> Here’s a tip;
You’re not looking for discourse so much as to have someone agree with your anxiety about a perceived potential conflict and its stakes, and I am not going to be that person to you, sorry.
I made my statements and I stand by them. If you’re extrapolating to the extremes to justify your point of view, then I hate to break it to you but you’re treading ground my OCD has already mapped down to the millimeter. The “National Security” defense is not a valid one absent plans to prevent the exploit of that reasoning by bad actors.
My point is that "western capitalism" isn't an ideological suicide pact. Letting important things fail because you want the system bound to some rigid of rules isn't an acceptable option. Rules exist to serve people, not the other way around.
And that's assuming that the government protecting a strategic industry from their own blunders is even breaking the rules. It isn't. It's one of the characteristic behaviors of "western capitalism". We're not talking about "Ayn Rand's capitalism", nor "Capitalism as Stego thinks it should work".
Here's a tip; part of that "Western Capitalism" thing is governments sensibly not binding themselves to extreme libertarianism and being willing to protect strategic industries when necessary. Maybe you think that's not true capitalism or something, that it's not fair, but so what? The stakes are too high to fuck around with letting strategic industries fail out of some insane commitment to ideological purity.