5 ms·

> You can also translate this into "please do your share in society and don't rely on other people feeding you just because it's inconvenient to get up and do y

> You can also translate this into "please do your share in society and don't rely on other people feeding you just because it's inconvenient to get up and do your part". We could all share and show solidarity and meet everyones needs, and not work 40+ hours/week hours a week. We are producing many times more than enough. But the structures are so, that most people work so, so much, while not seeing comparable compensation. This is because a few people take most of all the wealth and keep it for them self. Because of this, we need to work so much, but it's only because of this deep, fundamental flaw in our structures. If the wealth was more evenly distributed, we could probably get by with working maybe 15 hours/week, and still have all our needs met, including having more time to relax, enjoy life, be with family and friends, and sit down and do nothing, which would provide a better environment for these inventions and ideas that propels humans forward, as hnarn was talking about, that in history, and very much still, are kept for the nobility because only they have the time to "sit down and do nothing".

luckylion 6y ago
Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes. The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing. So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't.
- fredsir 6y ago
  > Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. How so? > Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes. > The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing. I think that's just you drawing conclusions out of thin air. I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. Why should they? Would you? I wouldn't. Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary. If there then ends up being people that don't contribute what they should, people in the immediate community would then, on a case-by-case basic, try to solve the problem by talking with the person, and so on. If nothing works, take away the benefits until the person are willing to partake in the community again. Make them understand that you have to contribute to be receive the benefits. > So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't. You do know that most people in the whole wide world do actually work, don't you? They already contribute plenty. Why do you think they would contribute less if 1) it meant more of their needs were met, and 2) they had more choice about how to contribute because society wasn't driven by profits that fill of a few peoples pockets, but by meeting everyones needs. I think most people would contribute, just like most people today actually are contributing. And I actually think even more would be contributing and do it willingly, and we could reach new heights for humanity if contributions wasn't based on forced labour but instead of people feeling as a part of a cooperative community where their needs are valued and their voices are heard.

luckylion 6y ago

Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes. The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing. So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't.

fredsir 6y ago
> Yes, we could all share and meet everyone's needs. It's just that that would essentially mean that a subset of "us" should "share" while the rest does not contribute. How so? > Mind you, I'm not talking about people who are unable to contribute because of illnesses, age or handicaps. I'm talking about people who absolutely could contribute, but choose not to because their needs are met even if they don't and contributing does, for them, not hold a positive result: have to expend energy, have to do something that isn't immediately pleasurable, am not getting huge loads of money and power in return. They politely thank you for the offer but choose to live comfortably off of taxes. > The direct consequence of that behavior is that others have to work more hours per week to pick up the slack. Even if you removed the top 5% and nationalized all companies, you wouldn't change this simple fact. And it will remain exactly the same as long as they are paid to do nothing. UBI is the plan to codify paying them to do nothing. I think that's just you drawing conclusions out of thin air. I don't believe most people would be doing nothing. Why should they? Would you? I wouldn't. Also we could just have contracts saying that if you want receive the benefits of being part of society, you must also contribute at least, say 15 hours a week of work, or whatever we figure out is necessary. If there then ends up being people that don't contribute what they should, people in the immediate community would then, on a case-by-case basic, try to solve the problem by talking with the person, and so on. If nothing works, take away the benefits until the person are willing to partake in the community again. Make them understand that you have to contribute to be receive the benefits. > So sure, if you had everyone contributing, everything would be rosy and lots of things would be possible. Let's start with getting everyone to contribute, and not with changing the system as if they would and then hope that they maybe will. Because they won't. You do know that most people in the whole wide world do actually work, don't you? They already contribute plenty. Why do you think they would contribute less if 1) it meant more of their needs were met, and 2) they had more choice about how to contribute because society wasn't driven by profits that fill of a few peoples pockets, but by meeting everyones needs. I think most people would contribute, just like most people today actually are contributing. And I actually think even more would be contributing and do it willingly, and we could reach new heights for humanity if contributions wasn't based on forced labour but instead of people feeling as a part of a cooperative community where their needs are valued and their voices are heard.