I don't think every regression in civil liberties is something that the society collectively accepted to tolerate. I'd say it's more often than not shoved down people's throats by lobbyists. It's just capitalism functioning as it's intended.
"Capitalism" doesn't have a proper definition; it's one of those words that just means whatever the speaker/listener wants it to mean. Better to use more precise terms.
No, but we don't need it to define what's our expectations of the effects from capitalism in it's later stages of maturity. Can we agree that the function of a corporation at least is to satisfy it's investors and maximise profits?
So lobbyism is just a manifestation of this function, the attempt of a corporation to communicate with society in order to influence decisions that impact their profits.
Corporations are not the only types of machines that have interest in making connections to other machines in the capitalist universe. Humans are also embedded in this universe, but for other interests.
Therefore it's reasonable to think that capitalism working as intended will in time start producing corporations that work against the interests of the common good.
Capitalism is to capital what monarchism is to monarch.
You've used terms in the past like "autocracy", "cascading failure", "plastic", "human capital", "optical media", and "infotainment". Is that what precision looks like? Was that CD, CD-ROM, CD-RW, DVD-RAM, BluRay, etc, made of polyethylene or polypropylene, or maybe polyvinyl chloride?
All of language is tenuous overlap between speaker intent and listener interpretation. In this instance, how do you interpret the definition of capitalism for this context? Better to add meaning.
In cases like these it's sufficient to substitute "capitalism" for "crony capitalism". However, the people making these statements are unlikely to ever agree that there can exist a non-crony-capitalism.
