Libertarian Discussion Thread II - Don't Thread on Me

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

communist thieves get out. there's no liberty in forcing people to give their money away. "left libertarianism" is just another (((ideology)))

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

[Hrythingia]

communist thieves get out. there's no liberty in forcing people to give their money away. "left libertarianism" is just another (((ideology)))

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

People in those countries do not live a ‘happy healthy life’. They have some of the highest suicide rates in the world, their freedoms are limited strongly by the state, everything costs an arm and a leg and they seem to be teetering on cultural suicide.

[Hammer Britannia]

communist thieves get out. there's no liberty in forcing people to give their money away. "left libertarianism" is just another (((ideology)))

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

Yeah, you mean Sweden?

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

People in those countries do not live a ‘happy healthy life’. They have some of the highest suicide rates in the world, their freedoms are limited strongly by the state, everything costs an arm and a leg and they seem to be teetering on cultural suicide.

1. The Nordic countries rank very highly compared to other countries on subjective wellbeing levels
2. Economic or social freedoms? Democracy Ranking (which considers quality of society and civil liberties) consistently ranks all the Nordic countries within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth.
3. "Teetering on cultural suicide" - Is this just far-right anti-immigrant BS? UK culture has been significantly enriched by immigration from former British colonies. I can say this because I am British myself.

[Constitutional Technocracy of Minecraft]

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

Yeah, you mean Sweden?

The Nordic countries - Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland

[Hammer Britannia]

Yeah, you mean Sweden?

The Nordic countries - Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7obUQeFvyC8

[Northern Davincia]

communist thieves get out. there's no liberty in forcing people to give their money away. "left libertarianism" is just another (((ideology)))

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics. However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

Denmark and Sweden rank higher on the economic freedom index than the US. Go figure.

[Great Minarchistan]

The Nordic countries are known for their welfare states and "socialist" politics.

Debatable and wrong, respectively. Those countries have been consistently reducing their State size or keeping it stable. Sweden, the most dramatic example, reduced their government size from skyhigh ~75% of the GDP to sub-50% levels. Can't think of anything else but welfare cuts that led to such significant decrease. On your second point, socialism is NOT welfare. Socialism is an entire economic system with specific ways of property ownership.

However, the Nordic countries are consistently ranked within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth. Meanwhile, more economically free nations such as the United States, Singapore and China (which is in practice a capitalist totalitarian state) tend to rank significantly worse in terms of levels of democracy.

Source for your economic freedom index?

Secondly, unrestricted economic freedoms can harm people's social freedoms. What's the point of being free to live a happy, healthy life if you cannot afford healthcare, for example?

Was US healthcare always expensive or did it start to become expensive after you know, the government enacted corporate welfare (also known as Medicare and Medicaid)?

[Hrythingia]

People in those countries do not live a ‘happy healthy life’. They have some of the highest suicide rates in the world, their freedoms are limited strongly by the state, everything costs an arm and a leg and they seem to be teetering on cultural suicide.

1. The Nordic countries rank very highly compared to other countries on subjective wellbeing levels
2. Economic or social freedoms? Democracy Ranking (which considers quality of society and civil liberties) consistently ranks all the Nordic countries within the top 10 most democratic nations on Earth.
3. "Teetering on cultural suicide" - Is this just far-right anti-immigrant BS? UK culture has been significantly enriched by immigration from former British colonies. I can say this because I am British myself.

1. You did not address what I said about suicide so point still stands. Aye, there’s an idyllic landscape and that concept of ‘hygge’ but it’s bloody expensive. You haven’t addressed that either.
2. You keep citing ‘most democratic’ -but that means nothing. That doesn’t address that Nordic states consistently kidnap children from their families at the slightest sigh of ‘abuse’. It does not address that Norway for example has much of its law decided by an organisation it does not belong to.
3. It’s not ‘far right bs’. First of all the situation in Britain is wholly different -many of the Commonwealth arrivals already shared our values as they were Christianised, lived under English common law and enjoyed similar cultural activities like cricket. But even then it hasn’t been entirely rosy has it? It’s even worse on the Nordic countries where they have no connection at all to these other countries with whom they share no values at all. Cultural ‘enrichment’ only benefits those of us fortunate to afford all the restaurants and artisan shops and live in cosmopolitan areas. For most ordinary people it means new gangs only this time gangs with no community responsibility, it means loss of jobs to cheaper labour, it means overcrowded services and it leads to all sorts of local religious and moral tensions. Like daughters getting involved with Muslim families then finding themselves tried in sharia courts or local schools changing from ‘morning prayers’ to accommodate all faiths.

[Elwher]

I am pro-corporation in so far as they are voluntary associations of persons for the purpose of doing business in a more efficient way, yes, but I do not favor any special governmental benefits to them, they should be treated just like anyone else.

Would you get rid of the corporate shield?

Define what you are referring to as the corporate shield and I will be happy to answer.

[Torrocca]

No, I'm just stating what the right-wing form of """libertarianism""" is, when compared to left-wing libertarianism. :^)

I must respectfully disagree. Right Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a strong belief in private property and the right of people to associate, both on a business and personal level, with whom they choose and under the conditions they choose. I acknowledge the necessity for a government system to protect those rights by both police and courts, but do not acknowledge the right of the government to seize my property or to set the terms under which I can do business with my fellow persons.

If I choose to buy or sell my property or services to another, I can do so at whatever price we both agree on. Equally valid, however, if I choose not to buy or sell my goods or services to a particular individual, that too is my right. I am pro-corporation in so far as they are voluntary associations of persons for the purpose of doing business in a more efficient way, yes, but I do not favor any special governmental benefits to them, they should be treated just like anyone else.

I believe that socialistic entities can exist and flourish under true right Libertarian rules, as long as the participants in such an enterprise do so voluntarily. People can agree to give over their property to a council and hold all property in common if they wish, but confiscation of privately held property, be it the shirt I am wearing or the industrial complex I own, is illegitimate.

And I'd like to point out that a hierarchical system wherein one group is easily replaceable and one group isn't is inherently not voluntary when the easily replaceable group has to struggle to not be replaced in order to survive. There's already an astounding lack of balance in power when it comes to employer and employee, especially since employees today are already widely seen as expendable and replaceable; CEOs and business owners don't need or want one specific employee when they have thousands lined up to take that employee's place, but that one specific employee might need that job to survive, and can't be expected to reasonably argue for favorable conditions in such a job without risk of just losing it over someone who doesn't care about those favorable conditions or is too afraid to speak up for them in favor of also being replaced.

Contrast this to a leftist, non-hierarchical system wherein everyone is valued equally on a socioeconomic level, and their labor is the terms of value and not some set monetary system. People aren't going to be left fearing whether they'll be without a home, without food, etc. in a leftist system because, firstly, their home and everything within that's non-living is their personal property and is belonging to them and them alone. Everyone is guaranteed their own home, and everyone is guaranteed the fruits of society's labor. There would be no need for material want or a struggle to accumulate basic needs like shelter, food, or clothing, because a more egalitarian, community-oriented society would be providing of such things.

[Elwher]

I must respectfully disagree. Right Libertarianism is, in my opinion, a strong belief in private property and the right of people to associate, both on a business and personal level, with whom they choose and under the conditions they choose. I acknowledge the necessity for a government system to protect those rights by both police and courts, but do not acknowledge the right of the government to seize my property or to set the terms under which I can do business with my fellow persons.

If I choose to buy or sell my property or services to another, I can do so at whatever price we both agree on. Equally valid, however, if I choose not to buy or sell my goods or services to a particular individual, that too is my right. I am pro-corporation in so far as they are voluntary associations of persons for the purpose of doing business in a more efficient way, yes, but I do not favor any special governmental benefits to them, they should be treated just like anyone else.

I believe that socialistic entities can exist and flourish under true right Libertarian rules, as long as the participants in such an enterprise do so voluntarily. People can agree to give over their property to a council and hold all property in common if they wish, but confiscation of privately held property, be it the shirt I am wearing or the industrial complex I own, is illegitimate.

And I'd like to point out that a hierarchical system wherein one group is easily replaceable and one group isn't is inherently not voluntary when the easily replaceable group has to struggle to not be replaced in order to survive. There's already an astounding lack of balance in power when it comes to employer and employee, especially since employees today are already widely seen as expendable and replaceable; CEOs and business owners don't need or want one specific employee when they have thousands lined up to take that employee's place, but that one specific employee might need that job to survive, and can't be expected to reasonably argue for favorable conditions in such a job without risk of just losing it over someone who doesn't care about those favorable conditions or is too afraid to speak up for them in favor of also being replaced.

Contrast this to a leftist, non-hierarchical system wherein everyone is valued equally on a socioeconomic level, and their labor is the terms of value and not some set monetary system. People aren't going to be left fearing whether they'll be without a home, without food, etc. in a leftist system because, firstly, their home and everything within that's non-living is their personal property and is belonging to them and them alone. Everyone is guaranteed their own home, and everyone is guaranteed the fruits of society's labor. There would be no need for material want or a struggle to accumulate basic needs like shelter, food, or clothing, because a more egalitarian, community-oriented society would be providing of such things.

Taking your points in no particular order, except as I think of responses.

First, even with the growth of big companies, about 50% of the workers in this country work for companies with under 100 employees. These owners certainly are concerned with the individual worker, because one resignation is at least 1% of their workforce.

As to the replacibility issue, that is at least partly the fault of the individual worker. If someone choses to work in a field where one is a fungible asset, one will be treated as such. One assembly line worker will perform just about as well as another one. One doctor, nurse, programmer, graphic artist, etc, on the other hand, may well be more or less skilled than another and can demand compensation based on that skill level.

Further to that, people with rarer skills are always more valuable than people with more common ones. There are less people who can perform the CEO function than there are those who can perform the function of a janitor, so simple supply and demand makes them more valuable and therefore more costly.

Finally, as to your leftist, non-hierarchical system. Unless you are starting from scratch, which is not possible until we have space colonies, it will be based on seizing the property of someone who worked hard to build it up from nothing, either himself or his ancestors. Workers owning the means of production is all well and good if they purchase them, but that does not seem to be how it works out in the real world. Andrew Carnegie came to this country poor, worked hard and built up an empire of steel plants, and has every right to enjoy the profits of his labor and to will these fruits to his heirs. Bill Gates, the same. By what right is their hard work the property of anyone else but them?

While I can see some justification for the result you are trying to accomplish, doing so by outright theft invalidates any morality of said result.

[Hammer Britannia]

Andrew Carnegie came to this country poor, worked hard and built up an empire of steel plants, and has every right to enjoy the profits of his labor and to will these fruits to his heirs. Bill Gates, the same. By what right is their hard work the property of anyone else but them?

It's because capitalist exploit the working class by providing them with decent standards of living in exchange for working instead of just getting it for free because an anarchist society can totally support the needs and wants of every human being in a city/country/etc.

[Torrocca]

And I'd like to point out that a hierarchical system wherein one group is easily replaceable and one group isn't is inherently not voluntary when the easily replaceable group has to struggle to not be replaced in order to survive. There's already an astounding lack of balance in power when it comes to employer and employee, especially since employees today are already widely seen as expendable and replaceable; CEOs and business owners don't need or want one specific employee when they have thousands lined up to take that employee's place, but that one specific employee might need that job to survive, and can't be expected to reasonably argue for favorable conditions in such a job without risk of just losing it over someone who doesn't care about those favorable conditions or is too afraid to speak up for them in favor of also being replaced.

Contrast this to a leftist, non-hierarchical system wherein everyone is valued equally on a socioeconomic level, and their labor is the terms of value and not some set monetary system. People aren't going to be left fearing whether they'll be without a home, without food, etc. in a leftist system because, firstly, their home and everything within that's non-living is their personal property and is belonging to them and them alone. Everyone is guaranteed their own home, and everyone is guaranteed the fruits of society's labor. There would be no need for material want or a struggle to accumulate basic needs like shelter, food, or clothing, because a more egalitarian, community-oriented society would be providing of such things.

Taking your points in no particular order, except as I think of responses.

First, even with the growth of big companies, about 50% of the workers in this country work for companies with under 100 employees. These owners certainly are concerned with the individual worker, because one resignation is at least 1% of their workforce.

Even in those companies, a vast amount of owners actually don't care, because those kinds of workers tend to come a dime-a-dozen (in their eyes) and end up expendable anyways. See: restaurants and convenience stores.

As to the replacibility issue, that is at least partly the fault of the individual worker. If someone choses to work in a field where one is a fungible asset, one will be treated as such. One assembly line worker will perform just about as well as another one. One doctor, nurse, programmer, graphic artist, etc, on the other hand, may well be more or less skilled than another and can demand compensation based on that skill level.

You miss the point that there isn't a choice in many cases as to where the work is. Blaming the worker for being forced into an unfavorable line of work where they're an expendable "asset" (referring to people as assets is pretty disgusting ngl) is quite unreasonable. A worker shouldn't have to be regarded as expendable, especially in comparison to the bosses, just because of the field of work they're in.

As is, the worker/owner dynamic is largely one of fear/feared, wherein the worker is treated like shit more often than not, either in terms of expendability in the eyes of the owners, in terms of literal exploitative or downright abusive treatment, or in terms of the general authoritarianism of the owning class by virtue of existing.

Further to that, people with rarer skills are always more valuable than people with more common ones. There are less people who can perform the CEO function than there are those who can perform the function of a janitor, so simple supply and demand makes them more valuable and therefore more costly.

CEOs are only valued more because of the market, nothing else. Were the market eradicated tomorrow in favor of an Anarcho-Syndicalist or Anarcho-Communist system, the type of work done by CEOs would be utterly meaningless. Society can function without CEOs, not without essential laborers like janitors. As is, these two groups are improperly valued.

Finally, as to your leftist, non-hierarchical system. Unless you are starting from scratch, which is not possible until we have space colonies, it will be based on seizing the property of someone who worked hard to build it up from nothing, either himself or his ancestors. Workers owning the means of production is all well and good if they purchase them, but that does not seem to be how it works out in the real world. Andrew Carnegie came to this country poor, worked hard and built up an empire of steel plants, and has every right to enjoy the profits of his labor and to will these fruits to his heirs. Bill Gates, the same. By what right is their hard work the property of anyone else but them?

By that same extension, by what right is it for these owners to dictate and lord over workers and tell them they're less valuable than themselves? They got to the top through luck, either luck in the form of doing something profitable at the right time, or luck in the form of being born to the right set of parents. Winning the lottery doesn't make you better than others, it means you're lucky. That the worker is treated as lesser is an affront to humanity entirely, just because they didn't have the luck or fortune of one of the owning class of society.

While I can see some justification for the result you are trying to accomplish, doing so by outright theft invalidates any morality of said result.

It's not about morality, it's about doing what's right. There's no right to a system where one gets more on virtue of being a class above most others, wherein that same system those others are treated as expendable assets rather than people themselves. The entire idea behind private property and an owning class is malarkey through and through.

[Torrocca]

Andrew Carnegie came to this country poor, worked hard and built up an empire of steel plants, and has every right to enjoy the profits of his labor and to will these fruits to his heirs. Bill Gates, the same. By what right is their hard work the property of anyone else but them?

It's because capitalist exploit the working class by providing them with decent standards of living in exchange for working

You should read up on Gilded Age America before stating bullshit like that, because that is such a hilariously blatant lie.

instead of just getting it for free because an anarchist society can totally support the needs and wants of every human being in a city/country/etc.

No one said it'd be free, but apparently that doesn't matter when your entire goal is to strawman entire ideological systems to a point of unrecognizability.

[Hammer Britannia]

It's because capitalist exploit the working class by providing them with decent standards of living in exchange for working

You should read up on Gilded Age America before stating bullshit like that, because that is such a hilariously blatant lie.

instead of just getting it for free because an anarchist society can totally support the needs and wants of every human being in a city/country/etc.

No one said it'd be free, but apparently that doesn't matter when your entire goal is to strawman entire ideological systems to a point of unrecognizability.

Hmmm

[Torrocca]

You should read up on Gilded Age America before stating bullshit like that, because that is such a hilariously blatant lie.



No one said it'd be free, but apparently that doesn't matter when your entire goal is to strawman entire ideological systems to a point of unrecognizability.

Hmmm

I guess unregulated Capitalism, when it turns out to be bad, isn't true Capitalism, is it? Rockefeller's and Carnegie's bullshit doesn't matter because it was Crony Capitalism, wasn't it? :^)

[Hammer Britannia]

Hmmm

I guess unregulated Capitalism, when it turns out to be bad, isn't true Capitalism, is it? Rockefeller's and Carnegie's bullshit doesn't matter because it was Crony Capitalism, wasn't it? :^)

If the Gilded age is "True Capitalism" then the USSR is true communism

Why? Because I said so to make my opponent look bad :^))))))

[Torrocca]

I guess unregulated Capitalism, when it turns out to be bad, isn't true Capitalism, is it? Rockefeller's and Carnegie's bullshit doesn't matter because it was Crony Capitalism, wasn't it? :^)

If the Gilded age is "True Capitalism" then the USSR is true communism

The Gilded Age was most certainly unregulated Capitalism, and since Libertarianism is all about that unregulated Capitalism, it was definitely Libertarianism. :^)

The USSR hardly followed anything Marx said :^)

[Hammer Britannia]

If the Gilded age is "True Capitalism" then the USSR is true communism

The Gilded Age was most certainly unregulated Capitalism, and since Libertarianism is all about that unregulated Capitalism, it was definitely Libertarianism. :^)

The USSR hardly followed anything Marx said :^)

But they still followed some of what marx said so it's communism

Like how the Gilded Age only followed some of Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay writings. The whole point is no government in business, guess what big government bureaucrats being bribed and basically owned by corporations is still government in business

[Torrocca]

The Gilded Age was most certainly unregulated Capitalism, and since Libertarianism is all about that unregulated Capitalism, it was definitely Libertarianism. :^)

The USSR hardly followed anything Marx said :^)

But they still followed some of what marx said so it's communism

Ah, yes, I too remember when Marx wrote that peasants that happen to be slightly richer than other peasants need to be systematically massacred and that people that go against the one-party state need to be forced into slave labor in bumfuck nowhere. :^)

Like how the Gilded Age only followed some of Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay writings. The whole point is no government in business,

No or some. Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay isn't the be all, end all the Capitalist theory.

guess what big government bureaucrats being bribed and basically owned by corporations is still government in business

The US gov't of the Gilded Age was hardly a big government until Teddy Roosevelt came along. And no, that was business in government, not government in business. :^)

[Hammer Britannia]

But they still followed some of what marx said so it's communism

Ah, yes, I too remember when Marx wrote that peasants that happen to be slightly richer than other peasants need to be systematically massacred and that people that go against the one-party state need to be forced into slave labor in bumfuck nowhere. :^)

Like how the Gilded Age only followed some of Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay writings. The whole point is no government in business,

No or some. Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay isn't the be all, end all the Capitalist theory.

guess what big government bureaucrats being bribed and basically owned by corporations is still government in business

The US gov't of the Gilded Age was hardly a big government until Teddy Roosevelt came along. And no, that was business in government, not government in business. :^)

1. I also remember the part of Capitalist Theory where, oh I don't know, you could buy out governments

2. No comment on this "Isn't the be all"

3. Yeah, Business in Government so the government can regulate business. Corporatism, not Capitalism

[Torrocca]

Ah, yes, I too remember when Marx wrote that peasants that happen to be slightly richer than other peasants need to be systematically massacred and that people that go against the one-party state need to be forced into slave labor in bumfuck nowhere. :^)



No or some. Jacques Claude Marie Vincent de Gournay isn't the be all, end all the Capitalist theory.



The US gov't of the Gilded Age was hardly a big government until Teddy Roosevelt came along. And no, that was business in government, not government in business. :^)

1. I also remember the part of Capitalist Theory where, oh I don't know, you could buy out governments

Was that done as part of the Capitalist, quasi-Libertarian system going on, or just in spite of it?

Also, do take note that certain Libertarian models advocate for a pro-market government, so therefore it'd make sense that these businessmen naturally aimed to make the government pro-market according to the most profitable model, AKA their businesses. :^)

3. Yeah, Business in Government so the government can regulate business. Corporatism, not Capitalism

Eyy, there's that, "No True Scotsman!" I was looking for.

[Elwher]

As to the replacibility issue, that is at least partly the fault of the individual worker. If someone choses to work in a field where one is a fungible asset, one will be treated as such. One assembly line worker will perform just about as well as another one. One doctor, nurse, programmer, graphic artist, etc, on the other hand, may well be more or less skilled than another and can demand compensation based on that skill level.

You miss the point that there isn't a choice in many cases as to where the work is. Blaming the worker for being forced into an unfavorable line of work where they're an expendable "asset" (referring to people as assets is pretty disgusting ngl) is quite unreasonable. A worker shouldn't have to be regarded as expendable, especially in comparison to the bosses, just because of the field of work they're in.

The choice is not at the time of taking the job but at a previous point, when one either decides to educate oneself in a field where there can be value to ones efforts or not.

Further to that, people with rarer skills are always more valuable than people with more common ones. There are less people who can perform the CEO function than there are those who can perform the function of a janitor, so simple supply and demand makes them more valuable and therefore more costly.

CEOs are only valued more because of the market, nothing else. Were the market eradicated tomorrow in favor of an Anarcho-Syndicalist or Anarcho-Communist system, the type of work done by CEOs would be utterly meaningless. Society can function without CEOs, not without essential laborers like janitors. As is, these two groups are improperly valued.

It matters not if you call the position CEO, People's Commissar, or whatever label may be popular/politically correct, someone will need to determine basic policies and procedures for a company. What to build, where to get raw materials, how to produce whatever, these are all basic and fundamental questions when running a company. Someone needs to do this, and the skill set for doing so is less common, though no less necessary than the skill set for keeping the floors clean. Most CEO's could mop a floor properly, most janitors could not run a company properly.

Finally, as to your leftist, non-hierarchical system. Unless you are starting from scratch, which is not possible until we have space colonies, it will be based on seizing the property of someone who worked hard to build it up from nothing, either himself or his ancestors. Workers owning the means of production is all well and good if they purchase them, but that does not seem to be how it works out in the real world. Andrew Carnegie came to this country poor, worked hard and built up an empire of steel plants, and has every right to enjoy the profits of his labor and to will these fruits to his heirs. Bill Gates, the same. By what right is their hard work the property of anyone else but them?

By that same extension, by what right is it for these owners to dictate and lord over workers and tell them they're less valuable than themselves? They got to the top through luck, either luck in the form of doing something profitable at the right time, or luck in the form of being born to the right set of parents. Winning the lottery doesn't make you better than others, it means you're lucky. That the worker is treated as lesser is an affront to humanity entirely, just because they didn't have the luck or fortune of one of the owning class of society.

Doing something profitable at the right time is not luck. It is being able to read trends and foresee what the market will need in the future, a skill few of us (myself included) have. Bill gates, Henry Ford, or Andrew Carnegie were not lucky people, they were visionaries who worked to build vision into reality in order to provide a better life for themselves and their families.[/quote]

While I can see some justification for the result you are trying to accomplish, doing so by outright theft invalidates any morality of said result.

It's not about morality, it's about doing what's right. There's no right to a system where one gets more on virtue of being a class above most others, wherein that same system those others are treated as expendable assets rather than people themselves. The entire idea behind private property and an owning class is malarkey through and through.

What is morality but doing what's right? Further, in your original post you said that

their home and everything within that's non-living is their personal property and is belonging to them and them alone

, yet now

The entire idea behind private property and an owning class is malarkey through and through.

. Which is it? How is it that it seems the shirt I worked for is mine and safe, byt the factory I worked for is not?

[Hammer Britannia]

The USSR hardly followed anything Marx said :^)

Eyy, there's that, "No True Scotsman!" I was looking for.