Chris, respectfully, your argument is incoherent. Capitalism does not exist without participants. It’s like saying there’s nothing wrong with the game of basketball, it’s the players that screw it up. Well, how can there be basketball without players?
I’m not trying to force any argument on you. Newt is saying that capitalism has been corrupted by a variety of vested interests and those vested interests destroy free markets.
Now, if you disagree with that-its fine. But, if you think “capitalism” exists in present day American, I’m afraid I think you’re mistaken. We are a nanny state socialist nation.
Does time exist if there is no sentinent being there to observe its passage?
Does the concept of time exist if there is no one there to observe it’s passage?
The concept of capitalism does exist if there are no participants.
My original point is that Newt misframed his argument in seeking ethical capitalism, when it is ethical people that are necessary for such a choice to be made regarding a neutral concept, and in so doing, he is undermining the engine of freedom, and he is certainly smart enough to be able to make this distinction.
This is an intentional misframing, it is an unethical choice.