@>_ It is insufficient to prevent suffering.

Alright, what is more efficient then?

The ideal social structure which I described earlier.

if you cannot achieve your system through voluntary action, and people cannot own their own labour, doesnt that mean you've forcibly organized people into a labour structure without their consent and without allowing them the ability to determine what they will work for?

What structure of responsibility to mortality is more efficient than individuals being responsible to themselves?

The one which I described earlier.

The one in which each individual is responsible for all other individuals mortality?

Yes.

Alright.

I consider that proposal highly inefficient, and immoral.

but on the moral point, I would argue that killing and chattel slavery were both wrong always, and that people simply had a differing view on them

I would have to agree with @v

Unless allowed to exist willingly while others can be responsible for themselves alone.

*Which is the system we have now.*

what happens when one individuals stops accepting responsibility for all other individuals mortality?

Consider the family discussed earlier. If all individuals in the family were responsible only for their own existence, then the child would freeze and starve, one parent would freeze, and one parent would starve.

Clearly, the former is more sufficient to prevent suffering.

The parents **willingly** accept responsibility for their child. This happens now under capitalism.

Capitalists don't just eat their children for protein for "efficiency."

its in the parents best interest to keep a child alive in the hopes of that child keeping them alive when they are no longer able to provide for themselves (i.e. get old)

They are allowed to accept responsibility for their children willingly.

<:NPC:500042527231967262>

it is in a child's best interest to keep a parent alive as a source of knowledge on to how to stay alive

And in the same way, in the ideal social structure, labour is provided to others out of implicit compassion.

It is simply a scaled-up version of a family structure.

This can only exist within a free market allowing people to stand up and do so willingly.

what happens when one individuals stops accepting responsibility for all other individuals mortality? What happens to the system?

That doesn't really make any sense, seeing as the ideal social structure exists in many places and is explicitly opposed to markets.

what happens when the child doesn't care for the elderly parents?

@Grenade123 Sorry, I'm only answering "v" right now.

Markets are comprised of people doing things other people need done. They are comprised of those "carpenters" and "farmers" and many people providing for their kids and dependents.

They provide these things willingly and out of need to sustain their own lives, and helping others sustain theirs.

Except a market operates on the principle of explicitly exchanging resources with others for personal gain.

>trying to divorce capitalism from voluntary acts of compassion

Whereas in the opposite, ideal social structure, all individuals provide labour to others out of compassion.

You aren't going to get that personal gain if you aren't providing others with something they want enough.

is caring for others in your system not, by default, for personal gain? did you not lay out the system as what is best for everyone, which includes yourself. Therefore the system is best for you?

People already act out of compassion willingly within capitalism.

Yes, they do, as I described earlier.

sorry guys, I'm also primarily focusing on xmrs for now.

Marxism simply argues that the small-scale structures of ideal society should exist across all society.

They already do, willingly.