shareholders benefit when a company streamlines its operations. seeing as most meta employees are shareholders, they would benefit. a company cannot grow infinitely. any temporary bump in share price will only matter and sustain if the cuts actually help the company. getting laid off is hard, no doubt, but as long as the severance packages are fair I don't see any ethical issue here.
you are making the incredibly naive assumption that taxes is capital that is properly allocated once seized. more often it isn't used well. what gives the government the right to wastes someone else's hard earned money?
That it wasn't hard-earned money but simply a product of exploiting what society provided to them: skilled labour and collective time to build their vision.
They might manage this vision, take on more risk, etc., nothing about that is work enough for them to be rewarded orders of magnitude what they pay others to exploit them. It's a very basic morality issue, better that society wastes the product of exploitation than a single individual.
anarchy and libertarian socialism is particularly popular among the American left. Though I think OP is from UK. Either way as a individualist and capitalist, I rolled my eyes.
Even among the right, I think anarchism and libertarian socialism are viewed more sympathetically than authoritarian leftist tendencies. Much like how the left is less vitriolic (in principle, at least) towards capitalist libertarians than they are to fascists.
maybe in some cases but not if the said country is actively engaged in military action. by allowing Putin the resources to wage war the citizens are unwittingly and now that war is raging wittingly complicit.
In the 1930s socialism was still a rather new experiment and the Soviet Union was a shining example of its success to most of the socialist and leftist elites. In fact the Soviet Comintern planted seeds for communist and socialist movements around the world. They were responsible for fueling many revolutions and civil wars around the world at a time where US foreign policy was isolationist and dealing with the Great Depression. One such tactic was to embed sympathetic agents into major publications like the New York Times and win public favor through propaganda and other disinformation. Walter Duranty was a journalist who won Pulitzers for his flowery depictions of the Soviet Union. So fast forward today nothing has changed and even though we are aware of it nothing will change. If anything the reach of bad actors is far superior than ever before. Reddit, Twitter, Facebook is full of disinfo targeted at both the left and right and also coming from official sources. It not just crazy anonymous accounts. Sadly, this will never change and I am not sure there is any antidote for these human flaws.
Are you implying that "to embed sympathetic agents into major publications" is the work of a bad actor? If so, are you aware that nearly all major news sources today are pushing agendas?
Here's a tip: filter out any news organization that publish stories on "look at these suffering children" in regards to any conflict or current event. That's not news, that's agenda-pushing. There's a bunch of additional filters you can use, but when you're done you're left with a bunch of ill-informed blogs, speculation, and if you're lucky a few eye-witness accounts of a single event out of dozens of events which make up the conflict.
i think once google made the decision to go from returning results you want to see to returning results you want to see ( minus what google and their political friends don't want you to see ) created the incentive to look for alternatives.
