>>95478
>How is it that if a company will allow its employees to do whatever they want, the company will fail, but when the state allows people to have more freedom it leads to greater prosperity?
First of all this post is a terrible approach to questioning anything as it has a blatant misunderstanding of business models and somehow also manages to fuck up understanding of the market completely. I get that this is a semi-bait semi-legitimate post but let's dissect this piece by piece
>How is it that if a company will allow its employees to do whatever they want, the company will fail
First of all, this isn't inherently true (at least not in all sectors). A good number companies in the software industry tend to allow much more freedom at every level of work simply because a programmer might have more access to information that could help create a more viable and valuable product then say, someone like the boss of the company who really might honestly have nothing to do with the operation the programmer is currently occupied with. There are some benefits in a wide number of industries of giving employees room for freedom, that's not to say that there aren't costs as will be covered in the next part of the argument.
Secondly, that being said, the opposite is also the case in numerous (if not most) industries (ie: the restaurant industry, IT, etc) where employee freedom will inevitably (in some cases) leads to employees simply not providing anything of value which will invariably cost the company money and as one anon said here: >>95491
Then comes the crux of the argument;
> but when the state allows people to have more freedom it leads to greater prosperity?
First of all, a state and a business are not equivalent in the same way that the mafia and your local McDonalds are hardly comparable. One is an institution that steals your money via force, the other is simply a business that pays you for your service. Of course people benefit when the state ceases to govern because people can take greater responsibility over their property, and reap the rewards of their investments, savings, innovations, trades, etc. they finally no longer have an institution robbing them and making decisions with the populations resources that would not have been made otherwise.
>tl;dr
One is an institution that wants to pay you for a service, and in some cases won't benefit from you having certain freedoms at work (ie: the freedom to drink on the job, slack off, etc), the other is an institution that commits theft against you and funnels money towards causes that either wouldn't see a dime in the market or would be done far more efficiently in a market setting.