5 ms·

Because society isn't a free resource, it requires time and effort (i.e. work) to create and maintain, and that work can either be distributed across its member

Because society isn't a free resource, it requires time and effort (i.e. work) to create and maintain, and that work can either be distributed across its members, or it can be done entirely by some and others simply mooch off of their work. If you feel like work is disproportionately done by some and not others, or that some work creates no value, that's a valid argument and worth exploring. But the idea that people should just be free to consume societal benefits without contributing to those benefits is obviously flawed. It assumes you should be free to personally consume, but others will be required to work to provide you with the goods and services you are consuming, meaning the ability to opt out of work isn't available to all. At that point it becomes clear that people with this particular anti-work view don't actually have issues with the current capitalist system in which some coerce others to labor and exploit the benefits, they simply have an issue that they aren't in the position to do the exploiting. Perhaps that kind of utopia becomes more feasible when we become a society in which everything is completely automated, but we aren't anywhere close to that, so in the meantime, everybody should be expected to contribute.

bjourne 5y ago
Workfree societies have existed so it is incorrect to claim that work is required for society to exist. For example, the free software community exists and is workfree. However, it seems you and many others are incapable to rationally reason about these issues since you implied that "people with this particular anti-work view" (i.e. me) just wants to be the ones doing the exploiting. It's plain as day that a massive number of jobs are not necessary. The conclusion should be that people shouldn't be coerced to do them.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  The free software community is not ‘work free’. Many free software developers work for organisations who have chosen to share their work freely because their revenue stream comes from support or hosting. There are free software projects where hobbyists build things to scratch a personal itch, but most of these people are contributing their free time and have another job. You keep repeating the point that ‘a massive number of jobs are not necessary’. Can you define what is ‘necessary work’ and how society can determine a priori what that work might be?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    Yes, free software is workfree as tasks are executed without there being monetary gain. Time is not traded for money. Read my other comments in this thread for examples on (worse than) useless jobs.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      > Time is not traded for money. I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. I agree there are hobbyists who do give their time without expecting any financial return, but the free software community does include a significant proportion of people who are paid directly or indirectly for the time they spend on any particular project.
      - bjourne 5y ago
        > I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. Sure, in the same way that an Amnesty volunteer could be an undercover CIA agent paid by the government. That, however, is not the community's main mode of operation.
        d1sxeyes 5y ago
        It’s impossible to tell for sure, but it looks like approximately half of open source contributions take place during working hours, and workdays have twice as many contributions as weekends, so I would say that yes, it is at least one main mode of operation. You mention Linus Torvalds in another comment, but did you know he has been paid to work on Linux since around 1997? https://www.techrepublic.com/article/for-50-percent-of-developers-open-source-is-a-9-to-5-job/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/for-50-percent-of-devel...
- mlac 5y ago
  If the jobs are truly unnecessary, the company and society will stop paying for them. If no one will do that work at a wage that the market will bear, then that job goes away. And from other comments it appears you only believe work happens when there is An exchange of money. Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that… Volunteers still “work”. The fact that they are volunteering shows they could be paid for their time and effort, but instead are doing it for free. But it’s not like they weren’t adding value as soon as the exchange of money is removed.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    > If the jobs are truly unnecessary, the company and society will stop paying for them. This is a circular argument, isn't it? Why is the work necessary? Because society pays for it. Why does society pay for it? Because the work is necessary. I reject it. Money != value. > Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that… That's a good example of a task that is valuable (in the real sense) but not work (since it is voluntary). Here is how I define "work": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704

bjourne 5y ago

Workfree societies have existed so it is incorrect to claim that work is required for society to exist. For example, the free software community exists and is workfree. However, it seems you and many others are incapable to rationally reason about these issues since you implied that "people with this particular anti-work view" (i.e. me) just wants to be the ones doing the exploiting. It's plain as day that a massive number of jobs are not necessary. The conclusion should be that people shouldn't be coerced to do them.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
The free software community is not ‘work free’. Many free software developers work for organisations who have chosen to share their work freely because their revenue stream comes from support or hosting. There are free software projects where hobbyists build things to scratch a personal itch, but most of these people are contributing their free time and have another job. You keep repeating the point that ‘a massive number of jobs are not necessary’. Can you define what is ‘necessary work’ and how society can determine a priori what that work might be?
- bjourne 5y ago
  Yes, free software is workfree as tasks are executed without there being monetary gain. Time is not traded for money. Read my other comments in this thread for examples on (worse than) useless jobs.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > Time is not traded for money. I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. I agree there are hobbyists who do give their time without expecting any financial return, but the free software community does include a significant proportion of people who are paid directly or indirectly for the time they spend on any particular project.
    - bjourne 5y ago
      > I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. Sure, in the same way that an Amnesty volunteer could be an undercover CIA agent paid by the government. That, however, is not the community's main mode of operation.
      - d1sxeyes 5y ago
        It’s impossible to tell for sure, but it looks like approximately half of open source contributions take place during working hours, and workdays have twice as many contributions as weekends, so I would say that yes, it is at least one main mode of operation. You mention Linus Torvalds in another comment, but did you know he has been paid to work on Linux since around 1997? https://www.techrepublic.com/article/for-50-percent-of-developers-open-source-is-a-9-to-5-job/ https://www.techrepublic.com/article/for-50-percent-of-devel...
mlac 5y ago
If the jobs are truly unnecessary, the company and society will stop paying for them. If no one will do that work at a wage that the market will bear, then that job goes away. And from other comments it appears you only believe work happens when there is An exchange of money. Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that… Volunteers still “work”. The fact that they are volunteering shows they could be paid for their time and effort, but instead are doing it for free. But it’s not like they weren’t adding value as soon as the exchange of money is removed.
- bjourne 5y ago
  > If the jobs are truly unnecessary, the company and society will stop paying for them. This is a circular argument, isn't it? Why is the work necessary? Because society pays for it. Why does society pay for it? Because the work is necessary. I reject it. Money != value. > Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that… That's a good example of a task that is valuable (in the real sense) but not work (since it is voluntary). Here is how I define "work": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704