if you lookup playback as a concept, as it relates to the intelligence services, you will understand better what I meant.

my point was only that this is perfect description of the ideology behind western capitalism. there is (so) much more that could be said, but i'm not sure this comment section is the right place for a proper dissection of the very many ways in which this ideal is misconstrued, misdirected and coerced in order to serve interests that are far from ideal, to put it mildly.

since you have taken the time to ask a question, albeit a rather weak one, i will attempt a brief synopsis of my perspective on the parent comment:

a mortal danger is hyperbole, since shielding oneself from bodily harm is much easier with money. it is the poor, especially in the US, who cannot afford healthcare, as a first-line example

people regularly vote against their best interests. while the ideal might have been true for a while, behavioural influence on both a widespread and personal level is now a mature science.

i am not anti-election, not anti-democracy. claiming the opposite in the face of opposition is a sign of a polarised mindset, which cannot accept nuance, either because it is not used to it, or because it doesn't suit an vested interest, or because dissonance is simply too uncomfortable

the "there's nothing better" argument is usually used in ignorance, but in fact there are lots of system-level adjustments that have been shown historically to mitigate the corruption of incentives and the exploitation of systemic forces that, although initially unintentional, create emergent positive feedback situations that lead to a state that it counter to the utilitarian perspective that is contained within the western capitalist model.

the reading above is a very narrow view of Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, ignores the fact that human interests can be subverted and ignores the devil in the details

I think that's a (very) vocal minority.

Over my ~9 years reading HN daily, I'd say most of the HN community broadly accepts there is no perfect system, just different sets of trade offs, but that history has shown generally democratic systems based on enlightenment values (uniform rule of law, respect for individual civil & property rights, free markets, etc) usually net a better average outcome over the long-run - despite still being very far from perfect.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst system... except for all the others (which are even worse). :-)