Another stolen comment about zeitgeist addendum

From this thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/node/69281

Despite my support for free-markets, I think we need to admit the fact that pure free-market capitalism has never actually existed and is just as idealistic as any of the other hypothetical systems. Yet you defend it religiously.
You've got to wake up to the fact that even though free-market capitalism is better than what we have now, and is probably the best possible monetary-based economic system, that doesn't make it perfect. It still bears the same essential flaws that have got us into the mess we're in today.
That doesn't mean that Ron Paul, Rothbard, von Mises, and others are wrong. But just because they advocate it doesn't mean they consider it flawless. Capitalism is not devoid of problems; it is not the final solution. That would be Utopian.
...
The point being made in Zeitgeist about the monetary-system is simple: a competition-based system for profit by differential advantage is destined to produce the problems we face today: corruption, elitism, poverty, crime, war, etc. Unfortunately, even a purely free market economy is no exception.
Even if we could establish this supposedly perfect system, how long do you think it would it last? With time (decades or centuries), a few 'best players' in the game will inevitably gain massive wealth and power, which they are destined to use against others in order to secure their power forever. Sound familiar? That's why some people believe that evil is in our nature. If we promote the conditions that cause it, yes it is. Power corrupts.
...
Zeitgeist Addendum does not advocate collectivism. The film denounces communism, fascism, elitism, etc. It does not imply that a central authority must intervene to re-educate and formulate the workings of society.
Instead, the theory is that if we stopped perpetuating this system of competition over scarce, poorly-managed resources, people would naturally reorganize at a grassroots level to work for a common goal without needing to compete amongst each other, and could do so without the need for central authority.
This is no more 'collective' than the way us liberty-minded people come together on our own accord to accomplish common goals.