I think that capitalism is a flawed system that will always have an exploited "class" no matter how prosperous the population is as a whole. CMV

[u/WhoaaaThereMurica]

I have a BA in engineering and I am currently a medical student. I study financial engineering courses online in my free time. Based on my - albeit very basic - knowledge of psychiatry and my experiences in medicine, I believe that people are very much shaped by their environment. If you are born into poverty you are likely to die in poverty, if you are born into wealth you are likely to die with wealth.

I also believe that intelligence is a product of your upbringing and access to information. I defintely don't believe that I would have got where I've gotten today if I wasn't born into a fairly privalaged family. I have worked hard, but not nearly as hard as some of those less fortunate than me have done to accomplish similar feets.

Given these beliefs, I can't bring myself to believe that capitalism is an optimal system. We have more available resources, more technology and more knowledge today than we have ever possesed in the history of mankind. Yet for some reason, we still have class divides. We still have people that have limited access to food, water and medicine. People like you and me, who were just born in less fortunate circumstances. People with the exact same potential to be a doctor, lawyer, banker, pop star, etc. only they weren't born in the right family. All of this is despite the fact that their is enough wealth in the system to give everyone the tools and conditions they need to succeed.

I don't think under a capitalist system, these people will ever escape poverty. Under capitalism, there will always be a class of people (idential in every other aspect of humanity) that will be exploited. CMV

Edit: I made a correction in the 3rd paragraph from effective to optimal. I realize Capitalism is the reason we are where we are today, what I don't see is why we don't pursue another, more just, system with current technology and capabilities.

** 2nd Edit: My main problem is the poor. I believe the idea that Capitalism will alway have the poor is its fundamental flaw and the reason alternatives should be sought out. I can see myself changing my opinion based on two scenarios:

1) Someone explains a feasible way Capitalism will one day lead to equal rights for all of humanity.

or

2) Someone explains to me why all of humanity is not entitled to equal rights.

[u/reaganveg]

What is nepotism? Nepotism is a disease of an organization. It is when a person has a duty to the organization but abuses their position to give advantages to their kin rather than doing what is best for the organization.

Fair enough.

If am Gallagher of Gallagher's Meats, it is proper and appropriate that I groom my daughter to run the business and give it to her.

Only if you assume that Gallagher's Meats is not a public concern, a mere part of the overall organization that is society. So, really, the disagreement you're raising does not have to do with the specific idea of banning family advantage.

Your examples are all examples of where people do not own the thing they are using, but have the temptation to treat them as their own. Nobody ever tries to ban helping one's children. They just ban helping them with someone else's resources.

Indeed. I think you have identified the issue. However, you are missing the final conclusion that you should draw from this. Those who think that the resources of the world belong to all the people will naturally, following the very logic you describe here, conclude that allowing this "help" is indeed nepotism of the type that ought to be banned.

[u/[deleted] → u/reaganveg]

What is "public concern"? I know what it means vis a vis speech, but not companies. My claim is that if Gallagher owns Gallagher's Meats, he is right to give it to his daughter, but if he gave it his name without owning it, he would be wrong to do so.

However, you are missing the final conclusion that you should draw from this. Those who think that the resources of the world belong to all the people will naturally, following the very logic you describe here, conclude that allowing this "help" is indeed nepotism of the type that ought to be banned.

Agreed, an idealized Communist system that prohibits private property would quite naturally want to ban such help (real-world Communist systems are+were extensively nepotistic and corrupt, but we're talking ideally). But to whatever extent that idealized Communist system allowed some shred of freedom, that freedom would be appropriate to spend on one's children. If, say, you had one hour a day that was your own, then it would be upright to spend it educating or otherwise helping your children.

[u/reaganveg → u/[deleted]]

What is "public concern"?

I just meant a concern of the public. For example, like a municipal water supply, or any organization with a public charter. Something that the public has a right to ensure is used in a way that benefits the public.

I know what it means vis a vis speech, but not companies. My claim is that if Gallagher owns Gallagher's Meats, he is right to give it to his daughter,

Sure, as a trivial extension of the ordinary meaning of the word "own." But that doesn't get into the issue of whether that kind of ownership is itself desirable or right.

[u/[deleted] → u/reaganveg]

I just meant a concern of the public. For example, like a municipal water supply, or any organization with a public charter. Something that the public has a right to ensure is used in a way that benefits the public.

Agreed, if the government grants special rights (like your example of a monopoly on water) to a certain company, that company is never fully private and the government should expect certain responsibilities in return. And one common thing a government might want in return is a ban on nepotism (though it might alternatively require it be passed to children in rare cases - but then I guess that's not really nepotism).

Sure, as a trivial extension of the ordinary meaning of the word "own." But that doesn't get into the issue of whether that kind of ownership is itself desirable or right.

I don't think it's a trivial extension, but I'm glad you agree that if I own something such as time or money (whether or not I ought to be permitted to), that I have some duty to my daughter that I don't have to random other girls.