Well see, that's interesting too. You don't see economics as a system, but more like chaos. And of course, if you have chaos, you need someone or some thing to establish order. So clearly within your worldview, there really isn't such thing as "market forces" or Smith's invisible hand. It's all anarchy of strong against weak until someone comes in and does something about it.
I'm not sure where you are going with the statement, "a perversion of individual freedoms." You've dropped hints that liberty is at best a secondary consideration when it comes to what's an important social good. I'm just not sure how far you go with that. Is that something you're still working out or do you know and don't want to say?
Oh, and by the 3rd movie they had completely dropped the idea of the needs of the many...blah blah blah.
Well, it's not *natural*. It's neither neutral nor benign on it's own. It is what we decide it is. If we decide commerce will benefit few, at the expense of many...that's what it is. If we decide commerce is more beneficial to society at large...that's what it is. It's not naturalistic. If it were, the lions would be starving right now, because their gluttony depleted their resources, yet they can operate outside of capitalism using a specific form of engineered commerce, outside of the *environment*, and are doing pretty fucking good. They can do this, because our commerce allows and rewards them to get more, for less, regardless of the cost at home. Now we're pretending we're going to re-engineer other elements within capitalism to try and mop up the mess, but in reality, it's a parlor trick and they'll drag this conversation out until doomsday and won't address anything until they absolutely have too. I mean why would they? Some people are making incredible fucking fortunes
They take their work abroad, pay little, reap much but their homeland suffers. This is not seen as a deficit, but rather astute business acumen. This is not seen as counter productive to the homelands stability, but rather as the obvious business choice. It circumvents the touted theme of commerce/capitalism, which always insists that it's good for everyone involved. Our current reality suggests otherwise, and a more accurate description might be, "it's good for some, a crap shoot for everyone else." Life has no guarantees, this is true...but a concept is what we decide it is...no more, no less. If you make it more gamble oriented, that's what it is. If you make it more oriented towards societal benefits, that's what it is. It doesn't move in any direction, other than the direction we steer it. This is true the world over. Otherwise, there wouldn't be other countries free of our predicaments. They chose the path their commerce would take, they are not stagnate nor closed off and they chose not to chase King Solomon's wealth for an unstable society.
And actually, by the end of movie number two, Kirk was already giving the finger to Spock's comment, because you know that muther f'er was already plotting for his own desires.
