Zyansheep

Most of these definitions (with the exception of the Century Dictionary) would suggest a definition for “anti-capitalism” as primarily being against an economic system based on private ownership of capital, not the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. While these two things are compatible and perhaps even causal, they don’t inherently require each other. You can have extreme wealth in a non capitalist system, or a capitalist system with strong caps on wealth accumulation. Perhaps a better description for your position would be “anti-extreme wealth” rather than “anti-capitalism”?

I like communism too, it can be cool sometimes as well.

Based on your definition of what it means to be “anti-capitalist” vs “anti-market” I think there may be a difference between the definitions of capitalism we are working under. Could you give me your definition of capitalism?

While I do understand that non democratically accountable forms of economic activity may harmful or explotative in many situations, I do also see the argument for private ownership of “the means of production”, in so far as it can be beneficial to the overall effectiveness and efficiency of production and innovation. I don’t think anyone can scientifically or even philosophically completely justify one economic system over the other, and that so far, a mix of the two has been what most countries have settled on.

Capitalism means that we vote with our dollar and when those with capital have more votes and those without, they control policy generation and governance.

One last thing I’d like to point out, while in capitalism, the collective choices of those with money decide what products are made and services provided, this decision power doesn’t (and shouldn’t!) in well-functioning democracies extend to the government. I do understand the concern of large accumulations of wealth causing large imbalances of power which then affects government policy, and I believe this is a major problem (especially generational wealth). But I do not believe it is one that cannot be prevented and protected against, nor do I believe it is a defining property of “capitalism”.

I like capitalism. It is cool sometimes.

(Comment gets downvoted to oblivion)

I think that was the majority opinion’s goal, they think the line between what is speech and what isn’t should be spelled out more minutely with more legal precedent rather than what we had before where all speech in relation to selling a service was regulated under anti-discrimination statutes.

Well, Roe v Wade set a precedent, which was then reverted ~50 years later, so I’m not sure how much precedents apply to the supreme court (it definitely applies to lower courts tho)

People can do that now, but only for occupations that qualify as “speech”. Owners of “public businesses” (i.e. places that you can walk in to) still aren’t allowed to forbid entry to people arbitrarily.

Very important distinction.

It’d be pretty bad if hotels or restaurants started restricting access based on sex or race!

I’m not sure about discrimination against customers based on ideology, but I’m pretty sure you can’t discriminate against customers based on protected class (sex, race, orientation, etc.) What this supreme court case does (IIUC) is that companies are now allowed to not provide services to protected classes if those services constitute speech. So if you are a restaurant owner, or a hotel, you still can’t refuse a gay couple, if you are a cake designer, you can’t refuse to make a cake, but you can refuse to do anything remotely gay-related to that cake, if you are a web designer, you can refuse to make something altogether because the government can’t restrict or compel speech (and graphic design is speech).

I guess they could put (federated reddit alternative) next to the link