2 ms·
> because we're clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't eat unless they perform labour I don't understand this way of phrasing the argument. Do people rea
by baddox 11y ago
> because we're clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't eat unless they perform labour
I don't understand this way of phrasing the argument. Do people really "cling" to this idea? It sounds equivalent to saying "we're still clinging to the idea that a person shouldn't be in good physical shape unless they exercise and eat well." I don't think many people cling to these ideas in an ethical sense, as if it would be immoral to be healthy without exercising or wealthy without working [0]. The ideas are just reflections of the actual state of the world, even though it might suck. I'd certainly rather be healthy without exercising and wealthy without working, but I don't expect or demand a forceful restructuring of society to satisfy my wishes.
[0] Actually, now that I think of it, many people even in this thread do condemn people who become wealthy without working. It's perhaps somewhat ironic.
- stegosaurus 11y agoThe distinction is that trading labour for money/capital is a creation of society. It's not a natural rule. There are gatekeepers. I can't simply decide to go out and kill some wild animals or whatever and eat, and I can't decide to chop trees down and build a house. Getting a job is not a simple matter of just deciding to do it. By contrast, eating well is, aside from in cases of poverty, completely a matter of free choice.
- baddox 11y agoI don't see that contrast at all. You just said you can't decide to go out and kill wild animals to eat, then followed up by saying that what you eat is completely a matter of free choice.
- stegosaurus 11y agoI'm going to leave this now as I suspect we're not likely to make further progress. Working a job for an employer in order to live is not immutable, people do cling to it - if you think we can't change that, we have nothing further to discuss.