Drastic example: "yes the holocaust is going on but it's not like that matters, everyone has to die anyways."

I mean... speaking exclusively in the grand scheme of things, it didn't matter. If the world was obliterated during the Cold War it also wouldn't.

But that's not to say that things can't subjectively matter, and that was more the true root of my argument.

You can't force people to care about things that you care about, the same as I cant. And even if we could, they still would only be willing to dedicate a certain amount of time and energy to it.

If my choices are between working solely for something I don't subjectively care about (and objectively doesn't matter) or just doing what I want, the choice is clear to me. Maybe others would choose to work anyways, but I can't honestly say I would. At least not as much as I do now.

Then wouldn't a system that rewards work over ownership be better? Right now in the US work is taxed a lot higher than profit from owning shares or making money of interest.

This is kind of a tricky one for a number of reasons, but I'll try and give a full but succinct answer. I think that an ideal system would be able to reward both.

On Labor...

I believe that labor is usually, at least roughly, compensated fairly relative to what the job actually requires.

It sucks that a lot of them don't get very much, but it's kind of just the reality of what their actual impact is on the company as a whole. A front-line worker might handle a large $ volume of orders, but ultimately most of the value of the transaction was added upstream and they're just completing the hand off to the customer.

I worked fast food for a while when I was younger, and most of us could've been replaced by kiosks. It's hard to demand a lot of compensation in those scenarios.

That's not to say crappy employers don't exist, because they certainly do, but the idea in theory is you'd go where you felt best compensated for what you actually contribute to the company.

On Ownership...

Slight correction on your premise, in that interest is taxed as regular income. You're right about shares, but the factors going into that are more nuanced than needed for this discussion.

By rewarding ownership, you incentive investment. If you don't, there is only risk in ownership, so why would you want to own anything? Plus it allows you to diversify your ownership through those other assets, rather than being completely screwed if your place of work goes tits up.

In the united states after the great depression there was a 95% tax on every profit above 1 Million.

Is that inflation adjusted?

Also, it helps that there was virtually no real global competition for our businesses. Europe just got blown to shit, Russia is still dealing with its own bs, China is still gearing up for their mid-century bs. Then repeat again in 20 years.

and the middle class got increased taxes.

exactly my concern going forward. I haven't seen anything indicating that won't be the case.

The problem is that in the end every government program and regulation is there for a reason.

I'm not arguing for anarcho-capitalism or anything, but I definitely disagree.

For example, in California, all newly built homes and living structures are required to be fitted with solar panels. Now every new house that could've been built is going to have $20k+ added on to it's price, which will also increase property tax. Housing starts will be lower by necessity because less people can afford them. Rent/housing costs are already a huge problem here, yet they recently slapped this on top and called it a day.

We also have laws that are called "inverse condemnation" that will bankrupt all of our utility companies in the next decade if they remain in place.

There are plenty more like that out there, but saying to what extent is clearly difficult.

Companies don't want to hurt their customers through unsafe products though, because that's how you go out of business. That's why most of the weird shit we see comes from some no-name company in China that we can't hold accountable.

Some basic oversight is probably required, but I don't think it needs to be like a nanny.

The problem with competing companies replacing the government is that companies need ways to grow while a state doesn't.

Yes and no. Eventually, most companies do hit a mature stage in their cycle where growth becomes pretty tepid. At that point they pay out more in dividends or do other stuff with the cash instead of expanding with it.

Beyond that, as populations grow economies naturally grow as well--more people = more customers.

When the prisons in the US where privatized they hired a bunch of lobbyists to change the laws so more people would have to go to jail for minor offenses.

I'd rather we make that part illegal, personally. We're on the same page for people going to jail for minor offenses haha

Some services have to be run by the government and others can be done by the market but with this it's important to be really careful since one wrong privatization can lead to disasters.

I might agree to an extent, but I'd say it goes both ways. I don't really have a solid footing on what I believe yet, but I at least can say I think the services should be limited to getting people not to die.

The reason is that after just a few weeks of not working live feels meaningless and you seek something to do.

To each their own ¯\(ツ)/¯ If that's what gives you meaning you have my full support. I'm just personally striving to retire as early as possible.

In that case we should fight for a world where work is optional?

I agree that's the best end-game, but unfortunately I don't think we're there yet. At least not in a way that won't stifle development. I think we need to get more automated to cut out costs and find cheaper resources before it becomes practical.

I suppose that is true. In the end to me equity means that everyone has the right to own their labour and to live a good life no matter who they are or where they come from.

Same to me, which I suspect is part of why we can actually have a conversation about our different approaches haha

TL;DR -- sorry for the huge wall of text, don't feel any pressure to reply.