free market capitalism is the best system there is

What are other systems exist then?

It sounds a bit as though you are saying capitalism is the only system.

Though it might be that you are saying it is better for capitalism to be less restricted than more restricted.

Or that because of how widespread capitalism is, it is more relevant than other systems.

I'm not sure what you would 'accept as other systems though.

Hierarchical social systems are more or less fair.

All systems work on the basis of someone telling someone else what to do.

And undeniably a lot of people need or want to be told what to do.

And certain people inevitably end up telling them what to do.

Those that naturally fall down the social pile are rarely content, because modern materialistic expectation is an essential part of social programming.

In any system a certain amount of pressure is necessary in order to achieve stability.

I prefer the UK , when compared to Russian or North Korean systems.

Though what ordinary Russians or North Koreans actually think is only for the stupid or very brave to say.

But of course,  like everyone else, I am specifically programmed. 

The difference being though:

I can freely criticise the British system.

How much wealth or possession I can accrue is solely down to me.

My advice is:

Find an affordable niche and condition oneself to be content with less than one doesn't need.

Well, the Communists come 'off to many as a bunch of tyrants.

Admittedly there are 'explanations for their actions in history.

Lot of capitalist countries in a sense, already own the means of production though,

They break up monopolies, bail out companies and banks, set rules the companies must follow,

They're just hands off in many areas owners.

Though some might say the companies own the country, , , well, maybe it's both and neither.

But easier for a government to dissolve a company than a company a government I think.

. . .

There's some system in government, that I forget,

Where they give everyone money, not a 'lot, but minimum for paying rent, eating, small amount for recreation.

Ah, Universal basic income - Wikipedia.

. . .

It doesn't really 'hurt a system to allow people to go above and beyond, to work.

One might argue a system would still include capitalism,

Want a yacht instead of a rowboat, have to work.

But that seems more a growth 'upon a system, than the system itself.

With few enough people, and/or enough technology and material wealth to maintain the engine.

I'd 'imagine Communism could work,

Works well enough for small Communes I hear.

I would say free market capitalism is the best system for creating wealth and innovation. It really sucks for the apathetic, entitled  and unmotivated.

"Though it might be that you are saying it is better for capitalism to be less restricted than more restricted."

 this here, is literally my point, as capitalism and market logic are intrinsic to biologic life then any try to "restrict" or slow it down only slows progress down. yet we must understand that it doesnt have moral, its just what it is, so we should use it to our advantage not avoid and hate it when its as i say part of life, if there is a governemnt it shouldnt fight the system, it should embrace it while strategically helping those that are uncompetent so they gain autonomy in society. this is why i say that the only type of governemnt is a small one that only does the necessary stuff not a mother russia of wich you live off, also if you look carefully communism trys to emulate capitalism, by doing wealth redistribution (extremely less efectively of course), by talking about voluntary cooperation (wich is intrinsic to market logic), saying it helps the people or the workers, when they are the ones that get hurt the most in closed economys.

i completely agree with this, hierarchys are natural, but the difference between one and the other is that free will exists, in communism is an obligation in a free society that naturally leans to capitalism, everything is a choice that takes basis on personal needs. 

well here the thing is that a capitalist monopoly works off free will, wich means that once this will is gone these enterprises as well, and goverments stay wether you like it or not, besides as i say communism try to emulates capitalism by making a government that works exactly as a monopoly on capitalism, owning all the goods and doing as they will with them, but the government has the option not to care about what people want, companys dont, companys work off literally pleasing people the better you are at people pleasing the richer you will be

I believe this other individual "Best Korea" has argued for socialism as being what is best.

I can champion capitalism, entrepreneurship and investing.

socialism is the state using capitalism as a tool to their advantage, having 

I'm not sure what you consider 'restrictions,

When you argue against restricting the Free Market.

Do you have examples?

Free Will doesn't 'matter so much 'all the time,

A medieval King may say to the peasants, you have the free will to pay your taxes or not, but if you choose not, off with your head.

People often choose the taxes.

I imagine much of the 'point of a monopoly, is to remove any other options besides oneself.

If some company has the cure to cancer, but is only willing to sell it to millionaires and people willing to sign themselves as slaves,

I'd rather have an option to legally force them to lower their price,

Than to guillotine their CEO.

. . .

A focus on Capitalism,

Allows material profit,

But not moral profit.

Allows 'personal profit,

Less so 'community profit.

. . .

A company owns a deed to land,

Without any constrictions,

It is free to dump it's waste,

To make it's products shoddy.

Because the CEO can move to their beach house,

Because the average consumer just wants to carry their groceries home, they don't care about the plastic bag that harms the environment.

This is the purpose of 'government, and the people, of restrictions.

I think people may care more as jury, than in personal actions.

Asbestos houses, leaded gas, rickety buildings, buildings that are fire hazards.

One ought not just leave people to their own devices without oversight.

If one wants society to function well.

Maybe.

you can decide to buy something from someone or not making one enterprise richer or poorer depending on your choice, you cant decide to pay taxes, is an obligation, therefore breaks free will, therefore being antidemocratic, because its not what people want, and the price of the cure for cancer isnt made out of just it being complex and unique , is a matter of resources thats how the market works, if you lower prices as a state, then you reduce growth on that company making the product way less available and rentable to produce or even it being high quality, ergo it being truly more expensive than what the government makes you make it, so in the end you wouldnt even have a cure to begin with, so basically if the cure for cancer is made for rich people at the beginning then with time these companys that produce it will grow in productivity causing the product to become more available ergo cheaper, wich has happened with literally everything in history, before having a house, medicine or education was only for a select few (that happened to gain their wealth over oppression and taxes) and now anyone can have these at least not everyone because of state intervention but most people do in comparison to back then there are a million examples of this

exactly these examples also showcase how the principle of non aggression is violated by representing potential threats to overall well being

the only role of the state is to make sure the principle of non aggression is never broken and that individual liberty is also never broken, this sums up to workers being protected from exploitation, dumping waste, and many more that represent a threat to these values and principles role of the state is to make sure societys are as truly free as they can, because the freer the truly freer they are the happier and more thriving they will be look at the gdp per capita of freer countries and how on average more people are rich than in closed economies, just one single example of how by being wealthier people are freer too

If there is no food, but what is in the sellers stash,

Then I can either buy food or starve,

That's less of a choice to me than paying taxes.

Though still a choice.

If I crash on a desert island, and one of the other passengers brought with him and owns a ton of food, that he refuses to share unless we write out contracts where we go into eternal debt,

Then **** him,

I'd rather start a revolution, and redistribute his wealth.

People use their apparent Free Will all the time to not pay taxes, or to pay taxes.

I 'think uniqueness 'is a driving force of price,

Scarcity, I 'think it is called.

I think companies 'enjoy scarcity, if they think they can make more money with it being limited.

. . .

A company is motivated to discourage it's competition by buying them out, (Monopolies),

So they can keep prices high,

And unreflecting of the true value of an item.

I'm not bothered by rich people funding a cure for cancer,

Or being the only ones to buy it when it is too expensive to create easily.

Same with houses, medicine, and education.

. . .

I 'do mind someone trying to buy all the houses, jacking up the prices on medicine, or education.

I accept physicians and educators setting their own prices,

But not their having a monopoly, for example by owning the patent to a medicine.

. . . . . .

. . . . . . Wouldn't the idea of property 'require government legislation, government control of the market?

. . .

Your system 'sounds a bit more like anarchy.

when there was no food people decided to make food, and if there is no food today is because of government ragulations i can explain this in a million ways, and actually your first example illustrates my example of how in less regulated societys people are wealthier or freer economically, wich means they can buy more unnecesary stuff that innevitably makes economys grow, so if a government understands this it will make a freer economy because it understands that the freer more people are the more everything will grow, and the desert example doesnt highlight free markt competition, is like a country with high tariffs monopolys will be made, and people will suffer because a monopoly wont even want to grow or innovate it doesnt have the incentive to, in your example as i said no competition and not enough resources, unlike there is today, a great example of how the availabilty of resources in capitalism heavily affects how economys expand its the discovery of america and how afterwards everyone started competing much more, and another great example of what i say about how freedom made countrys grow much more its how after us gained independence it outgrew england even with the industrial revolution starting there, only for the base of their politics wich was the opposite of what the englishmen did, the us started with less then 2% taxes, they grew much more clearly since then to now, also monopolys are intrinsic to failure they will always perish because of the same fundamental fact of competition not existing in their "market", the greatest example of all is the greatest monopoly that ever existed the ussr and how it perished, besides in real life examples, the only reason why monopolys even start existing is due to state intervention, basically the regulation of competition, wealth is like water no regulations means it flows to where the people want, regulation means it flows to where the government wants it to be but the governments are made out of people that dont know or forsee the indirect events of regulations and how it causes disparities in society such as income inequality.

i said it before capitalism is an intrinsic part of biology, and free market competition is too, the thing is that oppression is also a real thing, the freer societys are the faster and more it will grow having everything to be more transparent to be consumers and providers. anarchy is the absoulute lack of a government of wich i dont believe, i believe in one that uses governemnt not to benefit itself but to benefit its citizens by enhancing individual freedom as much as possible. while protecting and making sure the principle of non aggression is respected

Having a government, 'sounds like having regulation to me.

Even if a company said there was lead in their baby toys or in food, I think some people would still buy them,

People still buy cigarettes,

I'd rather have government regulate this to a degree.

French Nobility, can be seen as an example of individuals amassing wealth, and power.

One of the reasons for the French Revolution, was 'bread.

Sometimes the only food available is in the company store, at unfair prices.

I'd rather government be allowed to regulate this.

The desert example only needs to highlight the flaw in unregulated economy.

And people's 'response to such.

Without regulations, people are able to create monopolies, and I realize I am sounding a broken record here, perhaps I lack understanding.

. . .

But I see a person able to buy all the land, all the means of production, and then enforce unfair trade.

'Unless they are regulated.

. . .

I am not convinced America outgrew England through 'Free 'Market.

England is smaller, and gave up it's Empire.

Even if we had kept to England's ways, I suspect frontiers and expansion make for growth.

I am not familiar enough with the USSR to have opinions on why it collapsed.

I think monopolies can exist without government regulation.

It sounds a simple concept to me,

Someone acquires a significant portion of a resource/trade/service and leverages it.

No regulation means companies are free to direct the flow of wealth as 'they like.

Just because the workers don't want to buy from the company store, doesn't mean they are not going to buy from the company store.

"Having a government, 'sounds like having regulation to me.

Of bread, I mean there was a famine in France, and the common people were riled up about it,

I think it was 'one of the causes of the French Revolution.

Is a fictional invention I have heard, but it emphasizes how the lower class can react when they have so little, yet the upper class seems to have so much.

Freedom 'does seem good to me,

And it 'sounds you support checks and balances for 'immediate harm or companies restricting freedom.

But I'm not sure you have checks and balances for preventing companies from growing too powerful for those laws.

Allowing a single individual or company to amass too much wealth for instance,

It seems more ideal to me, to prevent them from amassing enough wealth to easily change laws or influence voters.

. . . 'And get away with it.

While I agree a company store 'can be fair, in practice it can result in 16 tons.

I think many businesses create unfair prices because they want money, and because there being no government regulation, they 'can.

'Ideally the company would be fair,

'Ideally the workers would just leave, but there are always desperate, poor, uneducated people.

People don't think,

I shall leave and allow my family to starve to death for my principles.

. . .

Saying that monopolies only exist because of government regulation, doesn't sound right to me.

Though I think government can 'cause monopolies, or prop up monopolies, (With bailout as an example)

. . . The less laws, the less restrictions for a company to act in underhanded ways to acquire full control of their market and competition.

. . .

I 'do agree capitalism 'can be about the creation of new wealth,

But I think unrestricted it will often try to seize that new wealth and much of the old wealth for itself.

. . . Where does that new wealth go?

Often I suspect into new people, and into the company,

By this I mean, yes there is new wealth, and it creates more society,

But that doesn't necessarily mean society is 'richer, just bigger.

And while this can have the 'side effect at times of the people becoming richer,

I think some companies and people have bottomless pits for stomachs.

How rich does one need to be before being satisfied?

And yet. . . There are many rich individuals and companies who are 'not satisfied, who 'continue their unfair prices and wages.

. . .

For the companies it is being soulless husks, they often 'exist to make more money for the faceless shareholders,

CEO doesn't stay in position by moral actions, so much as I made money perhaps.

. . .

It's what pisses people off about some game companies,

Lootboxes and horse armor, bah.

Still at least game companies don't have a hold of my wallet or food.

. . .

And one 'does see game companies fail over time, when they fail to satisfy.

But it isn't always fast,

And people stomachs are not tied to their products.

. . .

America was able to expand west though, after we bought Louisiana from the French, no longer had to worry about England edicts not to expand into the natives land, and after we had killed some native powers.

England had that British Empire for a time, I'm doubtful they were economic slouches.

You may have explained why monopolies cannot exist without government regulation.

But it didn't sink in for me,

'Partially because I am not well read on this subject, but still have vague memories of readings and intuitions that keep me doubtful that monopolies cannot easily exist without government regulation.

I 'do think they can come about 'from government regulation, whether intention or bad policy.

Weeds are going to grow regardless,

But one can have more or less weeds than one would have naturally, by their gardening.

Hm, a fair point.

Still, I'm not sure that stops companies from effecting demand.

But I am not educated enough to change my current views,

One could argue I could change my view to neutral, but not my style.

I still have past impressions, vague memories, and intuitions that keep me on my current view.

Of food, I am not familiar enough with the subject, to have strong views on whether there would be more food in the world with more or less, or no government regulation.

Hm where's that link to railroads? No not this one.

I 'do agree with you on some points,

And 'do think the government can over regulate, and create excessive barriers of entry at times.

Lot of hoops to jump through, for people trying to start a business or profession.

One leans at times to letting people make their own choices, good or bad,

If they want to hire a doctor that receives 0/10 reviews, and is a quack, their choice some argue.

Hm, earlier when talking of lead in food or baby toys,

I meant I would have government not allow the sale of such,

Not that I would have government allow people to buy leaded food or baby toys.

Just for myself if I ever forget about particulars of this conversation, as I worry my statement was vague, and allows interpretation that I would be fine with government just having companies say their toys and food is leaded.

"But I'm not sure you have checks and balances for preventing companies from growing too powerful for those laws.

The railroad link was me talking to myself, and trying to remember and find a link.

Possibly it never existed,

Sometimes I post extraneous thoughts, which I admit harms communication,

But eh. 

Hm, well I think this is about my limit of economic debate on this subject.

You haven't convinced me, but maybe that's because I'm still digesting your arguments.

sure im happy to have discussed with you if there is anything you want to ask then im ready to anwer away.

feel free to look at my other debate in wich i develope my explanaitions even further.

1} the rich get richer and the poor get poorer,   ---unfair inequality does not fare well for society in long run----

................................ moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ........

2} progress over the protection of ecological environment that sustains human kind is not true progress, 

................................. moderation/balance in all things is a good general rule .................................................,

3} the measure of a persons profit abilities vs the quality of their spirit and soul is not, and should never equated as ' Olympic Gold Medal Award '

............................... moderation/balance in all things is good general rule ...................................

4}.......................... ? .........................................

The freedom to own the things you produce is far more important for real happiness than keeping up with the Joneses.

Freedom-1} access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego, --- ergo complex societal communications with simple and complex concepts ---

Freedom-2 } option to produce, steer, manipulate things in creative ways and/or ways that is of benefit to self, family, community humanity and as such will satisfy the spirit and soul

Freedom-3} ability to reflect on our actions and empathize with others and their actions, so as to become a more rounded { complete/wholistic } extended soul

Freedm-4} .... ? .......

in capitalism, people are inequally rich not inequally poor, is a constant competition on seeing who uses its resources (not just money) better, wich leads to more innovation, creativity and overall true balance, see capitalism does have a balance an perfect one based on peoples needs and the handling of available resources wich is made by the market not the state, the state influences economy like humans do on nature, negatively. the harm of the environment is seen as a violation of the principle of non aggression wich limits freedom so it is penalized, you can hate yyour competition, your clients, and it wont matter if youre good or bad if you find it coneveniant for your own individual purposes you will colaborate with competition, and if you fail to please the demand you will fail completely. and freedom in capitalism wich is an intrinsic concept of biology, is the capacity of an individual to use its resources however conveniantly it finds them to be used. wich is why the PNA should be respected no killing, life is an asset and if youre killed your being restrained to use it therefore cutting freedom, no robbing, private property is an asset, if youre taking something away from someone your restricting their freedom over their own resources causing them to be less free. you want the most amount of freedom possible for every individual, and some may argue the richer are freer but it is because they used their resources the most efficient way possible and climbed a ladder (fair isnt everyone getting the same, fair is everyone getting what they deserve), some not all, others had heritage, but still are forced to obey the laws of the market by pleasing others and still using their resources better, if they dont, they fail and die, and just like in nature wolves are eaten by "plants", someone else will come or many else will come to replace that failed entity and use its wasted resources better, say wood, the failed enterprise bought a lot of wood, but because they went broke they dont buy any, there is more for other enterprises or enterprise that finds it more useful, and will buy more of it if people are happy with the product/outcome/result of that enterprise

I thinking your speaking in forked tongue language. Welcome to return of cult of MAFA Trumpet world trifecta