>Competitive markets solve most problems on their own. (The largest exceptions are externalities and physical monopolies.)

I believe I align in position with the author for the most part, but this quote seems difficult for me. "Free market solves issues apart from every stakeholder other than supplier and consumer, i.e. most issues". Perhaps I am missing an element that is preventing me from embracing the principle of charity here.

More broadly thinking about the article,

- (Not aimed at article or author) I think it is a disservice and detrimental to call modern states 'democracies', given that they lie somewhere in between pure democracies, meritocracies and clique dictatorships (given the amount of true input the people have in decisions, and the misalignment between public opinion and government decision (A large part of the latter appears to be a general 'lag' where governments trail behind general movement to the 'left' over centuries).

- Laissez-faire govs (free market) could be argued as observationally a poor way to raise QOL (example reference: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20446694?mag=socialism-make-peo..., and here is a rebuttal to this theory: http://www.forastateofhappiness.com/does-size-matter-i-highe...)
- There is clearly a problem with a free market, in that financial incentive is a blunt tool (hence externalities)

Government and capitalist structures both broadly reflect the same issue, "they don't truly reflect or act to our opinions, needs and wants".
There seems to be 'bearish' opinion on government, turning people towards capitalism. Examples include embracing Uber and Airbnb (deciding not to, or missing the relevance, of legislation in the hotel and taxi industry).

Based on all of the above, it could be argued that:

- The idealistic structure would be a socialist state reflecting expertise (meritocracy-technocracy spectrum) and opinion (pure/direct democracy)

- However, the pragmatic structure (for those that have become cynical with the previous bullet) is to refer to the free market to fulfil needs.

- The free market doesn't mirror opinion/needs (in a similar way to modern gov), but arguably is more likely to adopt systems soon to allow for this (online 'referendums', 'vote with your wallet')

- Governments are oligopolies in that there are very few options, and then only every 4 years.

- In contrast for this, if we have a more outspoken and educated populace, then organisations will have to cater for this else demand falls (and other orgs that do will fill the vacuum)

In practice, I feel that the best option to rely on (or expect) is a mix of both - E.g., New structures are explored by Capitalism that are carefully guided by the population and applied ethics - While more mature structures can be adopted / absorbed into socialist systems.

Therefore (hopefully) capitalist incentives will become far more nuanced, moving from a financial incentive (peppered with a little legislation) to a system that caters for more externalities, ethics, etc.
This removes the 'middle-man'. At the moment, the government listens to the poeple, and legislates accordingly. This can take centuries or never happen at all. With a direct link between organisation and us (new technology allows for this), we can more rapidly see action taken. Facebook springs to mind - People are starting to question it's purely $-driven actions.

This vastly simplifies the issue of course, especially as organisations can all run concurrently (rather than a single party being in place to govern), meaning that a misaligned sub-population could still provide demand for an immoral company. Despite this, I am optimistic that orgs will start to use their online platforms to garner opinion and ensure that their output is aligned with us. They are incentivised to do so, as it increases demand. This optimism is actually a phoenix from the ashes of cynicism (after waiting decades for governments to open up local online referendums, treat petitions more seriously etc.)