> [WS:] Do not expect logical consistency from the defenders of
> privilege. "Free market" is sugar coating for medieval domination.
> It is absolute freedom and protections for haves and competition and
> market discipline for have-nots, stupid. Intellectual property rights
> are good because they protect the former from the encroachments by the
> latter. By the same logic - social welfare is bad and against free
> market, but bank bailouts and corporate subsidies are good and
> perfectly compatible with free market.
But capital doesn't require any sort of logic, any sort of essence outside the capital-labor opposition. It's supple enough to include a wide range of ideologies and not contradict itself; in 500 years, it's incorporated an amazing number of them.
Also: the analogy to "medieval domination" is problematic and not apropos on many levels. I think what you are pointing to here is hypocrisy, which is a moral failing, not a politically relevant category.
> Pointing logical contradictions in what these people say is a waste of
> time. A better way is to chop off the heads that hold these ideas -
> as good old revolutionaries did. All crowned heads deserve a
> guillotine.
Hear hear. Except a lot of the most important heads are uncrowned.
[I see now that Ravi has made these (and other) points much better than I do.]