’s because capitalism is a crazy system that shouldn’t be allowed to continue! Protect the rights of the people by providing them with their rights, rather than having them buy them from Mercedes.

    • grue
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Still, companies do have a right to do this, at this time, and I think it’s dangerously delusional to deny it.

      On the contrary: there’s a very important distinction that I’m trying to make between an entity having the “right” to do something and merely being able to “get away with” doing it. The framing of issues matters, and I believe ceding control of said framing to the neofeudalists is far more dangerous than being accused of “delusion” for pointing out the way things are supposed to be instead of accepting the corrupt status quo at face value.

      • gon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ok, I think you have a point there.

        I still think it’s meaningless though. “A fine is a price”. If they can get away with it, they can do it. I don’t think there’s much of a point in relying on legislation to determine whether something should be done or not. Fundamentally, whether they have a right to it or not, they shouldn’t do it. Meaning they shouldn’t have that right, if they do.

        “The way things are supposed to be” according to who? Capital? The law, written by capital?