SoylentNews

You're still falling for the inevitable fatal flaw of libertarianism: the fewest rules up front does not translate into the most freedom for the most people.

We're not in that situation. Instead we're in the situation where rules are being created faster than they can be read with all sorts of weird interactions that won't be discovered until some AI mines them a few decades down the road.

Furthermore, capitalism needs proper regulation to prevent the very snowballing effect I've mentioned elsewhere; without it, without redistribution mechanisms, all that happens is an increasingly-quick concentration of wealth, power, and resources into fewer and fewer hands.

Capitalism and free markets have those redistribution mechanisms. For example, ROI goes down as the amount of wealth goes up. That's because large amounts of wealth require a lot more distribution of wealth to the rest of the market in order to grow. There's also luxury goods, status signaling, and fraud to part the wealthy from their wealth. In particular, I don't buy that in a free market, there would be parties like say, Berkshire Hathaway that could consistently outperform the market for decades in a row.

Even worse, is that the wealth isn't worth what is claimed. I don't buy, for example, that many forms of wealth are all that valuable as their stated value would imply. Just because Trump says he's a billionaire doesn't mean he'd be one, if he had to sell everything he owned for cash. I think with a more sane valuation/accounting system, a lot of the wealth disparity would vanish. Rich people with competent inesting skills will remain vastly wealthier than the guy who can't hold down a job ever, but much of the alleged increase in wealth disparity would vanish.

Meanwhile, it turns out that the government which can redistribute wealth from rich to poor can also redistribute wealth from poor to rich with greater zeal (the kickbacks are more profitable).