What economic system doesn't have to deal with poverty?
You're saying that unemployment = inequality. How does that follow? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is about the wealth gap, another thing I find to be completely irrelevant. I did mention that I'm not interested in the outcome, right? I'm trying to understand how if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify any alternative to laissez-faire capitalism? If you're justifications are going to be a theoretical improvement in quality of life then you can save it. If, on the other hand, you are going to explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to "society," then I'd be interested to hear it and you'd stand a decent chance of changing my opinion.
First off, I understand and empathize with your political hesitancy and the impossibility that you must feel with politics as it dovetails with existence. These are not easy questions, and I commend you for making it personal, I think that is the right step. I've talked with a lot of people that feel similarly to you (mainly because I, too, ran in this circle in my early 20s), and I think there are a lot of different paths that this discussion could go down. It is hard to tell exactly how you've come to be committed to this position, and that information would be necessary for me to make any headway (assuming I want to "change your mind" or something like that).
Here I'll just throw out some observations that I've picked up from your posts (I'll get to the big one first in case you want to skip most of this):
*you ask "if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify...." This is a very complex statement actually, and I would assume that most people that say something like this are taking a few things for granted. Usually, the most dubious assumption is a too-strong commitment to the existence of the individual-all-alone or eternal self. Sure, our body is the pivot of our location in the world, but we needn't jump way ahead and say that the self is driving the whole process. We come into this world the most needy neotenous creatures EVER. Very simply, we depend on other people. Seriously, ALL the social sciences agree that we are thoroughly social creatures, right down to the bone (and that isn't a metaphor... sociality is a big part of our morphology). In short, there is more evidence to support the idea that I am better off if I put a good deal of energy taking care of my neighbor. The idea that we own our own existence is slipperier and faultier than you give it credit.
There are very deep threads to follow here related to "self", theories of the "subject" and just what "experience" is. Of course this requires voluminous typing.
*There is a lot of misperception, due to the educational system in the US, that laissez-faire capitalism is a sort of natural system that, if it wasn't being expressed at some point in history, it must have been being suppressed by tyranny. This is an idealized/propagandized picture. Historically speaking it is VERY late to the human story, and the ideas were developed and practiced at a point when Europe was involved in some of the most atrocious imperial encounters the world has ever seen. That said, from the point of view of history, it is very easy for me to discard laissez-faire economics.
The romance of the market place, if you don't want a huge state apparatus involved in many of its aspects, is a very rural, technologically primitive place. Most people surviving within that system would spend all or most of their time in agriculture. Lessons from history.
*I'm picking up a fundamental mistrust of or lack of confidence in institutions. Again, given the political milieu here in the US since the Cold War, it is very understandable. However, I'd quickly turn this around on you and ask you to give me an example of an institutionless society. Of course, there aren't any. The whole bloody point is that it is our responsibility to be political practitioners OURSELVES. If you want democracy, then you have to DO it. Your responsibilities go FAR BEYOND voting. This is why I got into education.
*It is hard to tell what your theory of value is, and how you think wealth is created. If we take the hard line approach to "owning our own existence" and don't employ ANYBODY in the production of our goods or rely on ANYBODY for the construction of the infrastructure we use to access our materials, then, once again, we are really only talking about agriculture here. Everything else is too big; it enfolds the labor of too many people to fit into this individualistic paradigm. It might be interesting thinking for you if you were to try to wed wealth more directly to labor. Labor is what is productive, not "money" or "capital".
These all provide solid jumping off points for me to "explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to 'society'," but that is enough for now. If you are interested in volleying back and forth, then by all means, let's do it.
