If that first sentence doesn't strike you as odd go back and re-read Mind the Gap by Paul Graham.
Why do you seek a flaw in capitalism? Capitalism simply means the voluntary exchange of goods and services. The alternative is non-voluntary exchange i.e. you are forced.
If you don't know why privately controlled means of production are good you have a lot of reading to do. Might I point you to the Cato Institute or Ludwig Von Mises Institute (google for free literature). Or for a more popular example check out Friedman's bestsellers.
For the ugly and fast version: Would you put up with wal-mart taking $40 from your paycheck every month and telling you that you can come get a gallon of milk every week for "free"?
first you should be free to choose whether you want milk or not and whether to support it with your money.
second you have no way of knowing if you're overpaying because you have no idea what price milk would sell for if several companies were competing for your business.
thirdly you have no recourse if the quality of the milk goes down. you can try to sue wal mart..good luck with that. You might claim that people are still free to go buy other milk, but any other company selling milk is at a huge disadvantage. People have to pay that $40 a month regardless, so most figure they might as well get the milk out of it. competitors milk could cost half of what wal-mart charges, $20 a month. But from the perspective of the citizen that "private milk" costs $60 a month since they have to pay the $40 regardless.
In this scenario wal-mart has you as a captive customer. Before it made money by convincing you to buy milk from it with high quality and a low price. Freed of having to convince you to buy it wal-mart doesn't have to care much about customer service or product quality.
This is essentially the scenario of state owned goods and services. you're assuming that the central planner can come up with a better solution than lots of entrepreneurs taking a crack at it.
Going with the other issue: unemployment at least has some legs to stand on as it has been suggested that there just aren't enough low skilled jobs for all of the low skilled people to do since most low skill work has been either automated or increased in efficiency to the point where 1 person can do something 1000 used to do.
If history has taught anyone anything, it should be that civilizations are not static. I very seriously doubt that democracy and capitalism will be the predominant foundations of society 1,000 years in the future.
When will the "next big thing" come? I have no idea, nor does anyone else. But to say that there are no alternatives to capitalism, and to imply that there never will be, is shortsighted.
like I said before, the alternative to a free exchange of goods is a forced exchange of goods. I don't see how to improve on this. capitalism isn't a system in the same way socialism is. It's just what naturally happens when violence is made less profitable than free exchange.
Capitalism vs. socialism is not an example of free exchange vs. force, but of two different standards of when force is appropriate.
This would be a devastating argument. If I had a choice in the matter. In a free market system of courts and transportation I would pay a fee for use. This is fair. But to tithe a percentage of my productivity regardless of how much or little I make use of said system seems fraudulent.
I also don't understand the term 'contrary to reason'. How can a set of conventions be rational or irrational? They can be beneficial, harmful, fair, unfair, moral, immoral etc, but how can they be contrary to reason?
Also: taxation is as much a part of capitalism as it is a part of socialism, especially taxation for expenditure on police and law.
Capitalism really is a bad term anyway. Marx invented it so he could use it for his straw-man arguments. But really it should be called free markets, or freedom, or opportunity, or the American Dream or something.