I almost completely agree, and think we mainly disagree on the nuances.
>The idea that there could be a grift set up to take advantage of people in the medical space, for instance, which is highly regulated and supposed to be for the benefit of people first and for generating capital second, is not intuitive to children.
The first thing I wanted to touch on is the idea of grift. Just because some has their interests ahead of yours doesn't mean they are a grifter. I think the childish view is the expectation that other people put your interests above their own, like the selflessness of a loving parent. A doctor doesnt put your individual wellbeing above their own, but that doesnt make them a grifter or a bad person. Expecting that kind of selflessness is entirely unrealistic, and is what causes cognitive dissonance when it clashes with reality. Thats not to say that grifters dont exist, who actively manipulate and deceive, but simply having unrealistic expectations for something does not make it a grift.
One example would when a doctor doesn't provide the depth of care and consideration the patient wants or would expect from a selfless caregiver. Most people come to the realization that they need to provide the drive and motivation for their own care, and doctors are just hired experts to help with things you cant do. You have to manage them and tell them what you want them to do. If you dont manage them like hired help, they will do very little indeed.
>Humans have always formed societies, and those societies have always provided services for their people. In fact, before capitalism, most of these services were provided in-kind as a right of being a part of the tribe. This idea that every person is born as an individual and nothing is granted to them belongs to a certain political ideology that is designed to make sure people feel entitled to nothing, and keep things in the private industry, and keep government small. But I digress.
I didnt mean to say that everyone is an island and forever alone. I mean that these things are not guaranteed entitlements, but conditional on human relations, standing, and mutual exchange. That is to say, they took work to maintain and were subject to constant scrutiny and mutual consent. Even in a tribe, goods and services were not provided unconditionally as some human birthright associated with tribal membership. Instead, they were conditional on good standing and mutual consent.
>This idea is also untrue. We've had a lot of time to perfect these things. If we can build skyscrapers and infrastructure to maintain them, we can provide these services. You are conflating political ideology and economic motivation with literal ability. The ability is absolutely there, and was in the past as well. There is something different going on that causes these systems to be "held together with duct-tape" and it's actually other humans actively trying to destroy these systems, not that they are impossible.
Im not arguing that beneficial institutions and functional societies are beyond human ability. Im saying their existence should not be taken for granted.