7 ms·

Why should everyone have to work? We are 100% capable of creating a society where everyone's basic needs are met with the automation and technology we have toda

Why should everyone have to work? We are 100% capable of creating a society where everyone's basic needs are met with the automation and technology we have today. The idea that a person is only worth something if they work needs to be deeply reexamined.

kebman 6y ago
Because if you cannot offer anything of value, someone else will offer that value on your behalf, making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove. And then you are but a slave to whomever you are useful to, meaning whoever controls you, and whoever has the power, and who grants you the means to get those basic needs. If someone is giving you bread for free, you can be sure it's because they don't want you to rebell. But then that is also your only value to them, which is a very dangerous proposal, because it means you're expendable, and that the guy giving you that bread might not want to continue such a fruitless endavour. That is why an economy must rely on the basis of voluntarily offering something of value. Because the alternative is literal enslavement.
- deegles 6y ago
  > If someone is giving you bread for free, you can be sure it's because they don't want you to rebell. There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? > That is why an economy must rely on the basis of voluntarily offering something of value. Because the alternative is literal enslavement. You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved?
  - kebman 6y ago
    > There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? Free individuals might give something out of benevolence. But a state institution is not a free individual. It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state. Instead, you can employ game theory on such entities, to the extent of making them look completely self-serving and even psychopatic, as proven by Nash. This is why it is so important to curtail the development of big and monolithic bureaucratic organisations, and instead use such principles as those given by Montesquieu, to make natural powers compete for authority. > You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved? Do you think the person giving you bread should be forced to give you that bread? Nay, it would be far better if there was some kind of mutual exchange. There is none to be had, when the exchange is merely giving out a resource for "free." Except we know that it's not for free, but in return for your good behaviour. Then the exchange isn't free, but depending on an exchange anyway, except you have little to no say in it. Then the one in power of that resource in turn also have absolute power over you. So there should be a way for you to gain that power for yourself, or in the least make sure the one giving you bread does not have monopoly in doing so, because it will inevitably devolve into abuse of power.
    - strbean 6y ago
      > It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state. A state is only benevolent if every single citizen is benevolent? That seems like a pointless assertion. In a democracy, in theory, the majority is what matters.
      - kebman 6y ago
        Ah, yes. The majority that forced Socrates to drink poison.
        someguyorother 6y ago
        If democracy is majority dictatorship, then why do constitutions provide rights also to the minority?
        kebman 6y ago
        Thankfully, it's because a lof of politicians have read Socrates, and taken his lesson to heart; that majority rule is indeed dictatorial, and so we should strive to also let the minorities be heard. That doesn't mean it is always fair, though. Sometimes it also leads to minorities gaining dictatorial rights when they shouldn't.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - someguyorother 6y ago
      This seems to be a kind of mixing of two concepts. First, that "a state that is big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take it all away". And second, that being provided resources "for free" is a forced exchange because you don't have a say. If the state was a dictatorship, then the point might apply. However, democratic states (to lesser or greater degrees) contain some measure of feedback; and that weakens both of the prongs. Plainly speaking, a democratic state provides its people bread for free because that's what the people want. The state can't take it all away since it is responsible to the people, and the exchange isn't a one-sided forced deal because the people in the state's jurisdiction have collective power on the state itself. If that power is the power of the ballot, then the mutual exchange could be seen through an adversarial lens to be "good behavior in return for free bread". But the consequence doesn't hold, as the state doesn't have absolute power over its people. The exchange is mutual because if either party reneges, so does the other party. But the stronger that feedback is, the less the adversarial model works. Consider a community small enough to support a direct democracy along consensus lines. If the tech existed, such a community could create an automated bakery and then hand all of that bread to its members. Here the members govern themselves; there is no external power that arises out of the state and then unilaterally controls the people. A larger state may be different, but that difference is a matter of degree. "The one in power of that resource" only has "absolute power over you" if you are not part of it.
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    > There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? It's not what you can think of that matters, it's what the people who control the state apparatus can think of. The vast majority of human beings are capable of empathy. Such people are usually found towards the bottom to middle of most hierarchies, because their empathy makes it painful to fuck over all the other claimants and collateral damage that they need to crawl over to get to the top. You could look at capitalism is a sociopath-containment vehicle. If there were no sociopaths, there would be no need for capitalism: people would produce what was needed and freely share it with the people who need it most. However, there are sociopaths, and throughout history they've usually just taken all the excess production, enjoyed it, and left the people who produced it destitute. It was a big innovation to be able to channel that selfishness and will to dominate other people into productive uses that make the rest of society more efficient.
- jtolmar 6y ago
  > making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove Wanting to remove people for being "extraneous costs" is not right-minded. It is extreme sociopathy.
  - kebman 6y ago
    You are completely correct, Sir. This is why we must avoid organizing our states in ways that create such dependencies at all cost, and instead strive to create states that create voluntary sharing of resources and values that are mutually beneficial. That is the only way progress can be made, and freedom can be insured. On the other hand, if you were a baker, and someone told you that you must give your bread away for free to a third party, how would you feel about that? The only thing you would get in return, is not being punished by the one forcing you to work, and not killed by the masses for whom you provide your free bread. I don't know about you, but personally I'd hate to live under such a fascist regime.
  - tathougies 6y ago
    Unless you consider the majority of human societies to have every existed extreme sociopathy. While I don't particularly support it, many societies throughout history exposed children with disabilities and many many more would execute or exile elements they deemed 'criminal'. Today, we still remove people for potentially being extraneous costs in abortion. It's legal, but it is the same motivation. I mean, I personally think it's all sociopathic, but it's the normal state of 'the state'.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
While I agree with the overall sentiment, the idea that we are capable of creating a society where all basic needs are met entirely through automation is a pretty damned bold assertion.
- deegles 6y ago
  Fair. There's a lot we could do.
fsckboy 6y ago
no reexamination necessary, I'm drawn to emulate and recommend the humans that work hard toward long term goals. I like when Darwinism shows tangible progress against entropy rather than producing viruses that leech off of life.
- cvlasdkv 6y ago
  What long term goal is slaving away at McDonalds or Wal-Mart accomplishing? All the people advancing society are being paid pittances compared to the true leeches (landlords and shareholders). People should not be required to work to survive. People should be required to work to make the world a better place. Most people work bullshit jobs that do not advance anything but the wealth of the 1%.
  - burrows 6y ago
    > People should not be required to work to survive. What does "be required" mean?
  - missedthecue 6y ago
    I should not be forced to subsidize someone with the fruits of my labor just because they're so lazy they would rather not be a productive member of society. That is toxic and wholly regressive.
tomp 6y ago
We will never automate "basic needs" unless we automate medicine. We'll never automate medicine because everyone wants to live even longer.
matchbok 6y ago
No, we aren't. Not even close.
- chente 6y ago
  Because of attitudes like this. There is enough money out there to solve many problems but it is hoarded by a certain amount of people and then a bunch of people go around saying, "better things aren't possible."
  - matchbok 6y ago
    That's also not true, at all. If you think most jobs can be automated you clearly have no idea what an average job is.
missedthecue 6y ago
Because the only way to increase the standard of living is to increase productivity. You cannot inflate your way to prosperity. It is a mathematical impossiblity.
downerending 6y ago
I don't know about the should part, but I think everyone needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning, to know that they're contributing to their family and their society as a whole. Imagine how unpleasant it would ultimately be to be told that your needs would be well met, but you would no longer be allowed to carry out productive work.
- treyfitty 6y ago
  I’ve been on paternity leave for 4 months out of 6 just playing with my kids. It’s awesome. I would love to not work and just play with my kids.
  - downerending 6y ago
    Every time you could spend five more minutes playing with your kids, you should, in my opinion. That's pretty much the meaning of life.

kebman 6y ago

Because if you cannot offer anything of value, someone else will offer that value on your behalf, making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove. And then you are but a slave to whomever you are useful to, meaning whoever controls you, and whoever has the power, and who grants you the means to get those basic needs. If someone is giving you bread for free, you can be sure it's because they don't want you to rebell. But then that is also your only value to them, which is a very dangerous proposal, because it means you're expendable, and that the guy giving you that bread might not want to continue such a fruitless endavour. That is why an economy must rely on the basis of voluntarily offering something of value. Because the alternative is literal enslavement.

deegles 6y ago
> If someone is giving you bread for free, you can be sure it's because they don't want you to rebell. There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? > That is why an economy must rely on the basis of voluntarily offering something of value. Because the alternative is literal enslavement. You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved?
- kebman 6y ago
  > There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? Free individuals might give something out of benevolence. But a state institution is not a free individual. It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state. Instead, you can employ game theory on such entities, to the extent of making them look completely self-serving and even psychopatic, as proven by Nash. This is why it is so important to curtail the development of big and monolithic bureaucratic organisations, and instead use such principles as those given by Montesquieu, to make natural powers compete for authority. > You don't see the irony in saying that a person must volunteer their value or be enslaved? Do you think the person giving you bread should be forced to give you that bread? Nay, it would be far better if there was some kind of mutual exchange. There is none to be had, when the exchange is merely giving out a resource for "free." Except we know that it's not for free, but in return for your good behaviour. Then the exchange isn't free, but depending on an exchange anyway, except you have little to no say in it. Then the one in power of that resource in turn also have absolute power over you. So there should be a way for you to gain that power for yourself, or in the least make sure the one giving you bread does not have monopoly in doing so, because it will inevitably devolve into abuse of power.
  - strbean 6y ago
    > It can only represent the collective, and you cannot ensure that all individuals in such a collective would agree to such an exchange, or feel benevolent about it. As such, there is no such thing as a benevolent state. A state is only benevolent if every single citizen is benevolent? That seems like a pointless assertion. In a democracy, in theory, the majority is what matters.
    - kebman 6y ago
      Ah, yes. The majority that forced Socrates to drink poison.
      - someguyorother 6y ago
        If democracy is majority dictatorship, then why do constitutions provide rights also to the minority?
        kebman 6y ago
        Thankfully, it's because a lof of politicians have read Socrates, and taken his lesson to heart; that majority rule is indeed dictatorial, and so we should strive to also let the minorities be heard. That doesn't mean it is always fair, though. Sometimes it also leads to minorities gaining dictatorial rights when they shouldn't.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - someguyorother 6y ago
    This seems to be a kind of mixing of two concepts. First, that "a state that is big enough to give you anything, is big enough to take it all away". And second, that being provided resources "for free" is a forced exchange because you don't have a say. If the state was a dictatorship, then the point might apply. However, democratic states (to lesser or greater degrees) contain some measure of feedback; and that weakens both of the prongs. Plainly speaking, a democratic state provides its people bread for free because that's what the people want. The state can't take it all away since it is responsible to the people, and the exchange isn't a one-sided forced deal because the people in the state's jurisdiction have collective power on the state itself. If that power is the power of the ballot, then the mutual exchange could be seen through an adversarial lens to be "good behavior in return for free bread". But the consequence doesn't hold, as the state doesn't have absolute power over its people. The exchange is mutual because if either party reneges, so does the other party. But the stronger that feedback is, the less the adversarial model works. Consider a community small enough to support a direct democracy along consensus lines. If the tech existed, such a community could create an automated bakery and then hand all of that bread to its members. Here the members govern themselves; there is no external power that arises out of the state and then unilaterally controls the people. A larger state may be different, but that difference is a matter of degree. "The one in power of that resource" only has "absolute power over you" if you are not part of it.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  > There's no other reason you could think of to feed a hungry person? It's not what you can think of that matters, it's what the people who control the state apparatus can think of. The vast majority of human beings are capable of empathy. Such people are usually found towards the bottom to middle of most hierarchies, because their empathy makes it painful to fuck over all the other claimants and collateral damage that they need to crawl over to get to the top. You could look at capitalism is a sociopath-containment vehicle. If there were no sociopaths, there would be no need for capitalism: people would produce what was needed and freely share it with the people who need it most. However, there are sociopaths, and throughout history they've usually just taken all the excess production, enjoyed it, and left the people who produced it destitute. It was a big innovation to be able to channel that selfishness and will to dominate other people into productive uses that make the rest of society more efficient.
jtolmar 6y ago
> making you an extraneous cost which anyone in their right mind would want to remove Wanting to remove people for being "extraneous costs" is not right-minded. It is extreme sociopathy.
- kebman 6y ago
  You are completely correct, Sir. This is why we must avoid organizing our states in ways that create such dependencies at all cost, and instead strive to create states that create voluntary sharing of resources and values that are mutually beneficial. That is the only way progress can be made, and freedom can be insured. On the other hand, if you were a baker, and someone told you that you must give your bread away for free to a third party, how would you feel about that? The only thing you would get in return, is not being punished by the one forcing you to work, and not killed by the masses for whom you provide your free bread. I don't know about you, but personally I'd hate to live under such a fascist regime.
- tathougies 6y ago
  Unless you consider the majority of human societies to have every existed extreme sociopathy. While I don't particularly support it, many societies throughout history exposed children with disabilities and many many more would execute or exile elements they deemed 'criminal'. Today, we still remove people for potentially being extraneous costs in abortion. It's legal, but it is the same motivation. I mean, I personally think it's all sociopathic, but it's the normal state of 'the state'.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

While I agree with the overall sentiment, the idea that we are capable of creating a society where all basic needs are met entirely through automation is a pretty damned bold assertion.

deegles 6y ago
Fair. There's a lot we could do.

fsckboy 6y ago

no reexamination necessary, I'm drawn to emulate and recommend the humans that work hard toward long term goals. I like when Darwinism shows tangible progress against entropy rather than producing viruses that leech off of life.

cvlasdkv 6y ago
What long term goal is slaving away at McDonalds or Wal-Mart accomplishing? All the people advancing society are being paid pittances compared to the true leeches (landlords and shareholders). People should not be required to work to survive. People should be required to work to make the world a better place. Most people work bullshit jobs that do not advance anything but the wealth of the 1%.
- burrows 6y ago
  > People should not be required to work to survive. What does "be required" mean?
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I should not be forced to subsidize someone with the fruits of my labor just because they're so lazy they would rather not be a productive member of society. That is toxic and wholly regressive.

tomp 6y ago

We will never automate "basic needs" unless we automate medicine. We'll never automate medicine because everyone wants to live even longer.

matchbok 6y ago

No, we aren't. Not even close.

chente 6y ago
Because of attitudes like this. There is enough money out there to solve many problems but it is hoarded by a certain amount of people and then a bunch of people go around saying, "better things aren't possible."
- matchbok 6y ago
  That's also not true, at all. If you think most jobs can be automated you clearly have no idea what an average job is.

missedthecue 6y ago

Because the only way to increase the standard of living is to increase productivity. You cannot inflate your way to prosperity. It is a mathematical impossiblity.

downerending 6y ago

I don't know about the should part, but I think everyone needs a reason to get out of bed in the morning, to know that they're contributing to their family and their society as a whole. Imagine how unpleasant it would ultimately be to be told that your needs would be well met, but you would no longer be allowed to carry out productive work.

treyfitty 6y ago
I’ve been on paternity leave for 4 months out of 6 just playing with my kids. It’s awesome. I would love to not work and just play with my kids.
- downerending 6y ago
  Every time you could spend five more minutes playing with your kids, you should, in my opinion. That's pretty much the meaning of life.