Context: Clarance Thomas and Co want to rollback on OSHA.

And guess what? I’m still not going to vote, it’s pointless.

Like this: https://imgur.com/a/VfTXQFf

So it took me a few years of asking folks who were parroting this myth where they had heard it. Most of them had no idea, I presume a TikTok celebrity or Youtuber had shared the concept, but I couldn't actually track down the origin.

And then a year or two ago or so I finally did it.

It stems directly from a concept Karl Marx just mentioned once without evidence, which has been thoroughly debunked. The term we use to refer to this myth is "growth imperative" You're welcome to read the whole Wikipedia article, but here are three key parts that give you all you really need to know.

The first theory of a growth imperative is attributed[5] to Karl Marx. In capitalism, he claimed, zero growth is not possible, because of the mechanisms of competition and accumulation.[23][24][25]

In his writing, Marx did whatever he could to make capitalism look bad so that he could provide an alternative. His lack of experience in the working world likely limited his ability to understand how economics works, and so this theory of his was just an attempt to say, "We know resources on Earth are finite, and therefore, if I can claim some aspect of capitalism requires something infinite, then I have demonstrated capitalism to be unsustainable!" It's obviously a very immature understanding of the world. A mistake a young student might make in a high school economics class.

Modern economists of course reject the premise entirely;

Current neoclassical, Keynesian and endogenous growth theories do not consider a growth imperative[3] or explicitly deny it, such as Robert Solow.[4]

and

It is disputed whether growth imperative is a meaningful concept altogether, who would be affected by it, and which mechanism would be responsible.[1]

Obviously we know that this is a myth for one massive economic reason. Profit. People perpetuating this myth say: "Well, wait, if a company isn't expected to grow, then why would an investor invest in the company at all? The economy will collapse!!!!" LOL. The reason is simple, profit and dividends. Furthermore, companies that are extremely reliable, profitable and not growing are often the most safe investments. The bigger ones we call blue chip stocks.

Most companies are not experiencing rapid growth or degrowth at any given time. Most stay about the same size, year to year.

Let's take a bakery. A bakery can exist, with 10 employees, in a city of 10,000 people for a thousand years straight, and never grow. Yet the bakery is 100% sustainable, earns a profit, and serves the needs of it's community. That's wonderful proof right there, that growth is not required at all in capitalism. Someone looking to buy that bakery, or buy stock in that bakery, would look at the profit margin, the rate and consistency of dividend payments, and the value and stock price of said entity would settle at around however profitable it was.

Wikipedia explains it thusly;

Other authors criticize this Marxist perspective: a company could be profitable without growth if a positive accounting profit is distributed as dividend to the owners. Only if net income had to be retained, companies would be compelled to grow.[1][2][31] If a company shows an accounting profit, it has not yet achieved an economic profit in the economic sense, because a return on equity and an entrepreneurial salary would have to be paid from it - the profit would not necessarily be available for growth. Therefore, a market economy with profit-oriented companies is compatible with zero growth, as it is in the models of neoclassical theory (→ zero-profit condition).[1][3][32]

So there you go, that's the origin of the myth, and the complete rebuttal. Copy and paste parts from what I've written here in the future if you need a rebuttal to this myth, as I've been seeing it more and more frequently. The fool who said it in my screenshot was upvoted 206 times, LOL, sigh, so redditors must still think it's true.

Apparently not wanting to violate the NAP means I'm in support of euthanasia.

Redditor's family has a disability. Claiming they'd be left to die if they don't get welfare (Threat?). Claims it's not their responsibility to take care, but instead society. Also, apparently, they're well off.