But Planet, can’t you see that your hypothesized society is not “capitalist” in any meaningful sense of the word?
Can we take it as a given that capitalism cannot function without some mechanism of free enterprise, enforcing contracts, protecting private property, and protecting people from physical violence? As in my example, if Bill Gates can rob, murder, and enslave people with impunity, then he is not a capitalist but a feudal lord.
You postulate that the mega-rich will live in guarded enclaves, with private security, health, education, etc. But here’s the thing. How to the “mega-rich” in such a society maintain their wealth? In other words, since there is no free market of goods and services, there is no way for businessmen to make a profit buying and selling goods and services. Meaning, the whole wealth creating engine of capitalism is dismantled, and we return to a new feudal system of poverty, feudal lords, and serfs who produce only what they must, because everything they produce will be expropriated by the aristocracy anyway.
How can capitalism function without banks, stock exhanges, trade, competition, cooperation, innovation, intellectual property, contracts, or sophisticated financial institutions? There has to be some method of protecting these institutions. Perhaps we can imagine them to function in the abscence of government, but there must be some corresponding social enforcement mechanism. An example might be something like the so-called protestant work ethic…if everyone had a religious belief in the inviolability of contract, the virtue of work, and the sacredness of financial trust, and there was an explicit attempt to teach and indoctrinate those values to everyone, then something like this might be possible. But the key question is how does such a society handle “cheaters”, people who only pretend to follow this philosophy, or explicitly reject the philosophy? Given a critical mass, perhaps social sanctions would be enough…consumers would simply refuse to do business with unethical people. That would mean that your reputation would be extremely important.
I guess the bottom line is that today’s businessmen are not neccesarily in favor of a capitalist system. They are in favor of wealth and power for themselves. Under our current capitalist system the gain wealth and power by producing, buying and selling goods and services. I’m sure most would be happy to be able to accumulate wealth and power without the troublesome necessity of producing goods and services that consumers value, and would be all too glad to have their competitors shot and average people made into their slaves. But of course, if they got their wish, they would experience a precipitous drop in their standard of living. Bill Gates as a businessman in a free country has a much higher standard of living than a feudal aristocrat shivering in a drafty castle and worrying about raids from neighbors. Our current standard of living depends on an intricate supply chain of goods and services. Yes, today’s dictators can buy luxury goods produced by the global economy, and can sell raw materials on the world market to pay for them. But if there was no free global economy then those dictators will have to make do with locally produced luxury goods. Current dictators are free-riders on the global economy. And if there were no restraints on “businessmen”, then those businessmen would cease to be businessmen and would then become dictators.
