I have no problem with investing, as long as the person doesn't also attempt market manipulation.
I have an ancap friend who talks about capitalism the way you do, "voluntary transactions of rational actors" etc. The way he describes it, it sounds great! But it's just so detached from reality. Humans aren't rational actors, in fact they're very easy to fool by false advertisement. Transactions aren't always voluntary as everyone is restrained by their circumstances (which I'd even argue becomes inefficient in the end, as talented individuals can't utilize their full potential because one idiot ancestor many generations back put the family into poverty). Capitalism doesn't exist in a bubble where the better entrepreneur prevails and then we restart the simulation. It keeps going, and the better entrepreneur may eventually make a monopoly and even take control of the government through bribes. Capitalism without any checks would become a disaster.

Hahaha, I meant that a fly would land on it lol

And sure, maybe I'm wrong about this being a *principle* per se. There are plenty of companies who manage to profit even when they pay their employees well and use ethical sources for their materials. But they aren't and never will be the most successful ones. The most successful ones are the ones using unethical labor, cutting corners and using misleading advertising. Just look at where and how most of our stuff is made. So it's pretty clear to me what the incentives are.

I didn't imply you did, but value can't be created out of nothing. If you're "gaming the system", ie. getting a lot of money for (relatively) little labor, there comes a point where *someone* down the production chain is getting screwed. With a few exceptions (one that comes to mind is programmers who can sell a lot of copies of a good software because the copies make themselves and there's only their own labor involved), it's always at someone's expense.

So is it morally okay to "game the system" if it means you're directly contributing to suffering of other people? Should a good system be "gameable"?

What I'm trying to get at is, neither system is inherently evil. But both have plenty space for exploitation. If people were perfect, we wouldn't need any system, everyone would treat each other fairly. But obviously people aren't perfect and many will try to screw each other over first chance they get. Ideally, the government and the law should prevent people from getting screwed over. But we all know how that's going lol. Especially when the government and the capitalists doing the screwing-over are in cahoots.

Is it really without coercion though? Work for very little or don't work at all and starve to death doesn't seem like much freedom of choice to me. This oversimplification of "capitalism is just people making free, mutually beneficial transactions and exchanging goods", while historically accurate, just doesn't take into account like 90% of stuff that's currently going on, like coercion, like bribes, like corrupt regulations, oligopolies, underselling to remove competition, I could go on and on. And I'm not even going to get into how monetary value can be created seemingly randomly from nothing, even from speculation and lies (*cough* Wall Street *cough*), how it is not tied to labor anymore. This oversimplification doesn't take into account human nature (which ironically is what is often said about communism – and fully rightly so, but the irony is still present).
How did that quote go? Under communism, man exploits man. Under capitalism it's vice versa. Something like that.

Right? Thank you! I was about to write the same when I saw the post. It's not lazy to filter out useless/irrelevant information.

Even old New York was once New Amsterdam
Why they changed it I can't say
People just liked it better that way

Been a long time gone, Constantinople
Now it's Turkish delight on a moonlit night

Good points indeed. I've looked it up again and apparently there were two trials held (in the span of like 5 days), so it's possible we're each talking about a different one. Some sources say she was present but not allowed to speak (or for that matter, nobody else was allowed to speak on her behalf), some say she wasn't, so idk.
I'm not familiar enough with Hungarian aristocracy at the time to comment on what possibilities they had and why they would potentially take the course of action they did. Spreading rumors that escalated into a trial (or rather using already existing rumors that stemmed from reality, ie. her being abusive towards her servants) seems like *a* way of doing it, though I don't know if it was the most practical one.
And yes, even if only a half of the current cultural perception of her is true, that's still terrifying.

You're right, it's speculation mainly based on the historical context and trustworthiness (or rather lack thereof) of the evidence and accounts. And in my opinion both possibilities are equally likely. Cutthroat aristocrats existed, and horrendous serial killers as well. We have examples of killers like Ted Bundy or Myra Hindley who did terrible stuff to their victims, it's not difficult to believe someone would do equally fucked up stuff 400 years ago. Especially in a time when people publicly cheered for and during public executions.
Anyway I just wanted to provide an alternative perspective, as I said I don't really lean either way. It's an interesting conversation to have but I think at this point there isn't much more evidence to uncover so we have to rely on the materials we have and make up our mind on whether or not they're trustworthy.

Some Hungarian historians believe that these accounts were actually people coerced (aka tortured until they said what was needed) by Bathory's rivals. The "physical evidence" was also apparently exaggerated, with unrelated deaths in the area being attributed to Bathory. They say that maybe she was abusive towards her servants, which wouldn't be unusual from a wealthy and powerful aristocrat, but likely not a serial killer. As for the trial part – a trial was held, without Bathory present and therefore unable to defend against these accusations. I mean, back then people were convicted for much lesser things with much less evidence, y'know, like witchcraft. I would be careful about believing politically motivated trials especially from 17th century Hungary, which was marked by tumultuous political and religious conflict and a really 'cutthroat' aristocracy.