Bhaskar Sunkara

But now your workers and other workers in the sector, because if you did it unilaterally, you just get undercut by your competition.

Now, these people now have a few extra hours a week.

They can do whatever they want with, you know, they could work.

watch more NFL with it.

They could spend more time with their friends or family or whatever else.

And they're still getting paid the same, if not better, because the wages also went up.

So it's really a question often of trade-offs between whose freedom and autonomy are you going to prioritize?

The freedom and autonomy of the entrepreneur or the capitalist in this case, or the freedom and autonomy of

ordinary workers.

Now, you could create a society that swings so far in the direction of prioritizing the freedom of one group or one class or whatever else compared to another that you end up in some sort of tyranny.

Now, if the state said...

You know, you, Lex, you're a capitalist, so you don't get the right to vote.

Or we're going to take away your private home or your ability to do things we think are intrinsic human rights.

Now, this would be tyranny.

This would be an abridgment of your rights.

But shaping your ability in the economic sphere to be an economic actor is, I think, within the realm and scope of democratic politics.

So for one thing, people are going to take advantage of systems.

They're going to find loopholes.

They're going to find ways around.

They're going to find ways to, at times, dominate and coerce others, even in systems meant to get rid of domination and coercion.