5 ms·

Abolish "mandatory" work. Now you can keep working if you want to. It was easy.

by justalanm 5y ago

burntoutfire 5y ago
Work already is not mandatory. Anyone is free to figure out other ways to get food and shelter.
- justalanm 5y ago
  Not really, can I print money to get food? So, not free, it's just an illusion, at least for 99% of the people.
  - burntoutfire 5y ago
    There's free food in garbage bins, if you don't want to work for it. There are people who exclusively feed from large stores' garbage, it's totally doable. Although perhaps some people would consider going to the store and getting the food from the trash "work", and will settle for nothing less than a daily instacart delivery.
    - WHA8m 5y ago
      You can do it and it is illegal in some countries. In Germany for example. EDIT: Ok, so I fired the comment and thought about it more afterwards. What I said is true in most cases. If a store wants to take you to court, they definitely can. Question is, would they? In most cities (Germany), they lock the containers to prevent 'stealing' in the first place. What really puts me off - and aligns with the original discussion - is, that this system is definitely not set up for people to not work. Even so, that they say, eating other peoples trash is not okay. You HAVE to work.
  - nefitty 5y ago
    To follow your line of reasoning, no one is physically stopping you from printing money. No one is physically stopping you from committing crimes to gain wealth. White-collar crimes constitute 3% of federal prosecutions. Additionally, prosecutions have been on the decline for the past several years. Add "the fear of going to jail" to your list of illusions.
  - tapas73 5y ago
    Depends on defintion of "can". Physically you can. Legally not.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    What is the complaint here? If you had the power to print money, so would everyone else. And money would be worthless and you couldn't exchange it for food even if you had it. The issue you are identifying here might be physics and reality rather than a political problem. ironically food does grow on trees, but it is still "mandatory" to work to prepare it if you want to eat it. You can't escape that.
  - raptor99 5y ago
    Well depending on your definition of work, who is required to work for money? There are other ways to get it.
- joshgrib 5y ago
  I think this is overlooking the main argument - having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter. We would likely be better off not wasting people's time and just giving them food/shelter so they are free to figure out how to best use that time
  - jstx1 5y ago
    > having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter The latter isn't waste on the whole - somebody is getting a service in return. Then there's a separate question of what the worker is getting (for work that is meaningful to them and for work that isn't); that's one of the topics of the original post.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Giving someone food and shelter implies that someone else must work to provide that. Food doesn't materialize like it does on Star Trek.
  - nradov 5y ago
    No thanks. I am unwilling to provide free food and shelter to random people who are capable of working but choose not to. Their survival is not my concern.
janeroe 5y ago
Ironically, there's no mandatory work anywhere but in Communist paradises where by criminal code "parasitism" (not being enrolled to one of the organizations / skipping workdays without a valid reason) is prosecuted.
- WHA8m 5y ago
  I wonder what made you write that reply. Nobody was talking about communism. No one said we should abolish what we have completely. Edit: I see I'm getting down-voted. Same thread, different comment I say a bit more about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29934623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29934623

Abolish "mandatory" work. Now you can keep working if you want to. It was easy.

burntoutfire 5y ago

Work already is not mandatory. Anyone is free to figure out other ways to get food and shelter.

justalanm 5y ago
Not really, can I print money to get food? So, not free, it's just an illusion, at least for 99% of the people.
- burntoutfire 5y ago
  There's free food in garbage bins, if you don't want to work for it. There are people who exclusively feed from large stores' garbage, it's totally doable. Although perhaps some people would consider going to the store and getting the food from the trash "work", and will settle for nothing less than a daily instacart delivery.
  - WHA8m 5y ago
    You can do it and it is illegal in some countries. In Germany for example. EDIT: Ok, so I fired the comment and thought about it more afterwards. What I said is true in most cases. If a store wants to take you to court, they definitely can. Question is, would they? In most cities (Germany), they lock the containers to prevent 'stealing' in the first place. What really puts me off - and aligns with the original discussion - is, that this system is definitely not set up for people to not work. Even so, that they say, eating other peoples trash is not okay. You HAVE to work.
- nefitty 5y ago
  To follow your line of reasoning, no one is physically stopping you from printing money. No one is physically stopping you from committing crimes to gain wealth. White-collar crimes constitute 3% of federal prosecutions. Additionally, prosecutions have been on the decline for the past several years. Add "the fear of going to jail" to your list of illusions.
- tapas73 5y ago
  Depends on defintion of "can". Physically you can. Legally not.
- roenxi 5y ago
  What is the complaint here? If you had the power to print money, so would everyone else. And money would be worthless and you couldn't exchange it for food even if you had it. The issue you are identifying here might be physics and reality rather than a political problem. ironically food does grow on trees, but it is still "mandatory" to work to prepare it if you want to eat it. You can't escape that.
- raptor99 5y ago
  Well depending on your definition of work, who is required to work for money? There are other ways to get it.
joshgrib 5y ago
I think this is overlooking the main argument - having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter. We would likely be better off not wasting people's time and just giving them food/shelter so they are free to figure out how to best use that time
- jstx1 5y ago
  > having someone waste time by getting their own food/shelter isn't really any better than having them waste time doing a job to get money for food/shelter The latter isn't waste on the whole - somebody is getting a service in return. Then there's a separate question of what the worker is getting (for work that is meaningful to them and for work that isn't); that's one of the topics of the original post.
- giantg2 5y ago
  Giving someone food and shelter implies that someone else must work to provide that. Food doesn't materialize like it does on Star Trek.
- nradov 5y ago
  No thanks. I am unwilling to provide free food and shelter to random people who are capable of working but choose not to. Their survival is not my concern.

janeroe 5y ago

Ironically, there's no mandatory work anywhere but in Communist paradises where by criminal code "parasitism" (not being enrolled to one of the organizations / skipping workdays without a valid reason) is prosecuted.

WHA8m 5y ago
I wonder what made you write that reply. Nobody was talking about communism. No one said we should abolish what we have completely. Edit: I see I'm getting down-voted. Same thread, different comment I say a bit more about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29934623 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29934623