> Yeah, but unless you think that taxation is theft and thus violates property rights there is nothing that prevents a capitalist state from taxing people with excess and giving that to people in need.

Okay, definitely sorry for the confusion. Let me sort of explain where I'm coming from.

My primary point is pretty simple.

> any economic system that privileges socially intentional results is simply a better model.

I do think it's very counterintuitive for a word like "Captialism" to have a slippery meaning with regards to regulation, so maybe we could agree on the following assertion:

---
Capitalism is an economic system that privileges private ownership over social intention
---

If that is acceptable, then I'd like to break it down from my perspective. My understanding of work has way more to do with (social) agency and (our) my ability to provide intentional value than it has to do navigating a bloated system that is undermined by corporate interests. Please note that I am most certainly not taking a cue from Europe on the economic situation in the U.S. as I think the landscape (literally) is a bit different.

If Capitalism can be demarcated by privileging private ownership and enterprise over social intention, I believe the value proposition is that the nature of competition will create social value (jobs that give people money to eat) as a side effect of producing and distributing "innovative" products that speak to social desires. (demand). If the company cannot be competitive, perhaps there is no demand, or they can't pay well, then it's accepted that the company probably shouldn't exist.

There is also a strong notion of individual agency, in which a motivated go-getter can work hard and do well for themselves and their family.

So, I think it's fair to say that the virtuous parts of Capitalism are the idea that anyone can pull themselves out of poverty, and the mechanic of self regulation, which speaks to the ability for Capitalism to eventually meet social intention in a roundabout way.

My assertion is that mechanic of Capitalism (competition) might eventually meet social intention eventually at first through the virtue of self regulation, but the further it drifts, the harder it this becomes.

Of course, we can slap some government, social welfare, and regulatory committees on it, so now social intention (which absolutely should be exercised by meaningful work) becomes contingent on voting every so often.

Meanwhile, wealth is aggregated into the top 10% or 1% of the population, and since people are not perfect, we end up with laws like money is considered free speech, so private interests end up having a dominant say in legislation. It is not surprising that the U.S. has a wildly polarized 2 party culture, when considering how bad the current system is for both parties.

If we have more of our individual agency deferred to government, then we have more taxes and less freedom. If we don't, people starve and/or literally die.

This mechanic is absolutely a double bind with no apparent answer, aside from rethinking the mechanic of the original value proposition.

I like paying taxes for streets and schools and welfare, even though I don't have kids. I don't like paying taxes to bail out large corporations and banks who (with the government's help) reduce our social agency in the first place. So yeah, one is not theft, but think the other absolutely is.

Contingency on government for social intention in a place where hostage politics, voter suppression, and gerrymandering are very *real* things, is not a good thing.

So in all, the critique is largely against the "effects" of advanced capitalism, but also the "competitive mechanic" that allowed it to get that way in the first place.

I don't think a collective mechanic like open source is the answer either, unless developers start privileging GPL.