> They still can't feed themselves [...] some money is better than no money.
I dont see how the first half changes the argument, as the second half points out.
> If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart
We have rules. Monopoly-busting is a fundamental role of the government. Corporations can accrue more power than their surrounding communities, as history has shown. Besides, other corporations oppose the actions of Walmart, keeping them in check - capitalism!
What is the other option? To dive into the deep end: the failure mode of capitalism appears to be the blending together of government and corporations/money to reduce the regulations that prevent strictly free-markets from being inherently self-destructive. However, the other options start from this premise! When the government already owns AND regulates the corporations, the only game in town for monopoly busting is violent revolution.
> But the real world doesn't work that way.
Previously, American capitalism has driven an increase in the world's standard of living by a staggering amount. Currently, it certainly appears there are some fundamental flaws not being addressed, but I don't know what we should do aside from return to the same capitalist system just without the corruption.
I think libertarian ideals with a basic social safety net is ideal.
Make it so that employee protections aren't necessary by giving people the safety to walk away from bad contracts.
If we had universal healthcare and UBI and minimum income, you wouldn't need minimum wage laws anymore, because no one would take a job for $1/hr if they could just sit at home, and that's a good thing. Or maybe they would because that extra $8 a day would mean something to them. But at least they would have the freedom to do it.
I'm ok with the government being in charge of wealth redistribution, because that is where the pure libertarian system fails.
There is no safety for people who can't work, just aren't smart enough to work, or were not born into a situation where they can get the basic education needed to be successful.
One of the main problems with libertarianism is that how you fare is highly dependent on what resources you start with (ie what you were born with and what your parents have). If we can even that out a bit, the system would work much better.
I dont see how the first half changes the argument, as the second half points out.
> If we don't create a set of rules that prevents the behavior of places like Walmart
We have rules. Monopoly-busting is a fundamental role of the government. Corporations can accrue more power than their surrounding communities, as history has shown. Besides, other corporations oppose the actions of Walmart, keeping them in check - capitalism!