Fair Vs. Equal

Say fairness can't exist unless there is open and equal access to the means of production.

The sad thing is houses and food are in excess.

Yes! Exactly. There isn't a single reason why in 2017 housing, food, education, health and transportation not to be seen as rights and being available for free.

Because {{{a group of people}}} need their vacations on tropical islands, business class travels, five star hotels, mansions, European castles, etc.
That's why we don't have nice things, always keep that in mind.

when you say you have a right to something you should think about what that means. If you say you have an innate unalienable right to housing or food, you're saying that somebody has to go build you a house and cook you dinner. Doesn't that guy have a right to his labor?

Thanks capitalism.

The only fair system is an equal one.

This is reminding me of that one video when Rand Paul equated the Hippocratic oath to slavery.

Also, the workers have a right to THEIR labor. not singular. This means they all provide their services to each other. That individualism really fucking sucks when you're a builder and one day you get the flu and the doctor refuses to treat you.

You can't totally sacrifice either, there has to be a balance.

Ideally, this person would have the same benefits as everyone else regardless of their ability to work. But for practical purposes that may not be feasible. The compromise is to ensure that all citizens have the basic necessities (like through UBI or something similar) while any luxuries they want past that have to be earned through labor. That is, assuming we don't live in some utopian post-scarcity world where we have unlimited everything. Under FALC there's no reason to deny people anything.

How does this even make sense? Are all people automatically including in this class of "workers?" What if I don't want to work, am I forced to? Who reaps the benefit of the work? All of these "workers" collectively? Are individuals not entitled to the fruits of their own labor? People are individuals, pretending they aren't to convince yourself it's okay to take other's labor and wealth is immoral.

Cooperation is important. I'm replacing proletariat with worker in this case. If you're able to work and there are opportunities to work, you work (and in a communist/syndicalist society there is never job scarcity since currency has been replaced and employers aren't hiring people based on how much they are worth and how much they can shaft them). You still get your own labor, but you also provide it to other in exchange for theirs. You reap the benefits. It's like how I still pay taxes for public schooling even though I don't have a kid in school. I still could reap those benefits if I had one. People are individuals on a personal level, but they don't solely create their own labor. They work with others and live in a society with others. The concept of wealth is immoral on its own. You can't have a truly successful society with people dying in the streets from hunger or cold because of arbitrary conditions they need to meet to be deemed worthy of living.

This thread was about fair vs equality but I made the mistake of including that picture

Of course nobody lives in a vacuum or produces everything they need on our own. Cooperation for mutual benefit is the only reason that we have a civilization at all. But it's important that that cooperation be voluntary. What you're suggesting is forcing people to work which I disagree with for hopefully obvious reasons.

This is how it already works, but capitalism exchanges value voluntarily through the market, it doesn't rely on coercion.

Working isn't voluntary in capitalism. If you don't work, you die from starvation and sometimes you don't even have the choice to work because of work scarcity. This creates a highly competitive environment that under the system itself isn't cooperative and is only made cooperative through state coercion done to bandaid it spiraling out of control. Capitalism violates the NAP.
If someone is healthy and able to work, then they should work. Until we land on some planet that provides everything we need without work like some Garden of Eden, it's only fair that you work cooperatively, if you are able to.

well no shit, that doesn't mean you don't have a choice where and whether or not to work
maybe, I think your argument is a bit of a stretch. I don't even base my philosophy on the NAP, anarcho-capitalists are almost as idealistic as commies.
There is no shortage of work to be done. There will always be things in the world that can be improved. It is an individual's responsibility to learn valuable skills that he or she can use to earn a living, and produce things for others at the same time. If people are unemployed on a large scale it is because of misallocated capital that could be the result of bad government policy or poor speculation by investors or a number of other things. Your focus would be better spent on changing laws in such a way that unemployment is mitigated rather than proclaiming capitalism is dead.

bullshit, people work together on their own without state coercion every day. Markets require it to function.

youtu.be/R5Gppi-O3a8?t=15s

And you're going to send them to the Gulag if they don't want to?

This tweet is by a socialist, right?

I never said I was going to assign people jobs or anything. If they want to be artists, sure. If they want to be a doctor sure. If they want to work at the gas station, sure. I just want able-bodied people to work. And choosing between death and working isn't any more of a choice. I'm not sending death squads after them here. It's like you're imagining my anarcho-syndicalist country as some sort of Orwellian nightmare when in reality, Orwell was a syndicalist.
I thought you were an AnCap, so I was kind of shooting the shit here. Being successful in capitalism requires you to hurt other people though.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. capitalism is inherently unstable and difficult to predict. There may be jobs, but under capitalism, jobs are hierarchal. There being work available doesn't mean you aren't overqualified or that it's enough for you to pay student loans off or your rent or whatever other bills you have with. Someone with a degree in engineering shouldn't be working as a machinist. And the issue with it is it is cyclical too. I won't get into my moral qualms with it, it is just genuinely unstable.
It's natural for them to work together, but the market encourages otherwise is what I meant. Ladder climbing and class divisions encourage individualism and mistrust in one another in capitalism. If people are genuinely working towards a goal together and they'll realize the reward after that goal as a whole, then they'll be more cooperative.

No, the guy is being 100 percent serious. He's a conservative.

I can just be anything I want then? Is there a list I get to pick from? Who decides what jobs are legitimate? If I can pick any job I want and get the same income why would I be a coal miner when I can just throw some shit together and call it art instead?

Probably the more important point here is that jobs change as technology and culture changes. Many of the jobs people have today wouldn't exist if not for some innovative people who tried something no one else had before. At the same time, you can't just blindly fund every project your hack uncle has. There is a limited amount of real capital in an economy, and where it is invested is vitally important to future growth. The entrepreneurial system and the investment banking system allow people to take risks for expectations of future success, and put capital in the hands of people that have a good chance of creating future prosperity. I'm not saying it's perfect but it is orders of magnitude better than a group of central intellectuals deciding what work needs to be done.

I'm aware that Orwell was a leftist. And honestly I think there isn't anything inherently wrong with Syndicalism. It's perfectly fine with me if people want to get together and start a hippy commune where everybody helps out and gets an equal share of the rewards. Just don't force me to be a part of it, and don't complain when people stop pulling their weight.

The reason things like that don't happen on a large scale is that most people don't want to live like that. You think this thing can run on patriotic fervor and brotherly love but that's not the way the world works. People are motivated by their own interests first and that's all there is to it. No amount of theory is going to change human nature.

Are you in favor of people working or not? Honestly, you are starting to sound contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. We pick anything we want now and you're pretty content with it. Humans aren't complete morons, they know what is beneficial at the time for the most part. A lot of neoliberals have low opinions of human intelligence for some reason.
I'll just say this, for the brief amount of time Catalonia was around with the CNT in charge. It did better. Worker ran places have proven again and again that they work better.
Hate to break it to you, but that doesn't work out for us since imperialism and capitalism literally won't allow things like that. I don't like living under your system, so the feeling is mutual.
It always devolves into a discussion about human nature. Capitalism hasn't existed since the beginning of human existence. It isn't natural. And if we were purely individualistic we wouldn't have survived as a species.

Right, we pick from jobs offered by private employers who think that we can add value to their product. What it sounds like you're suggesting is anybody can do whatever they want, call it a job and get paid. That or the burden of deciding what jobs are important falls on a group of central planners, which might be worse.

All right, that's cool. I have no idea if it's true or not but like I said, I have no problem with syndicalism. It might work well in smaller communities or even as a structure for businesses where workers own what they produce. All of that is fine with me, I just don't want to be a part of it.

Why? Sure if you're gonna set it up in the United States for example you'll still have to pay taxes 'n shit sure but I don't know why you think capitalism or empire building prevents you from profit sharing.

That's probably because human nature is at the heart of the whole issue. I don't know why you can't see that.

You're right, only since human existence has been prosperous.

Again, no shit. People cooperate when it benefits them and don't when it doesn't. The market provides incentives for people to cooperate, governments force people to cooperate. That's the difference.