> it is not the best at improving the human condition I argue the answer is not in publicly funded, non-capitalist services. It is in general-case and appropri

> it is not the best at improving the human condition I argue the answer is not in publicly funded, non-capitalist services. It is in general-case and appropriate business regulations. Capitalism is a winner-takes-his-as-much-as-possible system. Left unfettered, it can and will find unjust profit in exploiting its workers. At scale, even customers can suffer for some time until a competitor rises. By properly regulating businesses, we are able to more confidently say that opportunity is granted to all, and personal responsibility is left to the individual. To me, that is a win. The charge of society, in my view, is not to improve the human condition for all. It is to ensure the opportunities. As an aside, let us be clear that to improve the human condition for some, you do so by reducing the financial condition of others. In a capitalist society, your financial condition directly correlates to your standard of living, granted it experiences drastic diminishing returns. So it could be said that reducing someones fiscal condition therefore reduces their human condition. The human conditional philanthropy is strikes me as a bit ironic from this vantage point.