Words have specific meanings. Unfortunately, capitalism is frequently misused by supporters and critics alike. Too often, what people defend or condemn is not free-market capitalism at all.

Although distinctions exist among capitalism, free enterprise, and free market, for the purposes of this essay, I use capitalism to mean free-market capitalism: an economic system based on private property, voluntary exchange, competition, freedom of entry and association, and freedom of contract—including wages negotiated without government-imposed minimums. Government’s role is that of a referee: protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and preventing force and fraud, not granting subsidies, bailouts, or special privileges.

Consider Michael Moore’s Capitalism: A Love Story (2009) and Robert Reich’s Saving Capitalism (2017). Both criticize corporate power, political influence, and government favors for large businesses. On corporate welfare, I agree with their criticisms on economic and moral grounds. Why should taxpayers subsidize businesses they might never voluntarily support? Why should politically connected corporations receive special privileges? And why should businesses making poor decisions be rescued at taxpayers’ expense?

These are legitimate complaints. But why blame free-market capitalism for government interference with the competitive market process?

In a free market, businesses must satisfy customers to earn profits. Persistent losses can signal that resources would be better used elsewhere. Rather than rescuing failing firms with taxpayer money, the free-market perspective is to allow the market process to work. As I sometimes jokingly tell my students when explaining this principle, it’s time to say, “Bye-bye, die-die!” to businesses that fail to satisfy consumer needs. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

Some call government favoritism crony capitalism. I dislike that expression because it still associates the problem with capitalism. Calling someone a “nice jerk” doesn’t change the fact that you’re calling that person a jerk. Likewise, attaching crony to capitalism leaves the impression that capitalism itself is the problem. Why not simply call it cronyism, corporate welfare, or government favoritism? The defining feature is political privilege, not voluntary exchange.

Another misconception is that defending capitalism means defending big business. Being pro-market is not the same as being pro-business. Free-market advocates defend competition and voluntary exchange, not every corporation or business decision.

Consider manufacturers demanding protective tariffs, corporations seeking exclusive tax incentives, or industries lobbying for regulations that discourage competitors. Rather than competing for customers, these businesses seek political favors. Economists call this rent-seeking. The greater the potential rewards from government favoritism, the stronger the incentive to pursue politicians rather than customers.

Interestingly, critics from opposing ideological perspectives sometimes agree about corporate welfare. Consider my former professor, the late free-market economist Walter E. Williams, and Robert Reich, a progressive political commentator and former US secretary of labor. In his PragerU video “Is Capitalism Moral?” Williams explained that voluntary market transactions are positive-sum games because both parties expect to benefit. By contrast, he described government programs such as farm subsidies, business bailouts, and food stamps as zero-sum games in which some benefit at the expense of others. Reich has similarly criticized corporate welfare for benefiting politically connected businesses at taxpayers’ expense. Although their economic philosophies differ considerably, both recognized problems associated with government favoritism.

Consider Amazon’s proposed second headquarters in New York City. In 2018, state and local officials offered Amazon an incentive package potentially worth approximately $3 billion, primarily through tax credits and other benefits tied to investment and job creation. Progressive Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez opposed the deal, questioning why a wealthy corporation should receive preferential treatment while communities faced pressing public needs.

A free-market advocate would oppose the deal on different grounds: no business, large or small, should receive taxpayer-funded subsidies or special privileges. The objection is not merely that Amazon received benefits unavailable to other businesses; it’s that government should not grant such favors in the first place. Businesses should compete for customers’ dollars, not taxpayers’ dollars. Government should enforce the rules, not pick winners and losers.

Amazon abandoned its New York plans in February 2019, but the controversy illustrates how different economic philosophies can identify the same problem. One emphasizes inequality and public priorities; the other emphasizes competition and market discipline.

The disagreement extends beyond subsidies to the question of monopoly power. In one of his videos, John Stossel shows a clip of Robert Reich describing Amazon as a monopoly. Stossel then challenges that characterization, pointing out that consumers have alternatives, including Walmart, Target, and Alibaba. This raises an important question: Should government determine when a company has become “too big,” or should consumers determine which businesses succeed through their voluntary purchasing decisions?

A company’s size alone does not establish monopoly power, and size itself is never a justification for government intervention. From a free-market perspective, the relevant distinction is between a business that grows by satisfying customers and one that benefits from government-created barriers to competition. Likewise, voluntary mergers should not require government approval merely because officials believe the resulting company would be “too large.”

None of this means that free markets require the complete absence of government or that all corporate misconduct results from intervention. The crucial distinction is between government enforcing general rules that protect property rights, contracts, and voluntary exchange, versus government granting special privileges or interfering with voluntary business decisions, including mergers and acquisitions.

There is nothing inconsistent about criticizing corporate misconduct while defending free-market capitalism. Any politician claiming to support free markets should, to be philosophically consistent, oppose government intervention beyond protecting property rights, enforcing contracts, and preventing force and fraud. That includes subsidies, bailouts, special privileges, and antitrust laws that interfere with voluntary market competition. Government should act as a referee, not determine which companies are “too big” or which businesses should be permitted to merge. Consumers—not politicians or bureaucrats—should determine which businesses succeed and how large they become. Unfortunately, politicians in both major parties routinely claim to support free markets while advocating policies that undermine them.

So the next time someone points to a corporate bailout, subsidy, or protectionist tariff as evidence that capitalism has failed, ask: Is this business succeeding because customers voluntarily support it, or because government granted it a special advantage?

If the problem is government favoritism, stop blaming capitalism. Call it what it is: cronyism.

The post What is Greta up to at the French school riots? appeared first on spiked.

Shane Gillis is an actor and comedian. He first came to my attention in September 2019, when he was hired to be a new cast member on Saturday Night Live—and then abruptly fired after it was revealed that he had (gasp) told offensive jokes. (SNL creator Lorne Michaels subsequently said that the network forced him to fire Gillis, and he thought the whole controversy was stupid.)

Since then, Gillis's career has really taken off, to the extent that he has repeatedly returned to SNL as a guest host. He did so again on October 10, delivering a monologue in which he made the following observation: "I haven't been to the gym in so long, I didn't know women just dress like whores now."

Shane Gillis' monologue! pic.twitter.com/ky6fVtWBx9

— Saturday Night Live (@nbcsnl) October 11, 2026

Some people are really mad about that joke, including the actor Dan Levy, who called Gillis a misogynist and implied that this sort of joke was emboldening men to treat women as objects—and to sexually assault them.

"It's complacency that has created the environment in which women are sexually assaulted," said Levy.

He was not the only one to make this claim. On The View, Sara Haines echoed Levy's criticism and said that such language—the word whore in particular—was demeaning.

"I'm not saying a joke makes an assault, but it makes it much easier to look at another human as an object," she said.

This is unpersuasive.

I might understand why people would take offense if Gillis consistently singled out women for unrelenting abuse. When it comes to humor, context is everything, and a harmless joke can come off as mean-spirited if it seems targeted.

But in that very same monologue, Gillis denigrates men, gay men, his sisters, and himself—repeatedly. He admits that he's fat and ugly. That's the basis of the humor. It does not suggest that he has some problem with women or enjoys laughing at their expense and solely their expense. He's doing observational comedy, and no one is spared, not even Gillis. He even makes a joke about how he might unintentionally come off as threatening to women, because he's a big ugly guy.

It would be weird if women wearing skin-tight clothing at the gym was for some reason an off-limits subject for comedians. Why? It's OK to insult men's appearance, but not women's? Is that really the standard? Of course not.

Indeed, it is trivially easy to find examples of liberal-coded comedians (Gillis is one of those right-coded, anti–political correctness, Joe Rogan types), mocking the appearances of specific women. Jimmy Kimmel's recent monologue went after Katie Zacharia, the Trump administration's new press secretary, for her looks. Kimmel insinuated that she's a dumb blonde who was picked just because she's attractive. He even showed a photo of her at the gym, dressed semi-provocatively!

You know how the left is trying to cancel Shane Gillis for his SNL remarks about women at the gym, well, Jimmy Kimmel puts up a picture of Katie Zacharia at the gym, "Oh, wait, just kidding. This is the new press secretary, former Newsmax commentator Katie Zacharia, seen here,… pic.twitter.com/ANYeqhfVev

— Alex Christy (@alexchristy17) October 13, 2026

Was Kimmel inviting sexual violence against Zacharia? Of course not. It would be ludicrous to pretend that this joke was somehow out of bounds.

The same goes for Gillis, though.

The Hollywood Reporter writes that Gillis's brand of humor just isn't a good fit for SNL, which has become a show by liberals, for liberals, and aimed at skewering the Trump administration. That's fair enough: Personally, I didn't think the Gillis monologue was particularly funny, though I am well-accustomed to consuming SNL in stone-faced silence. I find about 99 percent of the skits are cringe and humorless. It's not for me.

But I do object to the assertion that a one-off joke about the way women dress is out of bounds. I thought we all agreed that Woke 1 was crazy?

The post The Shane Gillis <i>SNL</i> Backlash Is Really Stupid appeared first on Reason Magazine.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As public debate continued over the scheduled live-streaming of terrorist Nidal Hasan's death by firing squad, President Donald Trump told liberals who are uncomfortable with public executions to just imagine that it's a healthcare CEO.