I think the first step is acknowledging what you imply: Free markets and capitalism are just algorithms, not arbiters of truth or morality. (This is also the wo

I think the first step is acknowledging what you imply: Free markets and capitalism are just algorithms, not arbiters of truth or morality. (This is also the working title of an essay I am working on) We can't have a rational discussion of the alternatives when so many people have bought into the notion that all forms of private property are an inalienable right and market-driven valuation of the worth of a person does represents what a person morally deserves. People also once bought into the notion of the divine right of kings. It took forever to shake that. We can't evaluate algorithms unless we come to a shared value system on what we are after, what exactly we are trying to optimize. Aggregate material wealth, regardless of how it is distributed? Broad population well-being / happiness? Individual liberty? Greater good. Darwinian competition?