you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 21 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I don't get why it's so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn't need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I'm religious, no, I'm not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That's work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.

    Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    You don’t sound religious at all, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that, but im completely against churches feeding and housing people because they impose rules upon the recipients. I don’t believe in charity, so that’s part of it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment