4 ms·

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? Yes? > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. > No one shall be subjected

> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? Yes? > Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. > No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. > Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. > Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. > Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay. > etc. > https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma...

mgh2 5y ago
*Only if you are American. Good luck if you are not.
newfriend 5y ago
None of these things indicate that I should be forced to pay for someone who doesn't want to work.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- decebalus1 5y ago
  I would gladly pay taxes to cover someone who isn't able to work for one reason or another. Because you never know what life gives you. In an unfortunate turn of events, that person can be me or you. I would NOT pay taxes to subsidize Bezos's business so that he can have his space cowboy adventures. That's just the latest and most popular. But the same applies for the 2008 bailouts, Covid stimulus bailouts, corporate tax cuts, corporate tax incentives, corporations paying peanuts forcing people to strain the (already thin) social safety net (see how many fully employed folks are on food stamps) etc.. The latter is perpetual, business as usual and except for some people complaining (the 'radical left') it's regarded as 'the right thing to do'. The former has been beaten out of the American consciousness by decades of rightwing propaganda.
- decebalus1 5y ago
  Fresh example of what you've been already forced to pay: https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-how-much-the-ultrawealthy-gained-by-shaping-trumps-big-beautiful-tax-cut https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-h...
agent327 5y ago
>> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? >Yes? Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or should you work to get your shit and also his shit? Where is the shit going to come from, in a way that doesn't require slavery for others?
- claudiulodro 5y ago
  I believe the "through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State" line covers that situation.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  Sure. Let's ask for something easier, then; let's only have free stuff which is already in abundance. We aren't living on a remote island; we are living in a society which already has lots of extra stuff which could be given away for free. For example, how can an all-you-can-eat restaurant stay in business if they let everybody eat as much as they (rationally-economically) want to eat, and labor has to be paid? If food is abundant, then the cost of each individual patron's meal is negligible and it becomes a question of whether enough people come through the door to pay for labor.
  - agent327 5y ago
    On my hypothetical island, pretty much the only thing in abundance is sand. Everything else you have to work for. Who is going to do that work? Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour, they totally would. But then who would remain to do the work? The all you can eat restaurant stays in business by charging enough for meals that they can be reasonably sure that you'll won't eat more than the food is worth. However, that doesn't reduce the value of the food to zero. Let's try another thought experiment. In my experience, all you "shit should be free" types assume all value flows from the state. That's wrong; it flows from individuals that are taxed by the state. Why don't you, as an individual, open an all you can eat restaurant where people can eat for free? Why not be the change you want to see?
dbsmith83 5y ago
I think you misread the whole thing you posted. It literally talks about the right to work and the right to leisure with respect to reasonable working hours. I don't see any right to just sit on your ass and consume things.

mgh2 5y ago

*Only if you are American. Good luck if you are not.

newfriend 5y ago

None of these things indicate that I should be forced to pay for someone who doesn't want to work.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
decebalus1 5y ago
I would gladly pay taxes to cover someone who isn't able to work for one reason or another. Because you never know what life gives you. In an unfortunate turn of events, that person can be me or you. I would NOT pay taxes to subsidize Bezos's business so that he can have his space cowboy adventures. That's just the latest and most popular. But the same applies for the 2008 bailouts, Covid stimulus bailouts, corporate tax cuts, corporate tax incentives, corporations paying peanuts forcing people to strain the (already thin) social safety net (see how many fully employed folks are on food stamps) etc.. The latter is perpetual, business as usual and except for some people complaining (the 'radical left') it's regarded as 'the right thing to do'. The former has been beaten out of the American consciousness by decades of rightwing propaganda.
decebalus1 5y ago
Fresh example of what you've been already forced to pay: https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-how-much-the-ultrawealthy-gained-by-shaping-trumps-big-beautiful-tax-cut https://www.propublica.org/article/secret-irs-files-reveal-h...

agent327 5y ago

>> Should you be given free shit simply because you exist? >Yes? Surely you understand the logistical problem this brings: if you get given free shit, there must also be a party who is giving free shit. Let's say you live on an island with just one other person. You are both entitled to free shit, but somebody has to put in the work to get the shit. Should the other person work to get his own shit and your shit, or should you work to get your shit and also his shit? Where is the shit going to come from, in a way that doesn't require slavery for others?

claudiulodro 5y ago
I believe the "through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State" line covers that situation.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
myWindoonn 5y ago
Sure. Let's ask for something easier, then; let's only have free stuff which is already in abundance. We aren't living on a remote island; we are living in a society which already has lots of extra stuff which could be given away for free. For example, how can an all-you-can-eat restaurant stay in business if they let everybody eat as much as they (rationally-economically) want to eat, and labor has to be paid? If food is abundant, then the cost of each individual patron's meal is negligible and it becomes a question of whether enough people come through the door to pay for labor.
- agent327 5y ago
  On my hypothetical island, pretty much the only thing in abundance is sand. Everything else you have to work for. Who is going to do that work? Your problem is that you don't see that all that "abundance" of food was grown by people, transported by people, prepared by people, and served by people, and none of them are your slaves. If they had the chance to get their own free shit without having to do all that labour, they totally would. But then who would remain to do the work? The all you can eat restaurant stays in business by charging enough for meals that they can be reasonably sure that you'll won't eat more than the food is worth. However, that doesn't reduce the value of the food to zero. Let's try another thought experiment. In my experience, all you "shit should be free" types assume all value flows from the state. That's wrong; it flows from individuals that are taxed by the state. Why don't you, as an individual, open an all you can eat restaurant where people can eat for free? Why not be the change you want to see?

dbsmith83 5y ago

I think you misread the whole thing you posted. It literally talks about the right to work and the right to leisure with respect to reasonable working hours. I don't see any right to just sit on your ass and consume things.