Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Petrolheadia]

And we'll have it as long as the world exists. Code words: scarcity and relativity.

Artificial scarcity can be killed by killing Capitalism.

In what way is an actually finite amount of currently existing wealth "artificially scarce"?

As opposed to the godly workers who can pick their industry's workings up as they get a job?

Here's a thought: both are human fucking beings and are capable of all the same things, so the workers can indeed do what a CEO can without need for a CEO or any other kind of boss.

Capable of all the same things? Well, go and invent me a new scientific theory, write an award-winning book and design a bridge, and then be a foreman at its construction.

There is a reason jobs and trades exist.

[Torrocca]

Artificial scarcity can be killed by killing Capitalism.

In what way is an actually finite amount of currently existing wealth "artificially scarce"?

Here's a thought: both are human fucking beings and are capable of all the same things, so the workers can indeed do what a CEO can without need for a CEO or any other kind of boss.

Capable of all the same things? Well, go and invent me a new scientific theory, write an award-winning book and design a bridge, and then be a foreman at its construction.

There is a reason jobs and trades exist.

Ez solution to all of this: Anarcho-Communism. Read the Bread Book :^)

[Petrolheadia]

In what way is an actually finite amount of currently existing wealth "artificially scarce"?


Capable of all the same things? Well, go and invent me a new scientific theory, write an award-winning book and design a bridge, and then be a foreman at its construction.

There is a reason jobs and trades exist.

Ez solution to all of this: Anarcho-Communism. Read the Bread Book :^)

TL;DR?

[Torrocca]

Ez solution to all of this: Anarcho-Communism. Read the Bread Book :^)

TL;DR?

Mutualism and altruism are why we are where we are, hence a socioeconomic system built on that is better than Capitalism :^)

[Hammer Britannia]

In what way is an actually finite amount of currently existing wealth "artificially scarce"?


Capable of all the same things? Well, go and invent me a new scientific theory, write an award-winning book and design a bridge, and then be a foreman at its construction.

There is a reason jobs and trades exist.

Ez solution to all of this: Anarcho-Communism. Read the Bread Book :^)

Torc, reading the Quran didn't make me a Muslim, how would reading a different book based on logical fallacies convert me?

[Petrolheadia]

TL;DR?

Mutualism and altruism are why we are where we are, hence a socioeconomic system built on that is better than Capitalism :^)

How did they put us here?

[Torrocca]

Ez solution to all of this: Anarcho-Communism. Read the Bread Book :^)

Torc, reading the Quran didn't make me a Muslim, how would reading a different book based on logical fallacies convert me?

A scientific outlook that got the support of Stephen Jay Gould is obviously not a series of logical fallacies :^)))

[Petrolheadia]

Torc, reading the Quran didn't make me a Muslim, how would reading a different book based on logical fallacies convert me?

A scientific outlook that got the support of Stephen Jay Gould is obviously not a series of logical fallacies :^)))

Who the hell is Stephen Jay Gould?

[Hammer Britannia]

A scientific outlook that got the support of Stephen Jay Gould is obviously not a series of logical fallacies :^)))

Who the hell is Stephen Jay Gould?

He dug up dinosaurs and shit from what a brief overlook of Wikipedia told me.

[Torrocca]

A scientific outlook that got the support of Stephen Jay Gould is obviously not a series of logical fallacies :^)))

Who the hell is Stephen Jay Gould?

A very prominent scientist in the field of evolutionary biology. Rather fascinating man in general who agreed with Bread Santa in regards to his own scientific conclusions. :^)

[Petrolheadia]

Who the hell is Stephen Jay Gould?

He dug up dinosaurs and shit from what a brief overlook of Wikipedia told me.

Ah, so something on the level of these shitty language course ads claiming backing from Allen Collins.
(Lynyrd Skynyrd's lead guitarist).

[Hammer Britannia]

Who the hell is Stephen Jay Gould?

A very prominent scientist in the field of evolutionary biology. Rather fascinating man in general who agreed with Bread Santa in regards to his own scientific conclusions. :^)

... And?

Issac Newton "discovered" gravity, he was a Nicodemite. Ergo, Nicodemite is the right Christianity.

[Oil exporting People]

Who was just praising Socialists, yes. You hide behind the Anarchist label as a thin veneer and it's blatantly apparent.

Now, look, I know you need to project your insecurities about not living up to your Aryan Knight daddies from the Third Reich, but please, not everyone shares your same sentiments about genocidal authoritarians.

Torrocca, this is a textbook example of the Tu Quoque fallacy; I've told you before you really need to work on your debating skills.

[Firaxin]

No, I do not assume the poor are inferior, in fact I find them to be just like the rest of us. Like everyone else they want to make a change in the world for the better, yet like most they cannot, in this case shackled by an income determined by a soulless business wither the only motive of making more money. Thus, they are productive, while those at the top earn way more than they will ever need, thus they are being unproductive by limiting others. Besides, calling it enslavement is like calling the government a slaveholder of all citizens.

Economically illiterate nonsense. Your pay is a reflection of the value that you provide to the economy. CEOs, engineers, doctors and industrialists provide expertise, management and innovation. The man who simply works behind the cash register does only that. That man has the potential to rise to great heights, but until he gains the skills and experience of the CEO and other highly paid professionals, he simply does not command high pay.

How am I a Hypocrite? I have claimed no superiority nor have I claimed the poor are lazy. I loathe the logically inconsistent and have actively combated myself when not acting in accordance with my beliefs.

You lecture me based on your perception of my greed and sense of productive supremacy, yet support the consumption of other people's wealth by those who have not contributed to the production of that wealth. You imply that you are more humble than I, while being condescending, pretentious and ignorant. That is why you are a hypocrite. Furthermore, you care about the poor, yet obviously have done nothing to learn about economics and how best to provide the poor with skills and fighting chance in the economy. That is most illogical.

I had to take 3 classes based on economics within the first two years of high school, two of them were specifically about running a business because I was interested. I do not assume you're uneducated, do not assume I am.

The economy should serve us, we shouldn't serve it. I care not that the poor may not perform jobs so immediately important as doctors or retailers, I only care that they have good, fair lives, as all humans should. Besides, it's ludicrous to say that the clerk is not important, because if the clerk vanished the entirety of our world would collapse. Same with any job on earth, minus entertainment, though a loss of entertainers would be devastating it wouldn't cause societal collapse.

Next, you assume that a man wants to reach the positions required to live a good life, not everyone wants to be A CEO, and this doesn't mean they are lazy, they might simply wish to stay out of the public eye or perform a job they more thoroughly enjoy. While everyone has the potential to be a CEO most will never become one, because they'll be screwed over by lower standards of living. Plus this requires that A. Corporate likes you, B. That you have proven capable of handling the job, and C. You are assertive enough to ask in the first place. The fact that Corporate or your boss' boss have to notice you makes A take Luck alone, which should never determine one's stature. Many who reach positions of power did so by pure luck, no skill or ability, now that isn't to say some of the rich have not clawed their way up through sheer effort, but they are not all.

I have not assumed you greedy, I assume the business and bourgeoisie to be greedy, which they tend to prove me right. Next, I will ask how the workers have not produced this wealth those at the top seemed to have? Do you have any evidence that the majority of the poor do not work? You keep assuming that the Proletariat will just become the Bourgeoisie and vice versa, but I intend to change what defines each class, so that they are truly fair. The hard workers, the virtuous, at the top and the lazy and selfish at the bottom, with much smaller income disparity and significantly less currency limits to allow for greater reach and a true measure of ability.

I did not intend to appear as though I was superior, I did things I've come to regret, and I've said stupid shit in the past. I may be saying stupid shit right now, but until someone can show me how what I'm saying is stupid, I will stick with my logic. To any and all reading, this person, this human being, is no more valuable than I, because we could and may have commited the same acts of evil or good. Do not trust me simply because I've used a word you liked or said something you agree with, only begin to trust me based on my actions and my actions alone. I simply believe in a set of morals, and I want you, like anyone, to be a good person according to them.

Finally, how can the poor learn and gain skills when knowledge is locked off to them by businesses in the pursuit of profit? How could they get better at a job, when they loathe it's very existence? How could they get hired when someone with more money or experience will always be the better candidate? Getting a job is not skill based, it's luck, luck that you are the best applicant, luck that you have the requirements in the first place, luck that you even have the time to do this without endangering your livelihood.

[Petrolheadia]

Economically illiterate nonsense. Your pay is a reflection of the value that you provide to the economy. CEOs, engineers, doctors and industrialists provide expertise, management and innovation. The man who simply works behind the cash register does only that. That man has the potential to rise to great heights, but until he gains the skills and experience of the CEO and other highly paid professionals, he simply does not command high pay.


You lecture me based on your perception of my greed and sense of productive supremacy, yet support the consumption of other people's wealth by those who have not contributed to the production of that wealth. You imply that you are more humble than I, while being condescending, pretentious and ignorant. That is why you are a hypocrite. Furthermore, you care about the poor, yet obviously have done nothing to learn about economics and how best to provide the poor with skills and fighting chance in the economy. That is most illogical.

I had to take 3 classes based on economics within the first two years of high school, two of them were specifically about running a business because I was interested. I do not assume you're uneducated, do not assume I am.

We do not assume, we see.

The economy should serve us, we shouldn't serve it. I care not that the poor may not perform jobs so immediately important as doctors or retailers, I only care that they have good, fair lives, as all humans should.

In a world of scarcity, your output should be important for determining your input.

Besides, it's ludicrous to say that the clerk is not important, because if the clerk vanished the entirety of our world would collapse.

And if the doctor or businessman did, the same would happen. But both make more value.

Next, you assume that a man wants to reach the positions required to live a good life, not everyone wants to be A CEO, and this doesn't mean they are lazy, they might simply wish to stay out of the public eye or perform a job they more thoroughly enjoy.

No offence to that.

While everyone has the potential to be a CEO most will never become one, because they'll be screwed over by lower standards of living.

Exactly?

P..lus this requires that A. Corporate likes you, B. That you have proven capable of handling the job, and C. You are assertive enough to ask in the first place. The fact that Corporate or your boss' boss have to notice you makes A take Luck alone,

Or simply intern to desk worker to middle manager to manager to CEO.

Many who reach positions of power did so by pure luck, no skill or ability, now that isn't to say some of the rich have not clawed their way up through sheer effort, but they are not all.

They're a good number either way.

I have not assumed you greedy, I assume the business and bourgeoisie to be greedy, which they tend to prove me right. Next, I will ask how the workers have not produced this wealth those at the top seemed to have?

They didn't do it on their own accord.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of the poor do not work?

Depends on the poverty line.

You keep assuming that the Proletariat will just become the Bourgeoisie and vice versa, but I intend to change what defines each class, so that they are truly fair. The hard workers, the virtuous, at the top and the lazy and selfish at the bottom, with much smaller income disparity and significantly less currency limits to allow for greater reach and a true measure of ability.

A good thing about capitalism is that it is system where furthering your own gains also helps others, as you have to offer them a valuable product. It doesn't reward abstract virtue, it rewards actual results.

I did not intend to appear as though I was superior, I did things I've come to regret, and I've said stupid shit in the past. I may be saying stupid shit right now, but until someone can show me how what I'm saying is stupid, I will stick with my logic. To any and all reading, this person, this human being, is no more valuable than I, because we could and may have commited the same acts of evil or good. Do not trust me simply because I've used a word you liked or said something you agree with, only begin to trust me based on my actions and my actions alone. I simply believe in a set of morals, and I want you, like anyone, to be a good person according to them.

Humility boast.

Finally, how can the poor learn and gain skills when knowledge is locked off to them by businesses in the pursuit of profit?

Tell me how locking away a pool of potential employees would be unprofitable. Corporations even have scholarships and internships.

Also, vast amounts of knowledge can be obtained online - most of my vast car knowledge comes from there.

How could they get better at a job, when they loathe it's very existence?

I'm a longtime honor student who hates school.

How could they get hired when someone with more money or experience will always be the better candidate?

Then they should not.

Getting a job is not skill based, it's luck, luck that you are the best applicant, luck that you have the requirements in the first place, luck that you even have the time to do this without endangering your livelihood.

Technically, everything is based on luck. Hell, even our existence has less than a 1/400,000,000,000,000 chance.

It does not mean that not trying will give you the same results as trying.

[Industrial Skyrim]

I had to take 3 classes based on economics within the first two years of high school, two of them were specifically about running a business because I was interested. I do not assume you're uneducated, do not assume I am.

The economy should serve us, we shouldn't serve it. I care not that the poor may not perform jobs so immediately important as doctors or retailers, I only care that they have good, fair lives, as all humans should. Besides, it's ludicrous to say that the clerk is not important, because if the clerk vanished the entirety of our world would collapse. Same with any job on earth, minus entertainment, though a loss of entertainers would be devastating it wouldn't cause societal collapse.

Next, you assume that a man wants to reach the positions required to live a good life, not everyone wants to be A CEO, and this doesn't mean they are lazy, they might simply wish to stay out of the public eye or perform a job they more thoroughly enjoy. While everyone has the potential to be a CEO most will never become one, because they'll be screwed over by lower standards of living. Plus this requires that A. Corporate likes you, B. That you have proven capable of handling the job, and C. You are assertive enough to ask in the first place. The fact that Corporate or your boss' boss have to notice you makes A take Luck alone, which should never determine one's stature. Many who reach positions of power did so by pure luck, no skill or ability, now that isn't to say some of the rich have not clawed their way up through sheer effort, but they are not all.

I have not assumed you greedy, I assume the business and bourgeoisie to be greedy, which they tend to prove me right. Next, I will ask how the workers have not produced this wealth those at the top seemed to have? Do you have any evidence that the majority of the poor do not work? You keep assuming that the Proletariat will just become the Bourgeoisie and vice versa, but I intend to change what defines each class, so that they are truly fair. The hard workers, the virtuous, at the top and the lazy and selfish at the bottom, with much smaller income disparity and significantly less currency limits to allow for greater reach and a true measure of ability.

I did not intend to appear as though I was superior, I did things I've come to regret, and I've said stupid shit in the past. I may be saying stupid shit right now, but until someone can show me how what I'm saying is stupid, I will stick with my logic. To any and all reading, this person, this human being, is no more valuable than I, because we could and may have commited the same acts of evil or good. Do not trust me simply because I've used a word you liked or said something you agree with, only begin to trust me based on my actions and my actions alone. I simply believe in a set of morals, and I want you, like anyone, to be a good person according to them.

Finally, how can the poor learn and gain skills when knowledge is locked off to them by businesses in the pursuit of profit? How could they get better at a job, when they loathe it's very existence? How could they get hired when someone with more money or experience will always be the better candidate? Getting a job is not skill based, it's luck, luck that you are the best applicant, luck that you have the requirements in the first place, luck that you even have the time to do this without endangering your livelihood.

The economy does serve us. How else can you explain the high living standards of today versus the past? Did you know that around the globe, the greatest cause of death is heart disease, which is generally caused by a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle? What does imply? That means that very few people perform backbreaking labor in today's economy, and that people generally have access to a lot more food than they did in previous times. The achievements of a few people, who developed machines, electrical generation, mass production, computers and other wondrous technologies have raised standards for all people. That disproves your logic, where wealth is a zero sum game, and one person's wealth is made at the expense of many others. Obviously, those economic courses that you took were taught by inept instructors, or you just didn't learn anything.

Trailer parks are just pay to win squalor.

What if I told that your premise is incorrect, and that people are not equal? People are not equally disciplined, talented, motivated or ambitious. This is the true source of inequality. Some people spend their time working, developing skills, and gaining references and work connections. Other people smoke weed, drink, procrastinate and have children that they aren't prepare to care for. Differences among different people will result in vastly different outcomes. This effect is magnified exponentially in a free society, where it's possible to become a CEO, an actor, or a professional athlete, all of whom earn vastly more income than the average person.

[Torrocca]

A very prominent scientist in the field of evolutionary biology. Rather fascinating man in general who agreed with Bread Santa in regards to his own scientific conclusions. :^)

... And?

Issac Newton "discovered" gravity, he was a Nicodemite. Ergo, Nicodemite is the right Christianity.

Difference here is that this was one scientist concurring with another's findings. :^)

Now, look, I know you need to project your insecurities about not living up to your Aryan Knight daddies from the Third Reich, but please, not everyone shares your same sentiments about genocidal authoritarians.

Torrocca, this is a textbook example of the Tu Quoque fallacy; I've told you before you really need to work on your debating skills.

Fallacies beget fallacies :^)

[Firaxin]

I had to take 3 classes based on economics within the first two years of high school, two of them were specifically about running a business because I was interested. I do not assume you're uneducated, do not assume I am.

We do not assume, we see.

The economy should serve us, we shouldn't serve it. I care not that the poor may not perform jobs so immediately important as doctors or retailers, I only care that they have good, fair lives, as all humans should.

In a world of scarcity, your output should be important for determining your input.

Besides, it's ludicrous to say that the clerk is not important, because if the clerk vanished the entirety of our world would collapse.

And if the doctor or businessman did, the same would happen. But both make more value.

Next, you assume that a man wants to reach the positions required to live a good life, not everyone wants to be A CEO, and this doesn't mean they are lazy, they might simply wish to stay out of the public eye or perform a job they more thoroughly enjoy.

No offence to that.

While everyone has the potential to be a CEO most will never become one, because they'll be screwed over by lower standards of living.

Exactly?

P..lus this requires that A. Corporate likes you, B. That you have proven capable of handling the job, and C. You are assertive enough to ask in the first place. The fact that Corporate or your boss' boss have to notice you makes A take Luck alone,

Or simply intern to desk worker to middle manager to manager to CEO.

Many who reach positions of power did so by pure luck, no skill or ability, now that isn't to say some of the rich have not clawed their way up through sheer effort, but they are not all.

They're a good number either way.

I have not assumed you greedy, I assume the business and bourgeoisie to be greedy, which they tend to prove me right. Next, I will ask how the workers have not produced this wealth those at the top seemed to have?

They didn't do it on their own accord.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of the poor do not work?

Depends on the poverty line.

You keep assuming that the Proletariat will just become the Bourgeoisie and vice versa, but I intend to change what defines each class, so that they are truly fair. The hard workers, the virtuous, at the top and the lazy and selfish at the bottom, with much smaller income disparity and significantly less currency limits to allow for greater reach and a true measure of ability.

A good thing about capitalism is that it is system where furthering your own gains also helps others, as you have to offer them a valuable product. It doesn't reward abstract virtue, it rewards actual results.

I did not intend to appear as though I was superior, I did things I've come to regret, and I've said stupid shit in the past. I may be saying stupid shit right now, but until someone can show me how what I'm saying is stupid, I will stick with my logic. To any and all reading, this person, this human being, is no more valuable than I, because we could and may have commited the same acts of evil or good. Do not trust me simply because I've used a word you liked or said something you agree with, only begin to trust me based on my actions and my actions alone. I simply believe in a set of morals, and I want you, like anyone, to be a good person according to them.

Humility boast.

Finally, how can the poor learn and gain skills when knowledge is locked off to them by businesses in the pursuit of profit?

Tell me how locking away a pool of potential employees would be unprofitable. Corporations even have scholarships and internships.

Also, vast amounts of knowledge can be obtained online - most of my vast car knowledge comes from there.

How could they get better at a job, when they loathe it's very existence?

I'm a longtime honor student who hates school.

How could they get hired when someone with more money or experience will always be the better candidate?

Then they should not.

Getting a job is not skill based, it's luck, luck that you are the best applicant, luck that you have the requirements in the first place, luck that you even have the time to do this without endangering your livelihood.

Technically, everything is based on luck. Hell, even our existence has less than a 1/400,000,000,000,000 chance.

It does not mean that not trying will give you the same results as trying.

What have I done to piss you off? That's really the only reason why I assume people insult each other.

Please clarify, at the moment I interpret this as "You only get to affect society proportional to how much money you make the business" but I feel this interpretation is wrong due to the piece you quoted.

I disagree, ultimately they make equal value.

...and I think that's bad, because it is working in a way different than intended. Instead of people not making it to CEO because they didn't make the effort, people aren't making it to CEO because they simply aren't getting promoted, you only need a limited number of bosses, so when all the spots are filled its impossible to promote, and a pay raise would harm profits. At that point people are going to be stuck from getting to where they deserve even if, as defined by current productivity, they deserve to be higher. That is unless you demote or fire one of the people filling up the spots, but they still might also deserve to be there,so either way the conundrum is still there.

Yes, but just because they didn't do it of their own accord doesn't mean they haven't produced the wealth. I could hold a gun to one's head and make them make a toy horse. Would that mean because they didn't make it of their own accord, that I made the toy horse?

The actual results being "Who can best exploit their customer within the boundaries of the law?" Come on, you should know that Capitalism encourages lying, misinformation, and trickery, because they spend less money than they would being honest. Finally, furthering your own gains does not always help others see anyone with more than 2 of a thing per person ever.

That wasn't a boast, I told people I'm a fucking sinner who has ruined a lot of his life and that I shouldn't be trusted without good reason.

They can make money off educating you instead, plus since some can't afford it they'll be less knowledgeable and thus more likely to fall for PR and Advertising, which will make even more money. It also eliminates possible future competition.

Knowledge that's about be restricted by private businesses slowly now that Net Neutrality is gone. Businesses wont accept you without a Degree so even if you have the info you still need to take the class. At least, that's what literally everyone has told me, that I need that degree.

Cool, do you think there would be more Honor Students if people enjoyed school? I do.

Yes, but the point is that competition for employment is crowded and it is not guaranteed you will get jobs you need.

I mean, I think a lot of think were not luck, but that's my Christianity. Personally, I'd rather strengthen the ability of effort to affect the outcome instead of luck, which is my point, employment right now is basically gambling.

[Firaxin]

I had to take 3 classes based on economics within the first two years of high school, two of them were specifically about running a business because I was interested. I do not assume you're uneducated, do not assume I am.

The economy should serve us, we shouldn't serve it. I care not that the poor may not perform jobs so immediately important as doctors or retailers, I only care that they have good, fair lives, as all humans should. Besides, it's ludicrous to say that the clerk is not important, because if the clerk vanished the entirety of our world would collapse. Same with any job on earth, minus entertainment, though a loss of entertainers would be devastating it wouldn't cause societal collapse.

Next, you assume that a man wants to reach the positions required to live a good life, not everyone wants to be A CEO, and this doesn't mean they are lazy, they might simply wish to stay out of the public eye or perform a job they more thoroughly enjoy. While everyone has the potential to be a CEO most will never become one, because they'll be screwed over by lower standards of living. Plus this requires that A. Corporate likes you, B. That you have proven capable of handling the job, and C. You are assertive enough to ask in the first place. The fact that Corporate or your boss' boss have to notice you makes A take Luck alone, which should never determine one's stature. Many who reach positions of power did so by pure luck, no skill or ability, now that isn't to say some of the rich have not clawed their way up through sheer effort, but they are not all.

I have not assumed you greedy, I assume the business and bourgeoisie to be greedy, which they tend to prove me right. Next, I will ask how the workers have not produced this wealth those at the top seemed to have? Do you have any evidence that the majority of the poor do not work? You keep assuming that the Proletariat will just become the Bourgeoisie and vice versa, but I intend to change what defines each class, so that they are truly fair. The hard workers, the virtuous, at the top and the lazy and selfish at the bottom, with much smaller income disparity and significantly less currency limits to allow for greater reach and a true measure of ability.

I did not intend to appear as though I was superior, I did things I've come to regret, and I've said stupid shit in the past. I may be saying stupid shit right now, but until someone can show me how what I'm saying is stupid, I will stick with my logic. To any and all reading, this person, this human being, is no more valuable than I, because we could and may have commited the same acts of evil or good. Do not trust me simply because I've used a word you liked or said something you agree with, only begin to trust me based on my actions and my actions alone. I simply believe in a set of morals, and I want you, like anyone, to be a good person according to them.

Finally, how can the poor learn and gain skills when knowledge is locked off to them by businesses in the pursuit of profit? How could they get better at a job, when they loathe it's very existence? How could they get hired when someone with more money or experience will always be the better candidate? Getting a job is not skill based, it's luck, luck that you are the best applicant, luck that you have the requirements in the first place, luck that you even have the time to do this without endangering your livelihood.

The economy does serve us. How else can you explain the high living standards of today versus the past? Did you know that around the globe, the greatest cause of death is heart disease, which is generally caused by a poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle? What does imply? That means that very few people perform backbreaking labor in today's economy, and that people generally have access to a lot more food than they did in previous times. The achievements of a few people, who developed machines, electrical generation, mass production, computers and other wondrous technologies have raised standards for all people. That disproves your logic, where wealth is a zero sum game, and one person's wealth is made at the expense of many others. Obviously, those economic courses that you took were taught by inept instructors, or you just didn't learn anything.

Innovation, not Capitalism has got us to the living standards of today, innovation that could've been slightly slower but still there under socialism.

Heart disease is the result of Capitalism's brutal efficiency over enjoyment. People work at boring gray offices, in boring gray cubicles, in boring faded clothes, with next to no time to entertain themselves, while they are forced to sit at a screen for days on end. Innovation is of course trying to fix the problem, but we could just create a work environment where everyone enjoys their job.

Wealth is not a zero sum game and I never said it was, apologies if you misunderstood, but it should not be the main pursuit.

[Petrolheadia]

Today in "executives have it better":

GM's new austerity plan involves laying off 15% of all salaried employees, but 25% of executives will be laid off.

[Proctopeo]

If you aren't buying or selling anything it's not really a market.

Bartering and gifting are forms of market practices :^)

Bartering is simply a form of buying and selling that operates without an explicit currency. The use of things with perceived value, such as rare metals, gems, dyes, and spices, will supplant money, on a macro scale. The fact that this is rather inefficient makes money very likely to evolve out of bartering again.

The rich people are entitled to rewards for their service to society, just like everyone else.

Nobody is entitled to anything without creating the necessary wealth.

As we all really know, one person deserves to have hundreds of billions of dollars, something that nobody could ever spend in their single lifetime, while millions elsewhere deserve to suffer on the streets and in their homes because they didn't have the balls to derive wealth from the suffering of others.

Wrong, you can spend hundreds of billions of dollars in your lifetime. Just invest in a private navy.

As opposed to the godly workers who can pick their industry's workings up as they get a job?

Here's a thought: both are human fucking beings and are capable of all the same things, so the workers can indeed do what a CEO can without need for a CEO or any other kind of boss.

The position of CEO, is, first off, very varied between companies, and second, generally necessitates a specific enough set of skills that you'd end up reinventing the CEO anyway.

[Elwher]

So, I need to talk to the President of Ferarri in order to determine how much doctoring I need to do for him to get a Testa Rosa?

There wouldn't be a president of Ferarri in the first place.

El, you're one of the better ones here when it comes to actual arguments but for the sake of argument's sake please do keep in mind that this is a scenario happening within an Anarchist framework. :V

Then, as a skilled physician who likes to drive fast cars, with whom would I barter my doctoring skills for a fast car? Or are you saying that I could not get a fast car in an Anarchist framework?

[Elwher]

What makes a specific hierarchy unjust?

Whether it's a voluntary one or not, whether it tries to force or coerce unjust acts, etc.

If I choose to work for Google or if I choose to work for myself, that is a voluntary choice and no one is forcing me to to anything.

Neither is there anything unjust about one man paying another to do tasks, and directing what tasks he is paying for.

[Elwher]

How, outside of social pressures, does an Anarcho-Communistic society deal with the tendency of some individuals to fail to do what needs to be done (laziness, in other words)? If you are talking about reality, this issue must be dealt with. In Capitalism, if you do not work you cannot afford to eat, unless someone voluntarily supports you.

I'd imagine, in some ways, it'd be (or even is similar) to how things happen both in modern Anarchist communities/organizations, or somewhat similar too to how hunter-gatherer groups handled the issue. The shy-of-work wouldn't be dissuaded by their actions, per se, but they'd be encouraged by one way or another to involve themselves in the day-to-day activities of the community.

Which sounds suspiciously like social pressure to me.

[Torrocca]

There wouldn't be a president of Ferarri in the first place.

El, you're one of the better ones here when it comes to actual arguments but for the sake of argument's sake please do keep in mind that this is a scenario happening within an Anarchist framework. :V

Then, as a skilled physician who likes to drive fast cars, with whom would I barter my doctoring skills for a fast car? Or are you saying that I could not get a fast car in an Anarchist framework?

You could get one from whichever union or commune fancies itself a sports car industry, of course. Anarchism doesn't mean the end to luxury items, and in fact can mean the mainstreaming of such luxuries.