But 'the rules' don't exist separate from capitalism itself, the rules are a product of capitalism, and tend to be set by the most successful capitalists.
No. You cannot attribute the broken rules to the system if its not inherent to the system. People will always try and break the rules, or rewrite the rules to benefit themselves. That was the human nature part that I was talking about before. All systems will be broken in the same way. This is why you need a government to keep people from doing that.
To sum that up, those with power will rewrite the rules. That is a problem in all systems as power is and will always be unequal.
But it is. The essence of capitalism is profit maximization. Your flaw is assuming 'profit maximisation' is synonymous with 'how valuable your work is to others'.
I very much disagree with this. Capitalism is not about profit maximization. Capitalism is about private ownership because it incentivizes efficient resource allocation. Profits are the incentive, but, not the goal.
Now, on an individual level profits are what is sought. Few care about using resources efficiently, but that is on purpose. As I mentioned before, Capitalism is about taking core human desires and shaping it in a way that makes us better off.
So, if you want to become wealthy, you have to come up with a way to do something or make something that people are willing to pay you for. You must make them better off if you want to be better off. No other system has that.
That is absolutely a word game. 'No True Scotsman' in fact. If a capitalist uses the state to be anti-competitive he is just following the logic of capitalism - maximizing their profits. You can define 'capitalism' to be a system of idealized(and generally unenforceable) rules if you like, but that's not what actual existing capitalism is and has always been. It's an ethos and a culture and a distribution of power.
Your flaw is your presupposition, and, once you let go of that folly, your argument falls apart. Capitalism is not about maximizing profits. You have put the cart before the horse sir.
Becuase capitalism is what we are arguing about. You are the one arguing you can somehow keep capitalism separate from the state. I agree that problems with 'the state' are far from unique to capitalism, but you are arguing that somehow capitalism can escape the problem.
No I am not. I literally said you need the state to enforce rules. Capitalism is a system to help organize people. People will often do things that benefit themselves at the expense of others. You need the state to stop that.
I didn't say 'capitalism', I said 'liberatarianism'. And that demographic is a relatively new one, and libertarianism is a product of it, because it serves its needs, both political and psychological. I don't actually think libertarianism will ever get it's way, because it's the philosophy mostly of the younger and less elite members of that demographic. It's a philosophy for small business people and higher-paid technocrat employees. The true elites have slightly different interests. But it's still of use to those true elites, and employed partially as an ideology it can do harm. For one thing I believe it's political trends associated with it that are driving a scary far-right reaction against it.
I also don't think libertarianism has no value, it's a useful standpoint from which to analyse problems, another way of looking at things to throw into the mix.
Then lets focus on Capitalism. There are many flaws in the Liberation world, and it would be far too long to go over and also talk about Capitalism. I know you believe me to be a Liberation, but, I would disagree because there are far too many things that I believe it gets wrong.
Being annoyed by other people's arguments is the price of pluraism, which I think is a valuable thing. But to cling to it as _the_ one true way, just seems simplistic at best and at worst to be motivated by pure self-interest. It's significant that substantial demographic groups see it as having nothing positive to offer them.
Personally, I follow whatever makes the most sense. If there is a better system, then I would have no problem switching to it.
I do feel that you have a warped view of what Capitalism is/is not. I am enjoying this discussion, but I think if we continue, we really should focus on that. I think every other issue stems from that.