I've always believed that everyone should be able to have, for free, a permanent private living space of at least 80sqft, a reasonably comfortable bed, access to a toilet and shower and associated toiletries, clothing suitable for the weather, water and food (even if only some flavorless nutritional paste), and access to medical care both as-needed and on a regular basis. if you have no ambition in life beyond sitting in that little room staring at the wall and eating soylent, then so be it, for a society to provide any less is immoral
post
“We should do away with the absolutely specious notion that everybody has to earn a living. It is a fact today that one in 10,000 of us can make a technological breakthrough capable of supporting all the rest. The youth of today are absolutely right in recognizing this nonsense of earning a living. We keep inventing jobs because of this false idea that everybody has to be employed at some kind of drudgery because, according to Malthusian Darwinian theory, he must justify his right to exist. So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors. The true business of people should be to go back to school and think about whatever it was they were thinking about before somebody came along and told them they had to earn a living.” — Buckminster Fuller
I mean ... in a way? When one looks at it from nature's point of view, no organism has some "given right to live", all organisms try to survive. But do we, as a society, really want to live like animals, each for themself, without empathy, without solidarity?
I'd argue that our social capabilities are our nature, rather than an exception to nature.
Massive disagree, we exist within nature not separate from it.
Human sociality doesn't supersede nature because it's an embedded system within nature.
So nearly got an upvote from me, but then you had to ruin it with a false dichotomy. Better ways
Oh, and also, I just caught before clicking reply, "given the right to live" is a moved goal post.
There are a great many things I would like to do, but don't do, simply because it is not economical. Even when I find employment doing something I enjoy, I am forced to do it at an increasingly fast pace, and I know that what I'm making is low quality garbage that will be discarded quickly. How can one be expected to take pride in their work under those circumstances?
Capitalism murders your soul, and blames you for being soulless.
And most of the work that actually contributes something to society has shit wages, while the jobs that don't contribute anything or are detrimental to society have insanely high wages.
I'm secretly hoping that AI takes out banking jobs and VC first, just so that that the moneylickers have to confront their new reality of who they are without it
People are generally good and will even freely donate their time for things that contribute to society. That creates an excess of labor available for those jobs.
I remember as a kid being told god hates us and we have to spend our lives earning his love. Like wtf? Im automatically hated by being born? This is the same energy as the posts if not the source of the belief.
Was it the cosmic being, or some aliens pretending (or being mistranslated) to be god?
Still... either way, it's still wrong.
A reminder to people that there is no such thing as a lazy person. Only a person who's work is not valued
Edit: erased "under capitalism" at the end. The problem of certain work or skills not being valued is not limited to just capitalism
My roommate hard at work drinking energy drinks and playing HoI4
There is another similar quote that I think fits your roommates situation.
"Somebody has said that dust is matter in the wrong place. The same definition applies to nine-tenths of those called lazy. They are people gone astray in a direction that does not answer to their temperament nor to their capacities. In reading the biography of great men, we are struck with the number of "idlers" among them. They were lazy so long as they had not found the right path; afterwards they became laborious to excess. Darwin, Stephenson, and many others belonged to this category of idlers." - Peter Kropotkin
Undiagnosed ADHD, their brain is meant to be hunting and gathering
Ask me how I know
Since they don't seem interested in the answer, I'll ask.
How do you know?
My ADHD brain is very interested. Is it because of the broken dopamine reward pathways causing us to gravitate towards tasks with more immediate gratification and things like pattern recognition being incredibly well suited to those kind of tasks? I bet it's got something to do with that. Ooh learning is exciting!
Do you think this is a gotcha or something? I'm an anarchist, not a marxist.
Wow... That sounds... fun...
It also sounds like what you'd expect an oligarch-run slave farm to sound like.
I'm shocked people turned against this. Shocked, I tell you.
My therapist tells me everyone is doing their best, even the housemate that leaves dirty dishes all over the house and never flushes the toilet. I grapple with this on the regular.
This is exactly it. We never know what each other is struggling with that limits their capacity to do things, we don't know what supports they need to succeed.
Some people are just lazy and shitty.
For example: Trump supporters are mentally lazy and shitty. We don't go around excusing them for their shitty beliefs just because "they tried hard."
We don't excuse anti-vaxxers because they "tried hard doing their own research."
I wish reality lived up to our egalitarian values but it just doesn't.
Isaac Asimov said that in the future one third of the population would be scientists working on new discoveries; one third would be engineers mananging all the technology; and one third would be entertainers.
Well, I think we are on track with the entertainers part, at least.
And then due to a rounding error, there were still some admin bureaucrats around, who took what they didn't understand, through the filter of entertainers, from the scientists and engineers, and said that what the engineers had built meant everybody didn't need to do their non-bullshit [Edit: (and bullshit)] jobs any more.
Oops. Why did I bother writing that. Should have got an "A.I." (LLM) to write it for me. Of course! Silly me.
i fucking volunteer to labor for humanity. Fucking pick me when we get the socialism please.
There are a few folks who don't deserve to be alive... Unfortunately they don't need to "earn a living" as they happened to be born silver spoon in hand...
Similar to "make money", it's an insidious Orwellian mislead.
"Make money" == "profit" == "wealth extraction".
Well, the reality is that it does take work to live, sort of by definition. That is unless you envision life as existing in some sort of techno-uterus, being pumped full of nutrients a la the Matrix. But seriously, a fulfilling life does take work. A social safety net shouldn't mean there is no expectation to work. There should be both.
Hardly worth engaging with someone who immediately starts with a strawman argument. I never said anything about worth or owned. But ironically I think most would consider the squirrel pretty hard working. I don't think many squirrels expect someone else to build their house.
Hard to argue one way or another with the one sentence statement in the original post. I mentioned that a social safety net is important but that there should be an expectation of work. Work doesn't necessarily mean toiling in a factory for some wealthy capitalist. Ideally it means work towards self-improvement, which can mean a variety of things, including toiling in a factory.
Alas, that's a misidentification of the strawman fallacy there, reading implication between the lines that was not there, as well as also mistaken about what was referred to on the lines.
Good effort looking out for fallacies though.
When people say "Eh, it's a living" are they referring to simply being alive? I think people sometimes look too much into some idioms.
In the natural world, you don't actually deserve to be alive and need to compete for it. In societies I would argue it's what the society can put up with. You don't deserve to be alive, you simply are or are not ... or the many thousands of states in between. By default, you are going to need to adapt regardless to keep alive. I can see "living" referring to that adaptation, but then again, I can understand polysemy.
I remember talking with a fellow Hungarian who happened to be a "moderate" conservative, and he told me there's nothing wrong with Fidesz making our country for cheap labor, because some of those cheap laborers can be promoted to be middle managers in the factories.


top 100 comments