If you're against slavery and feudalism, you should be against pure unfettered capitalism (though possibly in favor of almost-pure capitalism, I guess).
tl;dr: "Pure capitalism is good", as a problem-solving strategy, is not entirely trustworthy; sometimes it leads to horrible horrible things.
The fundamental doctrine of capitalism is that it is just (not merely pragmatic) to let the people with the gold make the rules. This, of course, is the single biggest point of The Wealth Of Nations, and it's an interesting one, and seems to be largely correct. But if you take this to an illogical extreme, you are back in might-makes-right.
I think it's pretty obvious that slavery wasn't defeated by capitalism, but rather by a leftist people-other-than-the-rich-have-rights kind of movement. Master Smith had the capital, he bought the slaves, and now we're going to deny him his property rights, because someone else's rights (to freedom and personal security) are more important.
Feudalism is also basically free-capitalism-plus-ethics. If you conquer some land by the sword, you get to keep it. There are some people living on that land. You tell them "I own this land, if you want to live you can either leave (flee as refugees), or trade me your right to freedom and security for the permission to use my land, with the following caveats". I say "plus ethics" because there was an ongoing debate throughout the feudal period about what obligations the landed class had to the working class, a debate that is taken less seriously today.
And for that matter, cronyism is consistent with pure capitalism; why shouldn't I, the holder of capital, be allowed to allocate that capital however I like, including to my cronies?
I apologize if this is all sort of obvious, or pedantic. And overall, I favor socio-political systems that are more capitalist than anything else. However, as I said in the tl;dr, I believe that the "I favour pure capitalism" mindset is harmful, if you actually try to use it to decide between policy alternatives.
I should have said more about the context in which I'm an advocate for pure capitalism.
Specifically, I'm assuming a context where a strong government is genuinely effective in protecting the rights of individuals. Like you, I reject the idea that might, or wealth, ever makes right.
In my view, abolishing slavery was an example of the government ultimately acting as it should act, as a protector of the rights of individuals.
We might have different definitions of cronyism. I'm most concerned with people in positions of power buying government officials who will ultimately write laws that restrict my freedom of choice. I am not overly concerned about corporations colluding in one way or another, as long as they cannot initiate force or fraud. Again, a strong government that succeeds in protecting individual rights seems critical here.
> genuinely effective in protecting the rights of individuals
> most concerned with people in positions of power buying government officials
Both of those are KEY issues, yes. And in both cases, the modern West is arguably more-or-less the most successful society I know of, across history, and yet simultaneously doing so much worse than it seems like it should be.
Here are some other areas where I think we should limit pure capitalism.
1) Market externalities. The most obvious of these, to me, is pollution. 500 years ago, worrying about mining tailings might have been ridiculous, but it's clear that today, a perfect government will interfere with this in some way (perhaps by allowing pollution but taxing it heavily?). Torturing animals might be another example (as opposed to allowing dogfighting as a market activity). I suppose that most other externalities that jump to mind are arguably covered by "protecting the rights of individuals".
2) Moderating wealth disparity. On the one hand, we certainly see some societal benefits from allowing industrious people to get rich. On the other hand, we know that wealth disparity is directly linked with a variety of social ills. Also many people feel it's reasonable to tax the rich heavily, in order to succor the poor. The main question is one of degree. To my understanding, this isn't incompatible with "pure capitalism", but many people argue for flat taxes on the basis of "pure capitalism", thus my bringing it up.
I think your questions are very good. Thank you. And as you suggest, I do think that a society and a government that really understood and cherished individual rights would go a long way towards solving the problems you raise.
Sadly, I don't expect any such society anytime soon.
As regards pollution, I think the problem can be solved by respect for property rights. Your life is your property, and if someone harms you by polluting the air you must breathe, I think the government and objective law should come to your defense. At the same time, I think it has to be proven that you were actually harmed by the pollution. I understand that this is a complex matter.
Same deal with water. I don't think anyone has the right to force someone else to provide them with clean water, as that would amount to a kind of slavery. At the same time, I think a rights-respecting government should act, if it can be shown, objectively, that someone is polluting a water source.
I don't think animals have rights, and I think they can be a person's property, so I would say that a person has the right to torture animals. I think that's a horrible thing to do, I think it's sick and pathetic, and I think such a person should be denounced, shamed and shunned to the greatest extent possible. But if asked whether s/he has such a right, I would say yes, they have such a right.
As regards wealth, again, I'm going to point to property rights. I don't think law-abiding people should have their property confiscated, to any degree, or for any reason. I understand that people will point out that of course we must collect taxes to fund the government, and I agree with this today, although I don't agree with the massive bloat in terms of what politicians and many / most in society consider government's proper role.
I appreciate this conversation and it's respectful tone. Ultimately, my bottom line is freedom for the individual and a society that demonstrates real respect for the rights of all individuals.
tl;dr: "Pure capitalism is good", as a problem-solving strategy, is not entirely trustworthy; sometimes it leads to horrible horrible things.
The fundamental doctrine of capitalism is that it is just (not merely pragmatic) to let the people with the gold make the rules. This, of course, is the single biggest point of The Wealth Of Nations, and it's an interesting one, and seems to be largely correct. But if you take this to an illogical extreme, you are back in might-makes-right.
I think it's pretty obvious that slavery wasn't defeated by capitalism, but rather by a leftist people-other-than-the-rich-have-rights kind of movement. Master Smith had the capital, he bought the slaves, and now we're going to deny him his property rights, because someone else's rights (to freedom and personal security) are more important.
Feudalism is also basically free-capitalism-plus-ethics. If you conquer some land by the sword, you get to keep it. There are some people living on that land. You tell them "I own this land, if you want to live you can either leave (flee as refugees), or trade me your right to freedom and security for the permission to use my land, with the following caveats". I say "plus ethics" because there was an ongoing debate throughout the feudal period about what obligations the landed class had to the working class, a debate that is taken less seriously today.
And for that matter, cronyism is consistent with pure capitalism; why shouldn't I, the holder of capital, be allowed to allocate that capital however I like, including to my cronies?
I apologize if this is all sort of obvious, or pedantic. And overall, I favor socio-political systems that are more capitalist than anything else. However, as I said in the tl;dr, I believe that the "I favour pure capitalism" mindset is harmful, if you actually try to use it to decide between policy alternatives.