In your original comment you made the specific point "societies are going to have to reckon with the fact that democracy, free speech, and unrestricted capitalism simply aren't a sustainable mix". I then pointed out that "unrestricted capitalism" isn't actually being practiced anywhere, which is true. The reason I pointed this out can be reframed as a question: "What society actually thinks that unrestricted capitalism is sustainable?" or alternatively... "No societies are practicing unrestricted capitalism, so why would a reckoning be necessary?".

Your response was to then claim "Neither does democracy nor free speech [exist anywhere in the world]" which is clearly false.

Where I think we stand now: My opinion is that the reason these problems are mounting in the USA is due to when it exists in the money-government-power-system-life-cycle. There are surely lessons to learn here, but "unrestricted capitalism" is a misnomer and not relevant, and therefore a balance between it and other factors is by extension irrelevant. The core problem is corruption and a shift in government from prioritizing the wants of individuals to the wants of corporations. This is manifesting as both too many bad laws and not enough good laws, and a breakdown in how laws are written and maintained. There are several critical regressions, but a big one was citizens united. Overall, this particular instance of the system is at the end of its life, and requires substantial renewal. It's a messy and complex problem, and in many ways probably inevitable. It has nothing to do with unrestricted capitalism.

I admit that my original comment was insufficiently clear in representing my point and it would have been better if I had elaborated.

I am also disappointed by your continued Ad Hominem. It's exchanges like this that turn me off HN for a while.