In theory.. But in practice, when men are trying to acquire more resources for other marginalised men e.g shelters for male victims of domestic abuse, who is lobbying against them? Feminists.
I don't understand why you are getting downvoted. What you are saying is basic economics and I guess people in here are too ideologically invested to accept it. The claim that governments foster healthy competition when their effect is the exact opposite is ridiculous.
Regulators don't care about stopping it, they only care about lining up their pockets. You have a corrupt agent and then you expect another corrupt agent to do you justice.
> You have a corrupt agent and then you expect another corrupt agent to do you justice.
I don't expect anything. I am just saying that regulators are the only ones in a position to stop tax avoidance. Corporations might be corrupt or they might not, and it would have no impact on the issue either way. The corruption of regulators is the sole cause of tax avoidance, not the corruption of corporations. Even morally sound corporations are forced to use tax avoidance to be competitive, since it is legally permitted. If they don't, they will be outcompeted. Therefore whether or not a corporation is corrupt has no impact on whether it will use tax avoidance.
I interpreted 'regulator' as IRS agent because the discussion is on Netflix tax bill and you talked about some corrupt agents ... but OK, an IRS agent isn't really a regulator ... kind of. The executive branch bureaucracy is tasked with enforcing existing laws (which includes regulating specific domains). Regardless, my actual point stands and you haven't answered that. More specifically 1) what is it that you're actually talking about and 2) do you actually evidence of any impropriety with respect to Netflix' tax bill? Because you are so sure about all those corrupt agents who lined their pockets in order to give Netflix a lighter tax burden.
The author is just trying to shoehorn his political ideology into a completely irrelevant topic to score social points with his friends and pat himself on the back. There is no need trying to find anything of substance here. He is hearing hoofs, and imagining zebras instead of horses.
They care about the poor and vulnerable as long as they support their power grabs. Otherwise they send them to the Gulags or execute them - and the excuse is always the same "It's for your own good".
Isn't it very convenient though when you brand anything to the right of Marx as 'Fascist' so that you can silence those viewpoints by any means necessary? Even using violence?
That's not true though. There have been countless of instances where perfectly reasonable positions have been branded by leftists as 'Fascist' in order to justify themselves in initiating aggression - unprovoked. Then they perform Olympic level metal gymnastics to justify themselves on how they are not at fault but the other side's fault for 'spreading hate'. People are starting to see through authoritarians like those and have increasingly stop falling for that bullshit.
Ok, the author has to decide. Is this a product of progressivism (he admits that the city has been left leaning for decades, a symbol of globalism) or is it a product of late capitalism? Progressivism is at odds with Capitalism, you can't have both, except if he means the Chinese version of 'Capitalism'.
