Yeah, we need a lot of reforms to fix underlying problems that get in the way of progress. Some things that I think can help:

• voting reform - STAR, approval, or even ranked choice voting to better reflect the will of the people
• electoral reform - some solution to gerrymandering, either algorithmic redistricting or (my preference) proportional representation
• reduce obstructionism - in the US, I’d prefer for the House to pass laws, and for the Senate to ratify them with a high vote tally (say, 60% to block a piece of legislation)

These are large shifts in how governments are organized, and potentially could be passed through large-scale public protests, like the Civil Rights Movement in the US. The public is incredibly hard to motivate, so organizers need to be really careful about which causes they push for. My preference is the second, because I think it has the best chance of creating positive, long-term change, and it’s something that’s pretty hard for politicians to competently argue against.

It’s basically UBI, but with income caps. So if you make above a certain threshold, your benefits reduce and completely disappear by a second threshold.

Milton Friedman was a pretty notable supporter.

My issue with this line of reasoning is that it largely ignores risk. The risk an employee takes is the risk of missing future wages if the venture fails, but they have no risk of losing past wages. The risk an employer takes is loss of invested capital and thus loss of past wages and the ability to continue the venture.

The problem, IMO, is that we’ve overly protected the employer so their risk is mitigated, but we have done little to protect the employee. Likewise, wages can become uncompetitive because our legal system tends to benefit larger companies over smaller companies, so it becomes incredibly difficult to unseat a dominant company, even if your product is better (large company can waste smaller companies’ capital with frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary red tape).

That said, if employees want to take on the risk an employer takes on, they can either become an employer themselves (i.e. start a business) or form a co-op with other workers. However, many are uncomfortable with taking on that risk, so they apply for jobs instead of creating their own.

If we go with a socialist system, we’ll still have employers and employees, but we’ll just socialize the risk and dilute the profit motive, which I think will stifle productivity. Why work hard if the potential upside to you for outperformance is small? Let’s say you’re in a co-op with 9 other people with equal split of profits and you’re twice as productive, you’ll only see 1/10 of that come back to you. Why do that when you could be the employer and see a much larger share of the profits?

The issue here isn’t with capitalism as an idea, but that we’ve allowed such a disparity between productive work and profits, and I think the reason for that is government protectionism, not capitalism.

Today’s system requires you to have lobbyists

Exactly, the problem isn’t capitalism, but government. If we swap capitalism for socialism but leave the government structure in place, we’ll have the same problem. If you think shareholders are bad, you won’t want to see what happens when politicians run businesses…

Capitalism is protected by the state

That’s how it often ends up, sure, but that’s not its defining feature. If you strip away all government (i.e. leave a bunch of people on a desert island), you’d end up with a capitalist system. It’s just the natural way of things. It starts with a market economy, and eventually market participants find they can pay others to grow their goods faster than trading/earning it directly, and some people would prefer to take the steady income of working for someone else over starting their own venture. If a venture fails, the owner loses everything, whereas the workers just move on to someone else’s venture.

When a government gets involved, it takes a monopoly on force in order to protect market participants from each other. Since it has that monopoly on force, there’s a lot of potential upside for market participants to get the government on their side. That’s why we see so much cronyism, because it’s a lot more profitable to get the guy with the gun on your side than compete in a fair market. But once you allow that to happen, capitalism becomes corrupted because you introduce ways to eliminate the inherent risk of market participation. It’s a lot harder to fail when you can get the government to make rules to prevent competition, letting you keep charging high prices for lower quality products and services.

Socialism as a state of being requires some form of protection

Exactly, and if that form of protection gets corrupted, the entire system is screwed. Look at what happened to pretty much every socialist state, the elites find they can get a ton of gain through treating their people unequally, and resort to heavy-handed measures to keep them in line.

The most successful “socialist” states (e.g. Nordic countries) aren’t socialist at all, they’re capitalist societies (and in many ways have a more free market than the US) with a hefty social safety net. Sweden has a high number of billionaires relative to their population. Why? Because they’re capitalist, not socialist. They do have a high tax rate, but they abolished their wealth and inheritance taxes in the 2000s, probably because they tend to scare away wealthy people and therefore local investment.

And I really don’t think socialism is actually classless, at least not when there’s a strong governing body. It just exchanges the capitalist “owner vs worker” class for “ruling vs worker” class, because there’s no way those in control will settle for the same living conditions as the workers. So it basically just trades someone who gained ownership through investment for someone who gained control (essentially ownership) through moving up in the party. To me, that means the owner is likely better equipped to run things than someone who “inherited” it through political maneuvering. Why would a socialist leader want to actually improve the living conditions of the people if they could just maintain power by killing off rivals?

So no, I largely reject socialism as a governing system because it’s way too easy to corrupt, and instead seek to borrow socialist ideas for how to operate an economy. Instead of governments owning the means of production, let’s instead look at co-ops. Instead of production and consumption quotas, let’s do cash redistribution from the wealthy to the poor so everyone can participate in the market economy (and a worker w/ a steady base income can take more risks and try to become an owner, or at least leave awful employers). A system like that can better weather bad leadership than one where the leadership has significant control over the economy.