I was wrong about Capitalism and Libertarianism.
and I was wrong about socialism.
I think having social welfare is appropriate. This is something that I have been thinking about for a while now.
I don't think that people really have much control over their life outcomes. It's mostly determined by Genetics (70%) and Environment (30%). The capitalist system is an extension of nature's system of evolution. The key benefit to capitalism is a more efficient allocation of resources. This is made possible because capitalism uses prices as a very close approximation of value. The market can make a good valuation of nearly everything, including people and culture. From these prices and valuations we can better determine what means of production is better for society, which people are more efficient and more valuable than others, and what cultures are more productive and efficient than others. Capitalism can quickly identify winners and losers with prices and valuations that are only made possible with a market. Sure, the benefit of economic incentives are somewhat importance, but it is my belief that driven individuals will find success whether they live under capitalism or not. It's the efficiency of capitalism that is its key benefit.
However, What is the definition of a just society? One where the inefficient members of society are quickly weeded-out and made to suffer? While the superior people are afforded lives of insane luxury? Is that really the ideal? I don't think that is the way that it should be. everyone should be able to live fulfilling lives--have families and have a sense of accomplishment before they die. It shouldn't be based on how smart they are or how fast they can learn Graduate level geometry. Moreever, Someone's happiness shouldn't be based on how much they are willing to sacrifice for the future or how much discipline they have. Not everyone has the same level of innate discipline. The ants have an innate and probably genetic advantage over the grasshoppers. The Ant's should help the grasshopers because the Grasshoppers have no ability to mimic the discipline of the ants. They just have different natures, and they should complement each other in a moral society not compete with each other.
Because not a single person on this earth has any sort of control of their characteristics or attributes that will define them, so why should they be punished for that?
Given the growing amount of evidence on Genes (even epigenetics) and determinism. I think the Neanderthal thought experiment really illustrates the problems with LIbertarianism.
steven hsu said:
Now to the problem: how should we integrate these Neanderthals into modern society?
Perhaps we should not integrate them -- better to leave them alone on protected lands, to live their ''natural'' (= nasty, brutish and short?) lives. But what if some Neanderthals express the wish to join our society? How should we best help them?
I think it's likely that no amount of special education or training will allow average Neanderthals to be successful in cognitively demanding jobs. They might face significant discrimination, given their appearance.
However, let us suppose that in this future the technology exists to modify the genes which cause the cognitive gap between moderns and Neanderthals. Suppose it is possible, through genetic engineering, to modify the genomes of Neanderthal embryos, causing their brains to develop as ours do. Would it not be our moral duty to make this modification available to Neanderthal parents who want it?
It would be a moral duty. It is our moral duty to remedy the handicaps that the unfortunate have due to factors outside their volition.
Sure, Years of capitalism would definitely accelerate the progress of mankind, but what would be the human cost of that progress? Maybe progress is not the end goal?
im gonna give you your 10000th dap for that.... I was naive and I let biased professors and youtube videos trick me breh 
.
