The point is, you are describing the outcome not the mechanism. Capitalism is a mechanism and so you must replace it with another mechanism, not a list of goals.

New intelligently designed systems/mechanisms aren't just created out of thing air like magic.

The first phase of the systems development life cycle requires you to define (and agree upon) high level goals/requirements/parameters, which is what I was doing.

> The first phase of the systems development life cycle requires you to define (and agree upon) high level goals/requirements/parameters

Yes, but when people ask for a system, you can't just give them that list of goals as an answer. Not only is it not a system, but agreeing on goals doesn't make a system meeting all of them logically possible much less practical.

>when people ask for a system, you can't just give them that list of goals as an answer.

When someone asks for a satisfactory alternative that doesn't yet exist, intelligent creative people think about ways to make a new one. Are you suggesting we don't do that?

>agreeing on goals doesn't make a system meeting all of them logically possible much less practical.

False. Making sure users values align with the system goals is crucial for a successful, practical system that people want to use.

> When someone asks for a satisfactory alternative that doesn't yet exist, intelligent creative people think about ways to make a new one.

I think you'd have got a better response if you were clearer that that's what you were trying to do. "I don't know of a system but if we're to try and come up with one, [...]" or similar.

> >agreeing on goals doesn't make a system meeting all of them logically possible much less practical.

> False. Making sure users values align with the system goals is crucial for a successful, practical system that people want to use.

Making sure goals align with values is worthwhile, but it doesn't answer the question of whether a system that achieves all of those goals is possible.

In a different context, we can have as many meetings as we want where we all agree that maintaining complete consistency and availability while being robust to partitioning is very important and aligned with what we want out of our distributed system; that doesn't mean we're going to get a system that reaches those goals.

Of course, it's fair to say that the discussion of what goals to trade away against others should be a separate process from getting everything we might want on the table - but again, you should make it clear that that's what you're doing up front.

>I think you'd have got a better response if you were clearer that that's what you were trying to do. "I don't know of a system but if we're to try and come up with one, [...]" or similar.

Perhaps you're right, though I'm sure the responses would also have been better if the system in question was an actual objective, technical system and not an ideological system. Decades of propaganda has caused many to automatically attack anyone who dares question the status quo economic aparatus.

It’s worth doing, but it’s not an “alternative” in any meaningful way. As the other commenter said it’s a wish list. It can’t be meaningfully compared to capitalism. You have no indication ther even exists a mechanism within which those values are compatible.

Again, I was making suggestions in the scope of the planning phase of the SDLC, not the implementation.