It is also true that there is nothing in capitalism that precludes this rentseeking scheme. Everything about it is quintessentially capitalist: a top-down organization employs people (job creation) and pays them money which it gets by restricts other people and organizations from using something (private ownership) unless they pay (rentseeking) and to take down its rivals (competition) to take over an entire industry. The only aspect that’s missing is to abuse publicly available resources (extraction) and dump its waste (pollution).

It is actually fine for trailblazers to charge large amounts for new tech. But open source gift economies can eventually break their stranglehold.

Unless they use the power of government to enforce their rentseeking, which can be especially egregious with “intellectual property”.

(Yes it is possible to be a libertarian who criticizes capitalism as using government force.)

https://twitter.com/mozilla/status/1549775652123033601

That's lack of understanding of origins of the term "capitalism". Capitalism is typically characterized by (a) free market for labor and (b) private ownership of means of production. Both of these concepts have been considered unethical. The fact that liberals also consider "rent seeking" unethical doesn't change that.

> Both of these concepts have been considered unethical.

Considered unethical by who? I wouldn't classify me disagreeing with those who consider those two concepts as unethical as a "lack of understanding"

By many intellectuals and philosophers, like Karl Marx. How do you know you would disagree with their arguments if you didn't even realize such people exist? That's the "lack of understanding" I am talking about.

In fact, there are several different explanations why these are unethical. One (Marx's) comes from labor theory of value (which I don't believe in, I think it is self-contradictory, but even classical liberals did believe in, that's why they hated rent seeking).

Every ethical argument is based on some ethical principles (like axioms). The question is, do you disagree with the argument (the derivation of the conclusion) or with the principles?

I'm tired of this sophistry where people claim "this is not a real capitalism". Why cling to the term then? Capitalism has always been a designation of the actual, real system, not some liberal utopia with no rent seeking. (The actual reason is that you can, somehow hypocritically, acknowledge the flaws of the system, while claiming TINA, anyway.)

Knew it was going to be Marx.

> There is nothing in capitalism that says you must obtain your money through unethical means.

There is. Ethics constitute a voluntary constraint on behavior. Businesses with no ethics are less constrained, and therefore can outcompete businesses so encumbered.