The problem with "freedom" as the strategy is that it calls into question where one exactly has the autonomy to really make a difference. In the US, the cycle of poverty is clear to many, and thus certain types of equality seem needed. The homelessness problems of most major US cities is a big thing even still often ignored.
> "Socialist" ideas have been tried and even when it "works" it's not clear that it did. Where freedom (read capitalism) is crystal clear (like it or not).
I think capitalism is often just as muddy as socialism and communism when it comes to judging results. I have noticed that generally, my friends from South America are much more capitalist than I am, which I suspect is a bit of us all seeing the flaws in what we see closest. I'm am somewhat capitalist, but I would best like something highly regulated with actually functioning basic levels of humanity such as basic housing, health care, and perhaps in the far future some form of UBI. I think the key to any successful UBI is to avoid the explicit taxation for redistribution, something that removes that motivator of capitalism, which would need to be kept in place.
What capitalism does indeed get right is the motivating part. However, capitalism cannot mediate between many other injustices and usually exacerbates problems. It also relies on proper (or at least close) alignment between what is profitable and what is good for society.
More or less, I would side with the following statement:
Capitalism is the worst economic system, except for all the other ones.
People always view Marx as the antithesis to capitalism, but I'd consider this (via Wikipedia for saving time):
"Despite Marx's stress on critique of capitalism and discussion of the new communist society that should replace it, his explicit critique of capitalism is guarded, as he saw it as an improved society compared to the past ones."
> But to be concrete, every wealthy country I know of used freedom to get where it is.
I think it's easy to say that looking at the current configuration, but history tells a much different story. I would argue wealth of most developed nations can be traced back to exploitation of others, and the governance model may have less effect than you think. If anything, I would argue that a country founded and funded on the exploitation of others being capitalist is only logical. It's a question of causation, not correlation. I would say that it's very well possible that the method of wealth acquisition lends itself to countries who prefer capitalism.
PS: Thanks for your perspective, I appreciate when good comments threads develop here in good spirit. Despite my often direct critiques of posts, it's not meant in a mean-spirited manner, just an academic argument type one.