[grinnbearit]

Yes, those are some of the issues with 'Laissez Faire'. There are always winners and losers in any system and I feel that some redistribution to "take the edge of" is a good thing. (But perhaps not your specific policy suggestions).

Democracy isn't central planning. It has a similar basis to capitalism actually.

If you believe that morals are subjective then it makes sense to give everyone a say in what morals are codified as law. If on the other hand you believe in a single objective moral code, a dictator's for example' then you don't need to make any decisions.

Capitalism is the same but with morals switched with values/desires. It may not be the best "type 2" system, but in a subjective values universe any system that replaces it would need to be "type 2" as well.

[asgard1024]

> Democracy has a similar basis to capitalism actually.

I absolutely disagree with this statement. In democracy, you cannot trade or accumulate votes, and it is one of its tenets. In capitalism, you can trade and accumulate "votes".

This means, at the very least, what family you were born into influences your life. It's better than feudalism, for sure, but it's still far from the ideal of equal opportunities.

[grinnbearit]

What I mean is that they're both consensus mechanisms to deal with subjectivity. For democracy, its subjective morality while for capitalism its subjective desires.

Its an interesting thought experiment to switch the mechanisms and predict the effects.