But you sir, you reduce something eloquently to its core essence moreso than most of us already do.
Those two economic concepts are ideologically opposed to each other.
When the majority of self-proclaimed libertarians stop supporting pro-corporatist policies, I'll stop laughing at that notion.
Also, you clearly have no concept of the actual meaning of libertarian
Based on how often I see this statement, it appears that a large percentage of self-proclaimed Libertarians have no concept of the meaning of Libertarian either.
A company is created by founders and shareholders. Unless you own a share in it, it's none of your business what it does.
In your libertarian/corporatist fantasy maybe, but in reality, it very much is my business, your business and everyone else's. As the parent correctly stated, corporations only exist because the government allows them to exist.
Our country was founded on a deep distrust for corporations and on the principal that corporations should only be allowed to exist if they serve the common good. To a degree that principal still exists, but due to the corrupting influence of money, we have fall farther and farther away from that principal over the last 150 years.
The telecom industry of the past 30 years provides a dissenting view.
Oh sorry, second after "What does it mean to leave the EU." Thanks for correcting me and strengthening my argument. These people had no fucking clue what just happened the day before.
But the real point is it's an irrelevant and stupid argument. I mean - even if one were to accept that X number of people googling a term a day after a particular event must carry more weight than all the people who might have googled the same term every day before that event - are you seriously trying to argue Google trends should direct how to run a country ?
That's a glib way to hand-wave away any argument.
Your argument is that you can't see any possible positive outcome, therefore it was a bad idea.
Would you think a second vote would be more acceptable if as a condition of holding it, there could be no third vote?
No, I don't think there is any reason to hold a second vote at all.
And it's not deceitful to suggest that they made an informed and well-considered decision when the most popular search query in the UK the following day was "what is the EU"?
When the decision was objectively stupid unless you hate the concept of the EU's power more than the trillions in economic damage currently being wrought? The decision to leave is not a decision an informed populace would make for any reason other than an overpowering tantrum of xenophobia and jingoism, which didn't seem to match the public's mood. It was made due to extreme ignorance.
These are religious statements.
Do you think there would be a petition for a third vote if the outcome was the same?
I don't think so. It's the same reason you usually don't ask a person if they're sure more than once, and important switches only have only one safety cover on them.
The "safety cover" was weeks of campaigning and years of debate leading up to the referendum.
Do not try to suggest the idea of leaving the EU was sprung upon the people with little warning. It's just deceitful.
At its core, Brexit is about clamping down on the free flow of people and capital.
At its core, the EU is about unhindered flow of people and capital.
The things the people don't like about Eu are the things that lie at the core of the EU project.
They're not getting "reformed". Literally, doing so would defeat the purpose and objective of the EU.
Direct democracy and especially referendums are fraught with problems.
Switzerland does OK.
To iterate is human, to recurse, divine. -- Robert Heller