I have to disagree on a few points.  Capitalism is based on a rational view of the nature of man. Man cannot exist and live as man in the absence of freedom.  That is why the dominate philosophy of this century has led to the decay of the US and western society.  That is the philosophy of altruism.  Excuse me while I channel my inner Ayn Rand…Altruism leads men to believe that it is a virtue to sacrifice oneself for others.  Even a little bit is considered noble.  This leads to man feeling guilty for not "giving more" than they already do.  We look at monks, who give everything to serve others and live in poverty, as the ideal to live up to.  This becomes a problem when men achieve political power, the power to initiate the use of force against men.  This power is given to the politicians by the very people who elect them into office.  With the philosophy of altruism permeating our society, it is now very easy for these men of power to use that power to force men who "haven't given enough" to "do the right thing."

Unrestricted capitalism will only be able to exist for a short while until the philosophy of altruism is no longer taught.  The correct philosophy for man to exist qua man (as a man and not a slave) is Objectivism.  Objectivism teaches rational self-interest and the ultimate value and virtue.  Objectivism is the only philosophy based on reason and man's use of it to guide his decisions. 

Under true and unrestricted capitalism, individual rights are the most sacred (if I can use that term) asset a country can preserve.  No law can be written that violates a man's natural rights and no man can violate the rights of another without breaking the law in doing so.  The initiation of force is given exclusively to the government and man can only use force for self defense or the defense of others. Those in power cannot pass laws that violate rights, period. This leads to a very narrow scope of government, namely police, military and a system of courts.  Any other use of government force will violate man's right to property. Everything else - education, infrastructure, social programs, etc are all immoral. To supply one little old lady with a government pension check seems like a noble deed.  But that deed is based on a million tiny little uses of force to take the money from somebody else who actually earned it.  I'll stop here.


"When you are born into this world all pieces of land are already owned by someone else."  The answer is you will get a job and earn some bitcoin and buy it from somebody who wishes to sell it. You may inherit it as well.  There is nothing wrong with inherited wealth.  I don't fret that men like BIll Gates and Warren Buffet have loads of money.  They have made our lives infinitely better through their innovations and skill.  Their massive wealth was well earned and I admire them for it.  But wait a few generations and see how much wealth the heirs of Bill Gates will have.  I predict very little.  It will get spread out through the population because few men create that kind of wealth and even fewer can keep it.  Have many Kennedys and Rockefellers have the same power and money their ancestors had?  None that I know of.