> There is no "we" allowing or disallowing anything. Who is this "we" and why do use suppose they have some divine insight into the ideal allocation of capital?

You only really own something if enough people in society ("we") agree that you do own it. If enough of "us" change our mind (for instance, if your ownership is no longer useful to us), then you don't really own that thing anymore.

We, that is you are free to devalue Facebook stock at any time by not buying it.

The fact that most people are not doing that should tell you that you are not as much a part of the dominant "we" as you think.

> We, that is you are free to devalue Facebook stock at any time by not buying it.

> The fact that most people are not doing that should tell you that you are not as much a part of the dominant "we" as you think.

You missed the point that I was making entirely.

"We" is the People, the Sovereign, the Government, whatever you like, whatever makes laws that allow for private property and regulates it. We suppose they have some divine insight into the ideal allocation of capital because empirically, so far, this system has shown to be the best way to allocate capital in many situations, so we allow it.

Outside of it, capitalist ideology also has the idea of the divine invisible hand of the free market, which is certainly an exageration, but in the real world markets with the proper conditions and regulations are pretty good at allocating capital.

LLCs and copyright law are rather arbitrary constructs which our laws have created in the belief that they promote some benefit to society - be it better allocation of capital, rewarding creators/inventors, etc.

Shares of stock, the secondary stock market - these are also arbitrary constructs which have been created to serve some purpose.

There’s some magical thinking regarding capitalism - that it practically runs itself; that is ensures efficient allocation of capital.

Capitalism may tend to decentralize economic decision-making, and it may tend to align production incentives with actual demand. But, that doesn’t mean it’s efficient. Efficiency would mean that incentives would nearly match the minimum to ensure satisfaction of demand. What we in America have is a system which highly rewards people who control the labor of others. Our society values wealth, not work.