Perhaps you're right. Although capitalism is the predominant economic system on the planet, and has been for the last couple of centuries or so, perhaps the problem isn't just capitalism. I agree that the industrialism of Soviet communinism was just as bad environmentally. It may be more accurate to say that I have an issue with “consumerism”.
I have no problem accepting your definition of capitalism as “where the means of production and delivery of economic goods and services are privately owned and controlled”. Ok. Done.
Yet, as you say, it is not the complete definition of a “free and prosperous economic system.” The challenge with all of the economic systems that you mentions – capitalism, socialism, communism, mercantilism, etc. - it that they they only exist in the human construct we know as “the market”, whether it be free or otherwise. And unfortunatly, most people consider that as the extent of the economy. However, the Market Economy is only a portion of what imbues us with the wealth of life, and we too often forget the Planetary Economy, the Core Economy, and the Gift Economy.
In order to create the Market Economy, we have to take from the Planetary, Core, and Gift Economies and turn things that are actually shared resources and transmogrify them into commodities so that we can increase what we consider to be personal property and it can be hoarded by the most wealthy. It's not really a free market when you have to take what you need to get it started is it? Question mark?
Back when humans were more egalitarian, hoarding behaviors were enough to get people banned from their communities, but somehow, we've come to seemingly relegate the mental illness of greed to some sort of noble stature or virtue. On a practical, everyday level, capitalism makes sense, but when we get to the point where we're just promoting billionairism, hoarding more wealth than you can possibly use in several lifetimes, it seems to me that it's gone a bit off the rails. A little bit of selfishness in order for self-preservation is one thing, but to enable it the way that we do is pretty ridiculous.
Actually, you could define economics as “the conversion of raw materials into finished goods and services”, but that doesn't entirely describe it. The word oikonomia, from which “economy” was derived, referred to the rules of the household. It was about the sharing of resources and responsibilities, not just about catering to some mythical “free market” in order to increase profit. It was about promoting balance and sustainability, things that capitalism has not done very well, regardless of your claims.
Oh, and I'm not complaining. I'm just pointing out that there is some shortsightedness in the way that we're doing things, and that we still have the capacity to innovate beyond any “isms” we might be tempted to cling to as we swim our way through semantics.
As far as California and Texas are concerned, I've only seen desert in Texas so I can't speak to their forests.
Yeah, society is all of us, even those who aren't addicted to “more”. And yeah, we're all consumers. That word didn't start getting used to describe Americans until the 1920's when we started producting disposable products and using the practice of planned obsolescence. Before that, we were called citizens, however, in the Sixties, consumer became the more common term to refer to an American, and by that point, the rest of the people on the planet as well. Personally, I think we need a return to citizenry.
And you're right about there being a small percentage of people who call the shots. It's called an oligarchy, and despite the naivete of patriotism, that actually is how our government is operated and our market economy guided. It does have a mix of capitalism and socialism mixed in there, but ultimately, those in power, those with the money, make the rules and ensure that whatever happens, they continue to reap profits exponentially. So although many of us would actually rather be more citizen-minded, we're forced to play our role as consumers in order to satiate the endless appetite of the capitalists who privately own the corporations that contribute to the Market Economy.
As you say, there are always substitutes. And since the narrow-mindedness of our current way of doing things doesn't seem like a good long-range plan, I'm thinking about substitutions.
Personally, I don't want to get caught up in the fantasy of owning a lot of personal property and increasing my material wealth, however, I do want to be able to manage my economic flow better so that it is more effective than the myopia of capitalism, communism, or socialism. I believe we still have some innovating to do.
I don't think that we need to ban anything. I'm sorry if you got that impression. However, I do think we need to manage things wisely. While we still have a ways to go, I think that we have the technology to empower people to have the freedom to do that in ways that we've never been able to before and not have to rely on the way things have been done in the past.
