Yes, they did.

Ahh yes, who could forget when we fenced the mountains to purge the land of the hunter and gatherer societies....

People enclosed the commons, which included forests (as an example).

The commons were still worked..... It wasn't just an open field of free food. People raised livestock and farmed the commons, the land itself was just collective. Whether or not land should be collectively owned is not what we're talking about.

opens up the distinction between overcoming adversities and extending oneself (your definitionof "work" and wage labour (what they called "work").

Again.... That doesn't really correlate to the original claim.

What do you mean? "Free as in beer" is a common phrase to refer to "gratis", as opposed to "free as in speech".

Common in a specific field of open source software......

Beer can be free as in: I can drink it without paying. I'm using Linux or wikipedia without paying either (although I donate).

The tech field is not an accurate simulation of actual reality....who would have thought? I swear, programming gives people a brain disease that makes them incapable of thinking outside of digital space.

You claimed "free food" makes people not value food, but now you claim that's not the case when I invite guests.

No, I said there is no such thing as inherently free food. My example that guest wouldn't waste your food even if they weren't paying for it supports the argument I've been making the whole time.

Which is what's meant when I say "free food".

And that is why everyone is disagreeing with you. Claiming that food was free before people put a fence around it is nonsensical with your definition, and incorrect when evaluated by other means.

usually wouldn't care. Even if there were 24/7 "tourists", most people have the urge to participate in society somehow.

Then it wouldn't conflict with my statement.

To each according to their need, from each according to their ability"

What about being a "traveler" affects their ability to participate?

So? Have I somehow claimed I'm against socialism?

You questioned why a brought it up.......

You're effectively argueing that society can't be productive without gatekeeping food, then? Care to prove that statement?

Lol, you do understand that food has to be produced by workers? And those workers have other basic needs that need to be met by other workers in other areas of production?

Society can't be productive without workers.... Workers who reap the benefits of their own production. Should farmers be the only workers to just be forced to endlessly work once their own needs are met?

You're effectively arguing that farmers should be slaves to the land while others are free to contribute as they please.

I'm not constantly checking the instance I'm on and the instance the other person is on

Then you can't question the relevancy of a certain argument if you're too lazy to be aware of the context of your surroundings.

We could live in post-scarcity with the current development of productive forces, though.

Possibly? If we rearranged the global economy and enforced strict centralization and productivity..... But even then, the standards of living would be incredibly low compared to what most westerners are accustomed too, and you would have much less leisure time.

You were implying it by gatekeeping food.

By that definition you are compelling people to work the fields......