12 ms·

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are

by daenz 6y ago

>Such is “work.” Play is just the opposite. Play is always voluntary. What might otherwise be play is work if it’s forced. This is axiomatic. Work and play are both voluntary to different degrees. You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. You can also survive without playing, but again, your existence will also likely be miserable. Play is something we prefer to do voluntarily, but if you don't force yourself to play every once in awhile, your life will probably be unhealthy. In that sense, it is not voluntary. Even if I didn't work, I still have to do things that I don't want to do in order to keep my life at the level that I want. I need to clean where I live, keep myself clean, keep my body healthy by eating healthy food and exercising. Work is just an extension of that. It's a choice that I make in order to sustain or progress my life at the level that I desire. Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision.

djrobstep 6y ago
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. That entirely depends on your socio-economic class. I know a lot of rich kids that do no work but live very easy, pleasant lives. > They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  > A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice? Choice, of course.
  - djrobstep 6y ago
    So taxation is voluntary? You'll upset a lot of libertarians with that attitude!
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation absent coercion. Taxation is prima facie coercive so we would just debate semantics if I went that route.
      - djrobstep 6y ago
        You just said that "hand over your watch or get shot" is choice. So then is "hand over your tax or go to prison", yes?
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        I said that libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation that doesn't involve coercion. I did not say that a coerced individual had no choice in the matter. Why would anyone bother to coerce someone who had no choices?
        djrobstep 6y ago
        Coercion implies lack of free choice. That's what it is. A mugging is coercive precisely because the alternative choice (getting shot) is not meaningful.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Coercion implies lack of free choice. That's what it is. "free choice" != "choice" "choice" != "voluntary" I mentioned semantics for a reason. > A mugging is coercive precisely because the alternative choice (getting shot) is not meaningful. Its not really desirable but neither is it wholly without meaning. Some things are worth dying for. For some people increasing the cost of robbery to murder for their assailant is one of those things.
ianleeclark 6y ago
> Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision. Not everyone believes that these choices exist. The author offered the POV--although unstated--that the compulsions sufficient enough exist to either fully obfuscate or remove this choice, and you responded with the fact that this choice exists--not why or how this choice exists, just simply the assertion that it does.
mehrdadn 6y ago
Even play isn't always truly voluntary... when your mom tells you to go play with your sibling or another kid... it's not really voluntary is it.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  I’m not sure where Bob Black stands on childhood autonomy, but anarchists tend to agree with non-anarchists that there are and should be limits to it. Autonomous adults generally aren’t compelled into recreation by an authority.
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    > Autonomous adults generally aren’t compelled into recreation by an authority. Haha, well it was quite recently when the mom of a friend of mine (over 18) with a sibling (under 18) made them go do some recreational activity, despite neither of them really wanting to do so. Legally I suppose nobody was obligated to do anything here, but practically speaking I'm not sure how "optional" this was; they basically did as their mom said despite not otherwise wanting to. It's not like families ties instantly break at 18 years old.
    - eyelidlessness 6y ago
      I probably should’ve picked up on the fact that you’re probably a youngn too. You’re right. It isn’t about legal adulthood or even legality. Children and young adults who still live with or depend on their parents/guardians are usually under their authority to some extent, even for completely arbitrary things like “go play”. As we get older and more capable those things usually relax but there’s definitely a transition. An adult who has full autonomy would probably weigh a decision like you described and decide whether to voluntarily go play with their younger sibling even if it wasn’t play for them. Some will do it, others won’t. I’ll put it another way. I’m getting older(ish, I’m 38), I don’t have all the energy in the world, but I have a puppy. She loves to play and she benefits from it. Sometimes I just don’t feel up to it. I could always decide not to, my only strict obligations are don’t abuse or neglect her. But I usually play even if I don’t want to, by choice, because I want my puppy to be happy and healthy too. That’s a kind of decision making that most young children don’t engage, and gradually becomes more common in early adulthood and becomes more solid as we get more of our own autonomy. It’s totally voluntary. It’s just not always play for me. And with that said, my puppy wants a play :)
thinkingemote 6y ago
I read it as him saying yes we have no choice but he wants one. Therefore change the system to anarchism. Ultimately and quickly it comes down to philosophy and your view of the truth of the world.
- incompatible 6y ago
  It's not necessary to change any system, just set aside a place where anarchists can live as they please. We already have millions of square kilometres devoted to capitalism, but why should capitalism be forced on people who don't want it? Sure, anarchism isn't for everybody, and people who prefer capitalism should be able to remain within that system.
jakelazaroff 6y ago
> Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? I could beg, although that’s still work in the sense that I’d be trading my time for money. I could go around to places that offer free meals to homeless people, but that seems unreliable. And I could steal money or food. That’s about all I can think of. I suppose that’s technically a “choice”, but only by the most ruthlessly literal definition.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.
  - jakelazaroff 6y ago
    As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement. I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.
    - smnrchrds 6y ago
      > very alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down. Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore. I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?
ilammy 6y ago
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. Miserable, but—be relieved!—short. Because you will die without food, and shelter, and the other things which you can't magically summon from nothingness: in the current society, you need to work to get them, or had to work in the past to amass appropriate wealth, or someone else has to do this for you. Few are lucky to be gifted it from their birth. As are those who can get those necessities incidentally from play, without deliberate planning in fear of not succeeding. That's basically what this philosophical essay has to tell about the (non) “choice” that you are given: you work, or else you suffer. You do have this choice though, for sure. The play is when you don't have to choose.
avl999 6y ago
> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.
- HuwytNashi_002 6y ago
  That's true of all living things. It's a choice. You can sit there and twiddle your thumbs until entropy does its thing, or you can choose to work against it. You can hunt, gather, and farm. Or you can do something in exchange for credits to get food from other people who do.
  - avl999 6y ago
    I have no interest in an academic debate about choice. Most reasonable people will agree that having a "choice" between x and the end of your existence (in most cases in extremely painful and excruciating way) is no choice at all.
    - elindbe3 6y ago
      At least if we're talking about the US (and probably EU as well), it isn't the choice between life and death. Anyone can go be homeless in California and get a couple hundred a month in food stamps and medicaid. Or panhandle a few hundred a month from tourists. I agree you shouldn't literally die if you choose not to work in a first world country, but you should only receive the bare minimum to keep you alive (e.g. a tent, basic medical treatment and a steady diet of government cheese).
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      Biological needs are a fact of life, its not something farmers invented so people would buy their food.
- Iv 6y ago
  In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.
roenxi 6y ago
And calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death. Great idea, difficult to argue against. Difficult to implement too. Given the current state of technology, it seems quite likely that all the actual plans for abolishing work will devolve into a small group of low status, probably socially voiceless, people being picked out and made to do all the work.
- setgree 6y ago
  > calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death subbing out death for aging, which is far and away the leading cause of death, I think this is a good metaphor. The first step is to persuade people that work, like aging, is bad [0], and that abolishing work is a comparatively neglected social cause relative to the harms caused. We might have to live with work for a long time now, because scarcity abounds; but there's no point pretending that's good, or lionizing work for its own sake. It sucks to work at "a job that slowly kills you" [1], just like it sucks that we get old and die. [0] https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html (discussed previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24770566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24770566) [1] Radiohead, No Surprises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CVsCnxyXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CVsCnxyXg
- Iv 6y ago
  For more than 20 years I have advocated and pursued the idea that society should abolish work. I am astonished that in 2020 most of our production is not automated. We have had the ability to automate most work for two decades. Food, clothes, furniture, electronic devices, all of these could be produced with close to zero human labor. Why don't we? After exploring a market (agriculture) in order to launch my own automation company, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the tech that we lack, it is the will. A culture change is needed in order to make people realize that a work-less society is: - possible - desirable - is not going to make them poorer
  - jackyinger 6y ago
    The fact of the matter is that automation is far from perfect. There are many tasks that are simple for a human, but fiendishly hard for a machine due to their unpredictable nature. Take driving a car or cooking in a restaurant. How is a machine supposed to know if the meat is a bit too old to be palatable? Would it really be worth it to implement an elaborate apparatus to determine meat freshness, and deploy it in every restaurant? I believe such a thing is firmly in the realm is science fiction, where effort and energy are free, unlike the real physical world we inhabit. Now consider this, can joy not be had in cooking? I can certainly tell you that I find cooking good food to be a very fulfilling task. Unlike engineering projects I can go from start to finish in under an hour. And it fulfills an immediate and visceral need. I think that the argument for play is a good one. In engineering I encounter many people who engineer, not for the joy of it (which is spread very thin in many jobs anyway), but for the money. Now imagine if there was no quantitative social status (money) associated with engineering. You would see engineers self select purely on a basis of authentic interest rather than financial status seeking. Would that not bring more promising talent to the table? Let me now attack the idea of automation from another angle; to claim that we should be able to automate all product is as outrageous as claiming that Atlas holds the earth up. How could we automate everything? Who makes the machine, and perhaps more importantly, who fixes them when they break. You cannot possibly convince me that you could make a machine to fix machines. Again, such a device would be in the realm of science fiction. In reality, even in the relatively controlled environments of factories things inevitably break in unpredictable ways, and there you are, back to needing humans to clean up the mess. Now, automation does have a place; doing repetitive tasks. But I’d rather order a meal from an expert chef than a robot.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
underslung 6y ago
>Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision. The author is using the term non-voluntary in a different sense. If all your material needs are met, e.g. housing, food and hygiene — then working to acquire capital is voluntary. The pre-requisites mentioned are the foundation of an abundant society. Obviously someone in India is going to have a far greater need to acquire capital to sustain themselves' than your average metropolitan Australian; such is the wealth disparity that currently exists globally. Don't get me wrong — I believe work is an important component of our lives'. Indeed it can give us meaning and joy amongst other things (perhaps routine as a fundamental). But what I think this author is trying to illustrate is that our current society as a structure leaves zero room for the disciplines that are either a) unexplored, or b) are creative in nature. If it's the latter then it is a mere pittance of what a full-time employee earns. That is the trade-off.
marcus_holmes 6y ago
Change a single number in your bank account and see how everything you're saying here changes. Work is voluntary for the rich. Poor people will do the things that rich people don't want to do in order to keep their lives at the level they want.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Very few people are that rich. Most people work somewhere and those that do not are essentially dependent on those that do. > Poor people will do the things that rich people don't want to do in order to keep their lives at the level they want. Yes, that's a fact of life. The things that people don't want to do are still things that (mostly) need to be done.
Viliam1234 6y ago
> Even if I didn't work, I still have to do things that I don't want to do in order to keep my life at the level that I want. I need to clean where I live, keep myself clean, keep my body healthy by eating healthy food and exercising. How all these things you mentioned are different from having a job: You do not have regular meetings with managers who evaluate your perceived performance against your competitors. No daily standups. Crossfit or not -- your choice. Paleo or not -- your choice. You can take a day off whenever you want to. You don't have to exercise in open space.

by daenz 6y ago

djrobstep 6y ago

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. That entirely depends on your socio-economic class. I know a lot of rich kids that do no work but live very easy, pleasant lives. > They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice?

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
> A mugger tells me to hand over my watch or get shot. Choice or not choice? Choice, of course.
- djrobstep 6y ago
  So taxation is voluntary? You'll upset a lot of libertarians with that attitude!
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation absent coercion. Taxation is prima facie coercive so we would just debate semantics if I went that route.
    - djrobstep 6y ago
      You just said that "hand over your watch or get shot" is choice. So then is "hand over your tax or go to prison", yes?
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        I said that libertarians use "voluntary" to refer to a situation that doesn't involve coercion. I did not say that a coerced individual had no choice in the matter. Why would anyone bother to coerce someone who had no choices?
        djrobstep 6y ago
        Coercion implies lack of free choice. That's what it is. A mugging is coercive precisely because the alternative choice (getting shot) is not meaningful.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > Coercion implies lack of free choice. That's what it is. "free choice" != "choice" "choice" != "voluntary" I mentioned semantics for a reason. > A mugging is coercive precisely because the alternative choice (getting shot) is not meaningful. Its not really desirable but neither is it wholly without meaning. Some things are worth dying for. For some people increasing the cost of robbery to murder for their assailant is one of those things.

ianleeclark 6y ago

> Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision. Not everyone believes that these choices exist. The author offered the POV--although unstated--that the compulsions sufficient enough exist to either fully obfuscate or remove this choice, and you responded with the fact that this choice exists--not why or how this choice exists, just simply the assertion that it does.

mehrdadn 6y ago

Even play isn't always truly voluntary... when your mom tells you to go play with your sibling or another kid... it's not really voluntary is it.

eyelidlessness 6y ago
I’m not sure where Bob Black stands on childhood autonomy, but anarchists tend to agree with non-anarchists that there are and should be limits to it. Autonomous adults generally aren’t compelled into recreation by an authority.
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  > Autonomous adults generally aren’t compelled into recreation by an authority. Haha, well it was quite recently when the mom of a friend of mine (over 18) with a sibling (under 18) made them go do some recreational activity, despite neither of them really wanting to do so. Legally I suppose nobody was obligated to do anything here, but practically speaking I'm not sure how "optional" this was; they basically did as their mom said despite not otherwise wanting to. It's not like families ties instantly break at 18 years old.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    I probably should’ve picked up on the fact that you’re probably a youngn too. You’re right. It isn’t about legal adulthood or even legality. Children and young adults who still live with or depend on their parents/guardians are usually under their authority to some extent, even for completely arbitrary things like “go play”. As we get older and more capable those things usually relax but there’s definitely a transition. An adult who has full autonomy would probably weigh a decision like you described and decide whether to voluntarily go play with their younger sibling even if it wasn’t play for them. Some will do it, others won’t. I’ll put it another way. I’m getting older(ish, I’m 38), I don’t have all the energy in the world, but I have a puppy. She loves to play and she benefits from it. Sometimes I just don’t feel up to it. I could always decide not to, my only strict obligations are don’t abuse or neglect her. But I usually play even if I don’t want to, by choice, because I want my puppy to be happy and healthy too. That’s a kind of decision making that most young children don’t engage, and gradually becomes more common in early adulthood and becomes more solid as we get more of our own autonomy. It’s totally voluntary. It’s just not always play for me. And with that said, my puppy wants a play :)

thinkingemote 6y ago

I read it as him saying yes we have no choice but he wants one. Therefore change the system to anarchism. Ultimately and quickly it comes down to philosophy and your view of the truth of the world.

incompatible 6y ago
It's not necessary to change any system, just set aside a place where anarchists can live as they please. We already have millions of square kilometres devoted to capitalism, but why should capitalism be forced on people who don't want it? Sure, anarchism isn't for everybody, and people who prefer capitalism should be able to remain within that system.

jakelazaroff 6y ago

> Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? I could beg, although that’s still work in the sense that I’d be trading my time for money. I could go around to places that offer free meals to homeless people, but that seems unreliable. And I could steal money or food. That’s about all I can think of. I suppose that’s technically a “choice”, but only by the most ruthlessly literal definition.

smnrchrds 6y ago
> Assuming I don’t want to starve to death, what are my other options? Welfare in most developed countries is enough not to starve and not to become fully homeless. But in many countries, it does not go one inch beyond this. Subsisting on welfare is indeed a very uncomfortable life. But it is not literal starvation to death.
- jakelazaroff 6y ago
  As far as I’m aware, all welfare in the US (e.g. SNAP and unumeployment benefits) have some sort of work as an eligibility requirement. I suppose you could add “move to a country with a better social safety net” to the list. But it doesn’t change the overall point, which is that every alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > very alternative to work requires you to turn your life upside down. Oh, yes, absolutely. But this is moving the goalpost. The question was not whether one could stop working without having to make changes to their lifestyle. The question was whether one could stop working without literally starving to death. In most developed countries, the answer is yes. No one really starves to death due to poverty in developed nations anymore. I am not too familiar with the situation with the poverty in the US. Do people there still die from poverty-induced starvation in the 21st century?

ilammy 6y ago

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. Miserable, but—be relieved!—short. Because you will die without food, and shelter, and the other things which you can't magically summon from nothingness: in the current society, you need to work to get them, or had to work in the past to amass appropriate wealth, or someone else has to do this for you. Few are lucky to be gifted it from their birth. As are those who can get those necessities incidentally from play, without deliberate planning in fear of not succeeding. That's basically what this philosophical essay has to tell about the (non) “choice” that you are given: you work, or else you suffer. You do have this choice though, for sure. The play is when you don't have to choose.

avl999 6y ago

> You can survive without working, although your existence will likely be miserable. For a large number of people not working is likely to directly lead to literally death. For most people it is not a choice at all.

HuwytNashi_002 6y ago
That's true of all living things. It's a choice. You can sit there and twiddle your thumbs until entropy does its thing, or you can choose to work against it. You can hunt, gather, and farm. Or you can do something in exchange for credits to get food from other people who do.
- avl999 6y ago
  I have no interest in an academic debate about choice. Most reasonable people will agree that having a "choice" between x and the end of your existence (in most cases in extremely painful and excruciating way) is no choice at all.
  - elindbe3 6y ago
    At least if we're talking about the US (and probably EU as well), it isn't the choice between life and death. Anyone can go be homeless in California and get a couple hundred a month in food stamps and medicaid. Or panhandle a few hundred a month from tourists. I agree you shouldn't literally die if you choose not to work in a first world country, but you should only receive the bare minimum to keep you alive (e.g. a tent, basic medical treatment and a steady diet of government cheese).
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Biological needs are a fact of life, its not something farmers invented so people would buy their food.
Iv 6y ago
In rich countries, less than 1% of the population work on agriculture. We could have a society without starvation even if 99% of the population did not work. The fact that starvation is possible in a rich country is by design. It is not a necessary fact of the economy.

roenxi 6y ago

And calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death. Great idea, difficult to argue against. Difficult to implement too. Given the current state of technology, it seems quite likely that all the actual plans for abolishing work will devolve into a small group of low status, probably socially voiceless, people being picked out and made to do all the work.

setgree 6y ago
> calling for the abolition of work is like calling for the abolition of death subbing out death for aging, which is far and away the leading cause of death, I think this is a good metaphor. The first step is to persuade people that work, like aging, is bad [0], and that abolishing work is a comparatively neglected social cause relative to the harms caused. We might have to live with work for a long time now, because scarcity abounds; but there's no point pretending that's good, or lionizing work for its own sake. It sucks to work at "a job that slowly kills you" [1], just like it sucks that we get old and die. [0] https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html https://www.nickbostrom.com/fable/dragon.html (discussed previously here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24770566 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24770566) [1] Radiohead, No Surprises: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CVsCnxyXg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5CVsCnxyXg
Iv 6y ago
For more than 20 years I have advocated and pursued the idea that society should abolish work. I am astonished that in 2020 most of our production is not automated. We have had the ability to automate most work for two decades. Food, clothes, furniture, electronic devices, all of these could be produced with close to zero human labor. Why don't we? After exploring a market (agriculture) in order to launch my own automation company, I have come to the conclusion that it is not the tech that we lack, it is the will. A culture change is needed in order to make people realize that a work-less society is: - possible - desirable - is not going to make them poorer
- jackyinger 6y ago
  The fact of the matter is that automation is far from perfect. There are many tasks that are simple for a human, but fiendishly hard for a machine due to their unpredictable nature. Take driving a car or cooking in a restaurant. How is a machine supposed to know if the meat is a bit too old to be palatable? Would it really be worth it to implement an elaborate apparatus to determine meat freshness, and deploy it in every restaurant? I believe such a thing is firmly in the realm is science fiction, where effort and energy are free, unlike the real physical world we inhabit. Now consider this, can joy not be had in cooking? I can certainly tell you that I find cooking good food to be a very fulfilling task. Unlike engineering projects I can go from start to finish in under an hour. And it fulfills an immediate and visceral need. I think that the argument for play is a good one. In engineering I encounter many people who engineer, not for the joy of it (which is spread very thin in many jobs anyway), but for the money. Now imagine if there was no quantitative social status (money) associated with engineering. You would see engineers self select purely on a basis of authentic interest rather than financial status seeking. Would that not bring more promising talent to the table? Let me now attack the idea of automation from another angle; to claim that we should be able to automate all product is as outrageous as claiming that Atlas holds the earth up. How could we automate everything? Who makes the machine, and perhaps more importantly, who fixes them when they break. You cannot possibly convince me that you could make a machine to fix machines. Again, such a device would be in the realm of science fiction. In reality, even in the relatively controlled environments of factories things inevitably break in unpredictable ways, and there you are, back to needing humans to clean up the mess. Now, automation does have a place; doing repetitive tasks. But I’d rather order a meal from an expert chef than a robot.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

underslung 6y ago

>Calling work non-voluntary reveals more about the author than it does about the system they describe: that they feel that they have no choice. They have a choice, but the choice is unpleasant. That is not the same as no choice. Declaring that you have no choice is a result of the inability to confront the weakness to acknowledge the unpleasant decision. The author is using the term non-voluntary in a different sense. If all your material needs are met, e.g. housing, food and hygiene — then working to acquire capital is voluntary. The pre-requisites mentioned are the foundation of an abundant society. Obviously someone in India is going to have a far greater need to acquire capital to sustain themselves' than your average metropolitan Australian; such is the wealth disparity that currently exists globally. Don't get me wrong — I believe work is an important component of our lives'. Indeed it can give us meaning and joy amongst other things (perhaps routine as a fundamental). But what I think this author is trying to illustrate is that our current society as a structure leaves zero room for the disciplines that are either a) unexplored, or b) are creative in nature. If it's the latter then it is a mere pittance of what a full-time employee earns. That is the trade-off.

marcus_holmes 6y ago

Change a single number in your bank account and see how everything you're saying here changes. Work is voluntary for the rich. Poor people will do the things that rich people don't want to do in order to keep their lives at the level they want.

chordalkeyboard 6y ago
Very few people are that rich. Most people work somewhere and those that do not are essentially dependent on those that do. > Poor people will do the things that rich people don't want to do in order to keep their lives at the level they want. Yes, that's a fact of life. The things that people don't want to do are still things that (mostly) need to be done.

Viliam1234 6y ago

> Even if I didn't work, I still have to do things that I don't want to do in order to keep my life at the level that I want. I need to clean where I live, keep myself clean, keep my body healthy by eating healthy food and exercising. How all these things you mentioned are different from having a job: You do not have regular meetings with managers who evaluate your perceived performance against your competitors. No daily standups. Crossfit or not -- your choice. Paleo or not -- your choice. You can take a day off whenever you want to. You don't have to exercise in open space.