> any [] property can be [taken by the state] from its [original] owners simply by [those owners becoming more powerful than the state wants]

When rephrased like the above, I think what you’re describing is pretty common in history. Many industries and assets have been nationalized when it serves the state’s interests.

IMO the moral justification is that there is no ownership or private property except that which is sanctioned by the state (or someone state-like) applying violence in its defense. In this framing, there’s little moral justification for the state letting private actors accrue outsized power that harms consumers/citizens.

▲

dmitrygr 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Brutal, but understandable and well-argued. Thank you.

▲

1718627440 2 hours ago | parent [-]

People outsource the brutality (to the government), so that they don't need to deal with it in their daily life. If we couldn't force companies to act in ways we want through a formal system, then the world would look much more brutal.

▲

bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

or alternatively we can just stop using products/services of said companies

▲

1718627440 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I can ban persons from doing things, I rather not have them do. Companies are legal persons, so why shouldn't this apply to them? At some point ignoring behaviour is not making it go away, it needs to be actively worked against, otherwise it will become (practically) mandatory.

▲

bdangubic 2 hours ago | parent [-]

the core problem with banning is who is doing it and why, right? once we allow it, it goes into the hands of the “politicians” and then books get banned today, ice scream gets banned tomorrow, math gets banned the next day…

	▲	1718627440 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Which is why the more serious consequences a law has the harder it is to change it and the more people need to sign off on it. There is stuff that needs simple majorities, stuff that is in the constitution and requires a super majority, stuff that can't be changed short of abolishing the current state and stuff that can't be changed at all, because it is just an assertion that is independently on anyone asserting it. This is kind of a "solved" thing in theory, not so much in practice of course. solved meaning we have a proper process established