One thing that I’ve noticed everyone here seems to be doing is conceding the notion that capitalism is some kind of system written down on paper. Capitalism is basically a word to describe a market process that occurs when individual rights are respected. This was not “designed” by anyone.
I think your first task needs to be to actually define the terms you’re using in this debate. To say something like “capitalism doesn’t take human nature and greed into account”, just oozes ignorance. You might as well just say human nature doesn’t take human nature into account. Again, human beings have a general concept of private property and a wish to avoid conflict. They are also self-interested, and tend to do things because they gain satisfaction from doing them…more so than they would by not doing them. (Otherwise, they wouldn’t do them.)
Capitalism is not some “theory”…it is a description of what takes place when self-interested individuals come together and, while respecting individual rights (i.e. property rights…including your physical body), interact to fulfill their desires. To say that it has “forgotten” something, or “left something out” or hasn’t “taken something into account” is just asinine. It’s like saying “the concept of flying doesn’t take into account the laws of aerodynamics”. Flying is the laws of aerodynamics. Capitalism is human nature.
The only way anyone can say otherwise is if they have a faulty definition of the word.
See how she responds to this:
And this:
In A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Hoppe asserts that there are only two possible archetypes in economic affairs: socialism and capitalism, and that all systems are combinations of those two types. Which, if you really break it down, is true…you either have freedom or you don’t. Of course, there are varying degrees of freedom, but all that means is there are different levels to which freedom can be oppressed.
In his “argumentation ethics”, Hoppe also breaks down the notion of human nature, and the reason a free society is the only logical one…hence, it is not by someone’s design, but rather it is what emerges when logic and reason are applied to the general human desire to (a) fulfill wants, and (b) avoid conflict. He even mentions how small children have a concept of private property and homesteading…They have an innate understanding of “I had this toy first” and they resist and have a natural feeling of discontent and “wrongness” when another child comes along and simply takes it from them.
While there are plenty of objections to Hoppe’s argumentation ethics, it offers a pretty decent foundation…See here. I know for a fact he mentions the children example in the “Law and Economics” lecture from 2005.