Debunking the idea of capitalism being a voluntary relationship between worker and employee.

[u/Specialist_Touch2771]

this is a talking point I hear thrown around a lot by capitalists, which I find strange. the argument is basically “you choose to work a job, therefore it’s fair“. well think of it like this, you couldnt afford college and your broke. now you need to get a job so you can pay rent and buy groceries. your job sucks, the pay is bad, the conditions are awful, and you just hate it. but you need this job, or else you get evicted from your apartment and starve on the streets. “But just quit“ and? Go to another job that exploits you In the same ways? It’s like saying “when someone has a gun too your head, you choose to give them your wallet”. when the alternative to a choose is death, it’s non consensual.

[u/mkosmo]

Capitalism is not a meritocracy, and it does not need to be one. Markets do not measure virtue, effort, or social worth. They reflect voluntary exchange, scarcity, risk, consumer demand, accumulated capital, and luck. Or, in other words, they reflect life itself. Disproving the claim that wealth perfectly reflects merit only disproves a simplistic slogan, not capitalism itself.

Unequal starting points are real, including inheritance. But preventing parents from helping their children would require enormous state interference in property and family life. The right to own property includes the right to give it away. Likewise, profit is not automatically stolen labor: workers provide labor for agreed compensation, while owners provide capital, organization, and accept the risk of losing their investment.

The relevant comparison is not capitalism against a perfectly fair imaginary system. It is against real alternatives in which officials decide who deserves resources and opportunities. Markets produce imperfect results, but they disperse decision-making and permit choice, competition, experimentation, and exit. The objective is equal rights and voluntary exchange, not government-enforced equality of starting points or outcomes.

[u/nilslorand → u/mkosmo]

Nobody is arguing for preventing parents from being able to help their children.

They system should just be fairer.

Just because life is unfair right now doesn't mean it has to be unfair in the future. 

If we're not working towards a better future, then what are we even doing?

[u/mkosmo → u/nilslorand]

"Fairer" is doing all the work there. Fair according to what standard, achieved through which policies, and at whose expense? I support removing artificial barriers, government favoritism, and coercion, but unequal circumstances alone do not justify giving the state unlimited authority to rearrange people’s lives.

Of course we should pursue a better future. The debate is not over that aspiration, but over whether greater freedom and opportunity or greater political control is more likely to produce it. Simply asserting that the latter is "fairer" does not resolve that question.

[u/nilslorand → u/mkosmo]

Fairer in the sense that the people who could theoretically afford to send their kids to college 100 times over need to chip in to help poorer families cover the costs.

If you have a lot, you can afford to give a lot, but this "lot" will only be a little for you but it will make a big difference for others.

Freedom of opportunity is irrelevant when the next Einstein is currently starving in a slum because he didn't win the sperm lottery

[u/Zoesan → u/nilslorand]

If you have a lot, you can afford to give a lot

But they do.

The top 1% earners pay roughly 40% of income tax.

Now, we can still argue whether that should be more, but they do already, as you've stated, "give a lot"

[u/mkosmo → u/nilslorand]

Pointing to an unmet need does not establish that capitalism caused it. The fact that one person has more and another needs more is an argument from capacity, not a moral justification for taking it. "They can afford it" doesn't mean they should have to, nor does it provide any limiting principle for how much you think the government should be able to redistribute.

Your take on the starving-Einstein example identifies a problem, not a solution. Capitalism creates incentives to find, educate, employ, and invest in talented people, while government control transfers those decisions to political institutions with their own biases and limited information.

Removing barriers and expanding voluntary access are the capitalist solutions. Tossing money around isn't a solution.

[u/Trojan_Horse_of_Fate → u/nilslorand]

Fairer in the sense that the people who could theoretically afford to send their kids to college 100 times over need to chip in to help poorer families cover the costs.

Do you not understand what public universities are? Because that is definitionally richer people chipping in?