> The rich are only rich because they steal from the poor, either directly by scams or indirectly by theft of wages and labor productivity. Capitalism unfortunately enshrines this behavior in the law so it's seen as a good thing, while a poor person "stealing" from the rich is seen as bad.

I think you might need to look up the word "steal" in a dictionary. That or you're deliberately skewing the definition for your own agenda. I'm hedging my bet on the latter.

The first definition provided when Googling "steal": take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it.

If a good or service is provided that is needed or desired by either a group or an individual there is a cost regardless of whether that cost is absorbed by the individual or group procuring the good/service (as in Capitalism) or by society. The provider of that good or service should somehow be rewarded or incentivized to continue providing the service so as to keep that service provided.

You made a blanket statement that "rich are only rich because they steal from the poor...". That's wrong, true in some cases, but far from a universal truth, if I'm wrong please prove it. If you're good a something society deems valuable, shouldn't you be compensated adequately for that? Should a good jeweler be compensated well for producing a necklace of spectacular quality if someone is willing to pay for it? Should a good neurosurgeon who went through probably a decade of intense schooling be adequately compensated for extracting a tumor? Are either of these people stealing from someone? The answer is no. They are providing a service that the recipient or society (in the case of universal healthcare) willingly compensate them for.

This is in direct contradiction to your point of a "poor person \"stealing\" from the rich", which brings me back to my first statement. You used quotes around "stealing" which deliberately attempts to invert or misdirect the actual definition of the word. Taking something from someone without their permission is "stealing", not providing a service for compensation. In the case of the jeweler, that jeweler bears the cost of materials and time the spent to both learn how to make the commodity when their product is stolen. In the case of the neurosurgeon, when their product is stolen, it's very equatable to slavery.

It doesn't matter what economic model you prescribe to, if people providing a needed good/service aren't adequately compensated, the quality of that good/service degrades or becomes non existent. Unless, of course, you enslave or force those people to provided the good/service, which is not what anyone should be advocating.

does a person that has brain cancer really voluntarily pay a neurosurgeon for treatment?

does a person that gets paid a wage for menial labor that funnels into a value chain that some executive sells for much more than the wage really work voluntarily?

does someone that's manipulated by social media that buys worthless overpriced brand name items really pay voluntarily?

does someone that gets arrested on trumped up charges and values their freedom really pay a lawyer voluntarily?

do people that live in blighted, neglected neighborhoods really move to higher cost of living neighborhoods voluntarily?

I could go on.

Your post implicitly assumes that contracts between equals exist. They don't.

also "if people aren't compensated, the quality..." is an assumption of your model, not an implication

> does a person that has brain cancer really voluntarily pay a neurosurgeon for treatment?

Yes

> does a person that gets paid a wage for menial labor that funnels into a value chain that some executive sells for much more than the wage really work voluntarily?

Yes-ish... one can't really not participate in society in this day and age. One can't just go homestead anymore and subsistence farm. So I understand the argument.

> does someone that's manipulated by social media that buys worthless overpriced brand name items really pay voluntarily?

Yes... get TF off social media.

> does someone that gets arrested on trumped up charges and values their freedom really pay a lawyer voluntarily?

Yes

> do people that live in blighted, neglected neighborhoods really move to higher cost of living neighborhoods voluntarily?

Yes. It's entirely possible to live in a shit area and life a "good life," though there are mental costs associated.

...

It's not black and white as you paint it.

i think you and i have a very different understandings of the word "voluntary"

One that ignores the entirety of human psychology, probability, and what we understand about motivation, reward, and healthy socialization.

Technically you could successfully perform your own neurosurgery at home with a spoon and a dull butter knife...

> Technically you could successfully perform your own neurosurgery at home with a spoon and a dull butter knife...

I was not implying that in the least, that's what you chose to read into it.

> One that ignores the entirety of human psychology, probability, and what we understand about motivation, reward, and healthy socialization.

Like anyone involved in software, you're surely an expert in all of these topics and thus qualified to make this claim without backing it up.

One can voluntary, that is choose, to opt-out of any number of those situations. Some may be more important or costly than others.

> Like anyone involved in software, you're surely an expert in all of these topics and thus qualified to make this claim without backing it up.

PhD in neuroscience, undergrad research on reward and behavior. So, yes, yes I am qualified. You are 100% wrong on all fronts.

You have free will. You can opt-out of "the system" but it will be painful given your desires and lifestyle. So, yes, these things are wholly voluntary.

If you want to live a modern, "easy" lifestyle then some of these things start to look rather coercive.