My initial thought: “No company is too big to fail, and the failure of a company by its own neglect or malfeasance is a positive thing.”
Imaginary Adversary: “But I work for Big Company, what if I lose my job?”
Response: “If Big Company was operating in a market where money can still be made, then some other company or companies, perhaps formed by people displaced from Big Company will replace Big Company. Since the new company or companies will require experienced staff, you will be well placed to find new employment. Furthermore, the government and therefore the tax paying individuals are not compelled to provide risk insurance to all employees, especially since it is has no power to manage whatever level of risk Big Company decides to take on.”
Imaginary Adversary: “But it wasn’t my fault that Big Company failed, why should I be forced to find a new job?”
Response: “You are not being forced to find a new job. You willingly joined Big Company. Big Company was willingly incompetent, and as a result can no longer afford to pay you. You are free to react to this inability to pay you in accordance with your principles.”
Imaginary Adversary: “But what about all of the charity work that Big Company has done or is doing? If they go away then who will take over that?”
Response: “If other companies or individuals wish to support those charities or charitable works formerly supported by Big Company, then they are free to do so or not. Big Company’s charitable side clearly has not saved it from the problems caused by its malfeasance or incompetence. Thus, much of the charitable work done by Big Company may well have contributed to its overall incompetence. If Big Company wishes to ask for charity in return for their own work, then they are free to ask individuals or charity organizations for said charity. However, it is an evil for Big Company to solicit charity from the government. Charity from the government is paid by taxes which are collected by the force of law regardless of whether a given individual taxpayer is willing to be charitable or not.”
Imaginary Adversary: “So things like welfare or other beneficial programs, even though the majority of the people’s elected representatives agree upon them, are evil? Is that what you’re saying?”
Response: “What I have said is clear, and you clearly understood it. Your question is formulated to cast me in an evil light. Gaslighting, it is called.”
Imaginary Adversary: “But I’m your imaginary adversary, so aren’t you gas lighting yourself?”
Response: “Not at all. This just serves me to help to demonstrate some of the evils commonly used to evade or attack Reason in arguments. You are my creation and you serve my purpose.”
