My point was simply that so-called followers of Isalm attacked unarmed merchant ships before and after our country first started. Thats history, although theivery had more to do with it than religion.
I concede that point but where in the constitution does it authorize the gov't by use of force to extract tax dollars from me to pay for protection for a private company to do business outside the geographic confines of the states themselves? If a so-called welfare queen lives a lifestyle unsustainable without the gov't taking my tax dollars to subsidize that lifestyle in order to continue it and this is wrong, how is this no different than doing the same for a business. Now you might say it's because the business generates jobs and revenue for the gov't, likely not enough to pay for what the gov't spends but this is not free market capitalism but is what is called
State Capitalism or a form of hybrid socialism. State capitalism also hides the true cost of products or services of the priviedged company obtaining special economic treatment from the state and it buries some of the total cost of these goods and services under non-transparency on the back of non-informed taxpayers. That final cost at the cash register is often not the true cost of the goods and services of some companies so sometimes the higher priced, smaller company product could in truth of toal cost be cheaper. Same is true of products made overseas verses here at home even when you factor in the higher US labor and benefit costs.
What many here scream against on the one hand, they actually champion on the other. Maybe it's way past time that we should rethink
State Capitialism.