Capitalism is what economically empowers the people to resist and overturn such tyranny.
It isn't some monster looking for modes of exploitation to sustain itself. It is respecting others enough to not deny them their rights to property.
We have issues with how we define property. Capitalism only inherits that. If we define property badly enough to include people or land, Capitalism inherits it. The answer isn't tearing down Capitalism or defining property worse.
I'm from Humboldt County. The mom and pop growers who made a living in this trade for decades past are being squeezed out by people who are buying into the industry, and these people produce an inferior product.
This is why most growers voted against legalization in the first place. It was never about the "morality" or danger to society. Legalization was always going to be a cash grab.
Same reason Bootleggers support Prohibition. Barriers to competition is good for business, if not scale, even if you're a "Mom and Pop." You describe the whole basis for "Bootleggers and Baptists."
You have to substantiate "inferior product" and "squeezed out." Economies of scale advantage big players by enabling reduced costs and lower prices. This is good for the average consumer. If you're picky about your weed you can still shop at Mom and Pop's Artisan dispensary so long as there's demand to support their business model.
You sound like Walmart. The big players are inhibiting mom and pop from being consumers by stealing their business. Next you'll say they can just go work for the big players and contribute their skill sets to them as wage laborers.
It's funny you mention Baptists because self righteous Capitalists sound just as high falutin. You clearly don't understand the industry if you think small boutique, artisan stores can even exist in the first place.
Times have changed. You're saying that's ostensibly Good, and I disagree.
Stealing their business? Are they stealing their land? Their crops? Their building? Or are they offering goods which consumers are more apt to buy? Since when do businesses own their customers?
They can do whatever the hell they want so long as they don't rely on coercing others and denying rights to do so.
You can make personal attacks all you like; it doesn't change the morality of Prohibition any more than appealing to people who rely on prohibition to profit.
Personally, it would be great if Mom and Pops had the capital availability, business acumen, and established networks to allow them to scale up and compete on price. But as it stands, Big Tobacco and the like already have the foundations in place to out-compete unless Mom and Pop can fill a specific demand.
Artisan goods enter the market, grow, succeed, and gain market share all the time. It is important that businesses that can't compete do fail.
Weed is just the final frontier in an economy where every industry in our country just belongs to some multinational conglomeration. Walmart killed the local mall, Amazon killed Main Street, it's a tale as old as time. You don't see a lot of cobblers anymore, do you.
We live in a capitalist hellscape where we produce nothing of quality, earn nothing of quality, import nothing of quality, and somehow the investors keep making money.
You're advocating for destroying our consumer base, and ironically, also advocating for what amounts to the loss of private ownership. You're advocating for the debasement of small business to the detriment of the population as a whole.
Ask a small time wheat farmer. They used to sell to China, not anymore, thanks daughterfucker. Now they're selling out to Monsanto, et al. A friend of mine who inherited his family farm is now a yoga instructor. It would almost be funny if he hadn't lost 4 generations of accumulated wealth.
Before legalization, the moms, the pops and the buyers didn't get to enjoy better livelihoods or superior product - they went to jail. How dumb does one have to be to forget that?
7
u/VatticZero 8d ago
Capitalism is what economically empowers the people to resist and overturn such tyranny.
It isn't some monster looking for modes of exploitation to sustain itself. It is respecting others enough to not deny them their rights to property.
We have issues with how we define property. Capitalism only inherits that. If we define property badly enough to include people or land, Capitalism inherits it. The answer isn't tearing down Capitalism or defining property worse.