Because “equity” (communism) requires violence. Taking away from those who create more and giving to those who create less. Something that is non-consensual and requires violence is by definition unfair (unless you’ve a wicked moral compass).

I dunno, in the real world, the kind of libertarian society you seem to be advocating for has descended into its own unique form of violence:

https://newrepublic.com/article/159662/libertarian-walks-int...

Communism (at least in an ideal Marxist form) has no relation to equity, it’s more of a liberal concept than anything else.

People use the term Communism (both upper-case and lower-case) in various ways, but Marx’s original ideal form of society was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

Yes, and this will require violence to achieve (how else can you enforce the “from each” and “to each”?)

Communism has been tried. Again and again. The utopian endpoint it tires to get to is not possible. The consistent result is mass death and poverty.

OTOH systems not going as far as communism, but still with far more equitable outcomes than e.g. US system, have been tried as well and have been quite successful.

The "this will require violence" argument makes no sense. If you live in the US, everything you have is the end result of some horrific violence. Inferring a need for violence to achieve some ideal is a completely useless analysis.

> In this sense communism has never been tried anywhere yet

From my knowledge of European history, this is not true.

Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production.

The difficulty is, is that absolute power corrupts absolutely, to steal a phrase.

The worker's union movement working inside a capitalist system has brought more benefits for workers, than communism, which proved to kill millions wherever it is attempted.

> From my knowledge of European history, this is not true.

You will need to elaborate on that.

> Marx also said that there should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, who should seize the means of production.

Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.

> You will need to elaborate on that.

My particular familiarity is with the German Democratic Republic. There were many true believers in communism, who in their attempt to construct a communist utopia created and contributed towards a police state.

Jordan Peterson said it shows arrogance to suggest that people just weren't doing communism right, and that if only they got the theory right, then they would usher in the utopia.

I would tend to agree.

> Which should be temporary, right? Do you have an example where it was actually temporary? That would answer my point above.

Your point was to assert that communism has never been tried.

Mine was that it has been tried, and is always unsuccessful. So the failure of temporary dictatorships is proving my point, not yours.

I think we're talking past each other. You say "communism doesn't work because we can't reach it", and I say "it's not entirely clear if communism doesn't work because we haven't managed to reach it".

Don't you think that you risk missing interesting ideas if you reduce communism to temporary dictatorships?

> communism doesn't work because we can't reach it

No, I'm saying it has inherent problems that means it doesn't work.

> Don't you think that you risk missing interesting ideas if you reduce communism to temporary dictatorships?

No, I've already mentioned that workers unionising under a capitalist system has brought more benefits to workers than communism.

"meritocracy" also requires violence. Unless what you really mean is "might makes right", in which case the violence is kinda baked in.

How so?

Well... how do you enforce meritocracy? A pride of lions is meritocratic, in the "might makes right" sense. What definition of "merit" are you ordering your population by?

You don't need to enforce meritocracy. That's the beauty of it, it's based only on mutual consensus and transparency of information (a.k.a. free market).

Would you rather go to a doctor who's good at surgeries or one that's bad at surgeries? One that got into medical school because of affirmative action, or one that was discriminated against and still got in (e.g. Asian doctors in the US)? Would you rather go to a car mechanic that's amazing at juggling but bad at fixing cars, or one that's bad at juggling and good at fixing cars? See, the "definition of merit" just takes care of itself (driven by the self-interest of customers).

> You don't need to enforce meritocracy

So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you?

Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.

> So it's ok if I come to your house and take your stuff because I'm bigger than you?

No, stealing is immoral.

> Because that's what meritocracy does - it gives more resources to people who fit an arbitary definition of merit.

The system itself doesn’t give anyone anything, the market is free to determine that. A doctor who helps more patients (your arbitrary definition) will face higher demand than one who doesn’t help many patients, since people are free to place the value they see fit on their personal health.

> No, stealing is immoral.

a) So is stockpiling resources that other people need. b) Who's going to stop me?

> the market is free to determine that

So we don't drag this out any further, I'm going to explain the place I'm trying to get to, as best I can: markets aren't physical laws of the universe, they're human constructs that are defined, regulated and policed by governments (I'm using a very wide definition of government here, think "governance").

If you think the market is the fairest way to allocate resources, you have to accept that people who "cheat" the market (inside traders, muggers, etc) are subject to state-sanctioned violence. That's the violence that a "free" market, and your vision of meritocracy, requires.

>So is stockpiling resources that other people need.

Owning property is not immoral. Stealing and coveting your neighbor's property are sin and very immoral.

>Who's going to stop me?

Any authority we've democratically elected to uphold that task. Probably the police, in many cases. Or me with a weapon of course, seeing as you're bigger than me in this hypothetical. In reality, you are not bigger than me.

>That's the violence that a "free" market, and your vision of meritocracy, requires.

Yes, societies require laws that are ultimately enforced through the use of physical violence and restriction of freedom if it comes to that. Mostly to stop people from doing immoral things at the cost of other people.

Insider trading is a tough nut to crack, since it could be seen as just another tool to reach a more efficient market. Envy comes very naturally to humans, and if someone makes more profits than you in the marketplace, it's very easy to call it unfair and get mad about it. Then you're looking at the definition of "fairness" - in my opinion it's fair that anyone can pursue the kind of information that will help them make better sales in the market. Deceiving or lying to other people are different topics entirely, but the term "insider trading" doesn't entail those things.

>markets aren't physical laws of the universe, they're human constructs that are defined, regulated and policed by governments

I don't really understand your point here. Yes, our society runs on top of some underlying systems that we've agreed upon. Freely trading your labor and property go all the way back to the beginning of our evolution, and for good enough reason - it's the best system we've ever come up with and used.

Did the American revolutionary war require violence? Who chose to be violent?

Violence is not bad. Violence to oppress is bad. Violence to seek justice is good.

That's why the 2nd amendment exists.

> Something that is non-consensual and requires violence

War is ultimately dispute resolution between two parties, at least one of which, has decided "might makes right."

Ukrainian violence is justified and good, while Russian violence is abominable and evil.

So it's important to think past words like violence or war or 'take' and instead frame conversation around justice.

If a billionaire bribes a supreme court justice to rule that they can pollute drinking water with a chemical that causes cancer, is that violence? A billionaire should not have enough money to corrupt the fabric of society. Extreme wealth inequality is injustice, especially if they use their power to say "we'll crash the economy if you don't bail us out."

Taxing the rich and funding social programs while otherwise retaining property rights isn't communism.