In fact if you accept the Austrian school teachings Misses proved that have ever been 1 monopoly that wasn't due to government involvement (because since they hold a lot of power and can shape rules, bribery allows for they to close competition and help monopolies thrive... which is the opposite of what their regulations are supposed to do). That was the diamond business because of a single viable production place which meant a single provider as a natural monopoly, all else he could point to how government caused, protected or grow monopolies.

Don't remember capitalism being in danger since it was created...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

People just need to look at the actual history of socialist countries. The more socialist, typically, the less free their people and the less economically successful they have been (and by "less economically successful," I mean subject to famine, etc.). Not coincidences.

Modern socialists want to disown these countries, of course, and say that they were never really "socialist" to begin with. That's the way to preserve the idea that their theories might still pan out, in some fuzzy utopian future. But in reality, on planet Earth, socialism has been an abject failure.

Modern countries that have features of both socialism and capitalism -- "mixed economies" -- are often successful, but if someone wanted to understand the engine which drives that success, they would be advised again to study the comparative history of socialist economies versus capitalist economies. Social science is "soft," perhaps, because we cannot go to the laboratory to settle disagreements, but in my opinion, the historical evidence for the failure of socialism both exists and is clear.

Sure, capitalism almost died because of the might Soviet Union ¬¬"

Capitalists were sure in a hurry to intervene anywhere where there was a hint of communism. Going as far as to ally with the fascists in Spain and Chile, sounds like they would do anything to stop the spread of red. If you do not fear the left then why do you keep trying to undermine it?

Have you heard of the Pareto Principle? Peterson explains it better than I could, but essentially in all areas of human productivity the square root of the total number of people produce approximately 50% of whatever it is they are producing. It's true in all areas of human productivity. This is why I doubt your claim that a smaller group of people are getting more of the wealth. The percentage will most likely remain the same.

Also, remember that the 'top 1%' or whatever figure you want to throw out there is an ever changing group of people. There is serious income mobility in the USA. It's only in dictatorships (which are mostly Communist or Socialist at the moment) where the people at the very top are disgustingly wealthy and the people at the bottom are starving.

Because without mixing they are even more corruptible than the signs we see today.

1. You need to support your counter argument with evidence not mere principles. This site contains some handy graphs, don't think it has a wealth graph so I have provided one separately. 

2. According the 2014 Gini Index, Vietnam and Laos (both self proclaimed socialist states) are more equal than the US which has the same inequality level as China. In fact the worst performing countries are capitalist.

"In egalitarian institutions where bullies are weeded out, and everyone is treated as equals?"

is this society made up of pod people or something?

" Law and police are mechanisms of exploitation much more than they are mechanisms to prevent it. "

you just told me you would build a society without bullies which implies that it has rules or law... wtf

"Who said anything about attacking a employer? I will just tell him that I am keeping my labor-product, and if he attacks me I will react defensively."

i've never seen an employer attack someone who turned down a job offer...

"Weapons have been a great equalizer, and no individual can last long against many individuals. "

i think you mean to say collective here, why define people as individuals in a context where they all have the same aim unilaterally ( never mind that people aren't like that anyway )

"That problem is addressed by having good people around you"

wtf does this even mean? you see this is what annoys me about people who push this ideology, you have to deny the inherent complexity of human beings to justify it and you have to pretend that people can behave the same as drones in a bee hive, its a complete joke

you're trying to convince me here that you can build a society where everyone thinks the same with no variance and come on man, its a joke

its the utopian philosophy right to the core and since you've mentioned feminism i'll tell you that the underlying utopian philosophy is what makes modern day feminism so nonsensical - men and women are the same

the ideas you are spouting now and pretty much at the core the same thing

"Yes, I am asking if the differences in the ability to manage a business are due to education and other social factors or if they are inherent as you suggested."

jesus christ dude we are not all blank slates that are molded completely into what we are by society only

some people yes have inherently higher intelligence and competence in various fields than others, its a fact and generally its those people that end up at the top of hierarchies such as head positions in companies for example

yes they do in general have something that the average person does not

" Sure, but I don't think intelligence, creativity, etc follow a power distribution like wealth does."

i don't care what you call it, the point is that they vary across people

and yes stupid people can find their way into massive wealth also from luck, specific situations etc etc etc

that's irrelevant to my argument

"If these things were the only things rewarded wealth inequality would be reduced considerably."

i'm not speaking absolutely obviously but its a generalisation

generally the head of a company is going to be more competent(maybe not intelligent) than his/her subordinate

and i mean that's obvious, why do we have to discuss things that are obvious?

why would wealth inequality be reduced?

"You'll have to provide me with evidence that capitalist are in the top 1% of these things."

do i really have to present research to show that the people who are at the top of the organisational structures in society are at the top in terms of intelligence and competence?

"Do you support women having the same rights as men? If so, why? "

people no matter who they are deserve to have an equal standing in society before the law

"I said the problem with capitalism is the exploitation of another's labor by using state-privileges which benefit those who have large accumulation of capital. The problem isn't the existence of capital itself, or exchanging it for labor, but the system which disproportionately benefits the owners of capital and gives them more bargaining power which allows them to exploit the labor of others with little recourse. "

which is a problem you are never going to be able to solve unless you enslave everyone

i'll reiterate again, people are different, because people are different they tend to gather resources at different rates

lebron james for example because he has far greater athletic ability than you is able to gather far more resources than you, it doesn't matter if we call resources capital the idea is the same

what are you going to do about that? kill everyone that has greater competence or ability? that's what they did in the soviet union and then their society suffered because they killed off the people who were most responsible for the progression of their society

" If I lived in the woods, as you suggest, the state would kick me out for using "public land.""

that's not true there are people who live in the woods, you would have a point if you were referring to a large scale development

"15. Yet they do. "

society is not perfect, the world is not perfect and neither will ever be perfect

and most of the harm that has happened throughout history to people has come about as a result of trying to make things perfect

"I am actually not. Your question was based on faulty premise, that it was Steve Jobs that had the money. It wasn't Steve Jobs that had the money, it was the venture capitalists and stock-buyers whom invested in his ideas that did. Steve Jobs was a worker (in that context) like the rest of us. "

i wasn't talking about money, you were

initially you said that the only thing special about steve jobs was his money and that he and his workers are interchangeable

that to me is insane so i asked you if the only difference between you and steve jobs is his money

and this seems to be a common trend with socialists they deny the individual nature of people and push the argument that since people aren't that different then we can construct a society without hierarchies and in so doing they deny one of the most fundamental aspects of human beings and that is the huge variation across people across various criteria

its probably the most anti-human philosophy i've ever seen and for obvious reasons that is very ironic

" And it didn't grow until people invested in it."

which wasn't my point, yes of course steve jobs needed investors to get as big as he did, but that's irrelevant, the point is that he because of his unique characteristics and obviously the right environmental conditions was able to innovate and come up with a new attractive product

". And why wouldn't the workers have ideas about how to create a new product that they expect will have demand?"

this is becoming a joke

look dude if you truly believe that everyone is the same and we have the same capacity for competence, intelligence, creativity etc so be it, but don't pretend that its a rational idea

all of the scientific research into how people are disagrees with you and also it should be apparent simply from going outside and seeing that everyone is very different

"Somebody voluntarily working for somebody else isn't wrong. But! Under the conditions which the state imposes, there is nothing voluntary about it."

nobody is forcing anyone to get a job

" All alternatives are restricted by state laws and regulations so as to be nonviable, except for employment."

yes people place restrictions on other people... now tell me something i don't know

this is the case for any society... a society cannot exist unless there is some common agreement across the people of that society

that's what government initially came from

"Vietnam and Laos (both self proclaimed socialist states) are more equal than the US"

what about about their standard of living? that's the most important part

you can't seriously tell me you'd rather live in worse conditions as long as everyone around you also has to live in worse conditions?

inequality is not a problem, people who work hard and come up with innovative ideas should benefit disproportionately more than other people, what is really important is whether people aren't getting the basic needs met