Reactionaries are awesome!

The definition of reactionary is not someone who resists change for the sake of it since I have heard many people being called reactionary without any consideration of the merit of their arguments. So explain to me, why is being a reactionary wrong? If someone has just disproved you logically in front of hundreds of people or in the media and you call them a "reactionary" just becuase they disagree with you, how does this magically refute the point they've made?

Most of the time reactionaries are clearly excellent people who provide criticism and prevent politics from being (completely) dominated by ranting extremists. Sometimes they just resist change because they have a chip on their shoulder or they are just stupid, but this rarely happens. People who are in the spotlight and are called reactionaries tend to be people who have said something that makes the people calling them reactionaries fearful.

>>14
Corporate masters aren't above the law, so their shit is harder to pass.
There are two scenarios at play here. Scenario A: corporations working within a state that has a strong government. Scenario B: corporations working within a state that has a weak government.

Result:
A: private interests grease the right hands and eventually have their way.
B: private interests are the centers of power, so become de facto "government" themselves.

Either way you're fucked. The only difference is that if there's a strong government it takes a bit more finesse to get what you want, since the people are also watching. If it's weak, you don't need finesse, just bigger guns.

You need to think of it in terms of power, not the illusive public/private false dichotomy. Power fills a vacuum.