>>48790
>So what are you arguing, embargoes are meaningless and the American bourgeois is doing it for no reason?
No; I'm saying that an embargo alone isn't enough to render an economy on fertile ground incapable of producing food. Furthermore:
>Despite the Spanish-language term bloqueo (blockade), there has been no physical, naval blockade of the country by the United States after the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962.[4] The United States does not block Cuba's trade with third parties: other countries are not under the jurisdiction of U.S. domestic laws, such as the Cuban Democracy Act (although, in theory, foreign countries that trade with Cuba could be penalised by the U.S., which has been condemned as an "extraterritorial" measure that contravenes "the sovereign equality of States, non-intervention in their internal affairs and freedom of trade and navigation as paramount to the conduct of international affairs."[5]). Cuba can, and does, conduct international trade with many third-party countries;[6] Cuba has been a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) since 1995.[7]
They can trade with anybody else. What, is the United states the only country that can support other economies through trade?
>If the state didn't exist, the proletariat would seize your precious private property.
Or (more likely) die trying. Like I wouldn't insure my property against your dumb asses.
>No, they get fucking blacklisted.
[citation needed]
>They can just use patent law,
They do. It's not enough. This approach has some limitations and hazards. If you make patent law too restrictive, you wind up unable to use technology you already have that you've copied from the other entrenched interests.
>hostile takeovers
Harder than it sounds.
>paramilitaries
Leading an aggressive paramilitary organization in a developed country is a good way to get shot, since you're not the only one on the block with the cash to hire out guns, and people don't take kindly to wolves in their midst.
>or plenty of other methods to push around small competitors.
Again; they do. Environmental regulation falls under the umbrella of "plenty of other methods".
> Not to mention, "upstarts" all depend on investment from the same big investors anyway
Well right now they do, because of how heavily they've entrenched their positions thanks regulatory restrictions, but there's no telling when a big fish from another pond is going to try and move in on your turf.
>Because sea level rise and desertification are going to cause just that to happen.
Well you've got your own ideas about sea level shit, so we'll just leave that aside for now, but what do oil company shills have to do with desertification? That's bad land management, not fossil fuels. If you look at the land that's turning into deserts, I bet you'll find that the overwhelming majority of it is publicly-managed, while privately-owned and managed land is doing fine.
>>48794
>Many predictions that were made as far back as the 60s have turned out to be true.
[citation needed]
>Meanwhile, in China and India, we have the worst smog in history, all thanks to the production the west has outsourced.
You're looking at an economy that suddenly transitioned from agriculture to industrial production. You're going to get pollution. Give it a generation or two and people will start prioritizing air quality once they're sure they'll have enough to eat thanks to the increased economic activity. Negative externalities are growing pains of an economy. They improve, typically long before regulation gets involved.
>>48795
>ancaps are suddenly now moralists
As if "don't attack people" was ever not a moral message.
>No, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism.
It's not the consumption that's the problem. Most of the intervention causing these abuses is on the production side, since it's easier to control.
>>48803
>>48809
>Capitalism, despite resulting in the greatest improvements in quality of life and reductions in pollution, is responsible for all suffering and pollution.
>Socialism, despite resulting empirically in greater suffering and pollution, is only a victim of capitalism.
Prove any of that.
>>48811
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAAHAAAAHAA!!!!!!!
Really!? ''Really!?" After all that, your response is "the country that made individual production of food illegal and carefully tried to control everything people did and produced failed because it was just too capitalist".
Fantastic. I mean; wow. Who's your dealer?