Hi deepflows, That's a tricky question. First off, no, I can't offer empirical evidence to support my view that capitalism is inherently moral. I believe that morality is a subjective measure (as evidenced by things being 'amoral' in one society and lauded in another), and I don't think that any outcome or evidence can prove one action to be truly more or less moral than another. I would describe my moral views as "self-righteous" in that I believe that each of us are truly responsible for determining what is moral and what isn't, since there is no external source of true morality. I, for example, don't believe that financial inequality is, in and of itself, a "bad" thing (and this is coming from a guy who's just barely middle class--I'm certainly not a 1%er or anywhere near that). You, however, may, in which case I could understand why you potentially would not be in favor of anarcho-capitalism. And yes, I definitely believe that utopia would involve corporations. I believe the publicly traded corporate structure has done more to allow the worker to own the means of production than any economic innovation in history. However, I'm not a true anarchist--I'm a minarchist. I believe that government should exist to:
-retaliate for violence committed outside of self-defense
-punish theft and breach of violence
-provide objective judgment and detention services
-provide large-scale public works (roads) These objective services (akin to legal insurance) would serve as a check against the power of corporations to create serfdoms. For example, I think the ability of labor to organize is absolutely vital to free markets. Oppressing unions was monstrous because it allowed one side of the equation (capital) to have pricing power, but the other side (labor) was not allowed to do so. At the same time, I think the labor's organization should be the end in itself. The government should in no way step in to support unions other than to protect them from violence at the hands of the corporation.
Thank you! I don't reject inequality as such. People should be rewarded for hard work and time spent for the wellfare of the community. I don't believe that the profit motive tends to reward the right kinds of engagement, though. Make sure everyone has food and shelter, the elderly, the young and the sick are taken care off and public infrastructure is in prime condition. Then take care of supplying luxury goods - and, quite frankly, do we really need a whole industry which doesn't actually create any real value while at the same time creating insane rewards for its participants? As I said, there can and should be some inequality in outcomes. But there also should be a limit to that inequality. Nobody needs a hundred million dollars to adequately pursue their personal happiness. I agree wholeheartedly on your point about unions. One more question, if I may: Since in a capitalis society, capital equals power: What is going to prevent the wealthy from using their economic advantage to influence the (limited) government you envision in their favor, much as we see today and have seen in the past (re: suppression of unions.) Are we going to rely on politicians to reject the profit motive which the society they operate in celebates? In case you're interested, I shared some of my concerns about capitalism in another reply in this thread.