Well i'd have to pushback on this article because i think it's far too oversimplified to the problem

"Taking from one person and giving to the next has never worked in human history. And judging from history it never will."

This is a far right idea. Of course taking from one person and giving to another works. If it didn't work that would mean no advanced civilization would have social programs in them lol. I think what people are really saying is they should have the freedom to allow for that or not. They not speaking about the reality of what creates the better system. They are speaking in particular about their individual right in the idea of freedom to choose that happening or not.

Here's the problem unfortunately. The idea of freedom is very very broad. So a great philosopher once said "freedom starts at breakfast". So no matter how free you tell a society they are. They only as free as a means to feed and support themselves. In employment they only as "free" in choice of masters but we know choice of masters is not freedom lol.

Let me simplify it even more.

Your statement here " This issue is never discussed by anyone within the political sphere. They always discuss the band aids to society."

I don't think it's so much of them wanting to discuss bandaids. I do think the problem is so big that they are limited at this point in what they could do. So for example in this broader idea of freedom. I have people get upset with me and say well i earned this.. belongs to me nobody has the right to take it. Let me give a modern day example that may shed some light on the problem.

You probably have heard in South Africa how the black south africans during apartheid had their lands taken from them and went through many levels of systemic abuse and unfair treatment and lack of freedom. Fast forward to decades later the South African president seizes many lands from white south africans saying that they came into posession of these lands illegally and although they may have paid a fair wage for their lands and have been working them for the last several decades despite that they have to give it up. In which example is freedom being held up the most?

You see this is a difficult issue because the white south african can say but i paid for this land. The black south african government would say you paid the last guy you didn't pay us. This is the same ongoing theme in our global affairs and economies today. In that i never produced a mountain. It was just kinda here. If you take the mountain and the lands surrounding it and you pay some guy for it. You still haven't paid me for it lol. If that makes sense.

Let me give one more example and then i'll tie it all together. I was having a conversation with far right people that's generally who have the biggest issues with this. So i asked them if in their idea of how capitalism works and how abundance should work and how freedom allows them to say hey you taking my stuff. I asked them in eminent domain laws when the government says well we have to take your property for the greater good of society of the population. We may need the river . .or lake.

I believe almost every governent can do that and many governments have lasted throughout history doing that. So i was told yea but they had to pay fair market value for the property lol. The issue though still is fair market value is not the freedom of the land to choose not to want to sell. Maybe i had no intentions of selling for fair market value. Maybe i always planned to sell at a premium. In which case there is still this great restriction of taking from others. However to the greater good idea that they suggest it's perhaps more free to us all in that you do not prohibit or deprive or take from society what is good for society.

It would seem capitalism how we've practiced it has overlooked the good of much of society. if you wanted a free system a completely free system then you'd allow monopolies. Isn't it taking from a business or company that has just outright overperformed you. That they were better and they were punished.

So some would say yea but then they use their power to keep others from competing.. In a sense though isn't that what mostly will happen in so called free societies in the concept of many of your basis. Like you say oh we can create more abundance.. in this free society but we never account for the powerful will always be able to influence the government.. change laws.. use money in politics underpay workers so the workers can never climb up and out.. Does any of that sound like freedom to you?

To me freedom sounds like on a planet where 10 billion people can be feed and its only about 7-8 billion people live here. In my idea of freedom there is never goign to be a case of freedom that deprives those people of not being killed by someone elses idea of freedom that does'nt even make sense in that example. As at this point there is no limit of resources you're just doing it anyway ..Capitalism has to depend on a scarcity model often times for price controls.

I'll wrap it up because i do think its a complicated conversation can go on forever. The problem with the blockchain is that the miners are monopolized and dev teams exchanges.. wealth.. mining manufacturing geography. So what often happens in the blockchain is you get not only the same model but a far worse model lol. As remember the blockchain has no rules or regulatoins against monopolistic like approaches. So then you get stats like 87% of the network is owned by 1% of the network in bitcoin lol.

if that were the standard economy stats i'm sure you could see how bad it would be. The stats get worse as we go. In conservative economics they have something called trickle down economics . So the idea is that a rising tide lifts all ships right? let's explore though if thats true.

Technology wise similar to what we have in the blockchain. Is that when microwaves and refrigerators and ipads and iphones were invented. They said we're richer because most people have those things. In some small sense they were correct in that but they were horribly wrong in that you had the microwave but no food to put in it.. You had the ipad but you couldn't afford the lithium batteries of your own electric bill to charge it..

So what i'm saying in this abundance model you speak of since like ww2 families have gotten poorer not richer. We're several times poorer lol.. THan we ever been thats a statistical fact. We're poorer i believe because it's more of teh system you speak of of people not having things taken away. if it were the opposite then wouldn't have less jeff bezos.. In this winner take all economy. We seem to keep getting people like that own over 50% of the earth resources by taking from everyone but not giving to everyone which is why they have that much ownership in their freedom model and winner take all economy? Does that make sense to you? Blockchain is no different because its just mirroring whats happening in the standard economy even worse.

So i'll conclude with.. don't you think that model doesn't work? Thats the model we're using now where freedom for some and not for all is proceeding. We still dont seem to benefit from the models you all say are correct?