4 ms·

> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fiel

> You're saying that if I don't work then bad things should happen to me. No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. If you can’t hunt or grow vegetables, you should perform some other task that society thinks is valuable, and share your part of collective responsibility that way. Exploitation is already a big enough issue without us making it worse. Brave New World describes very well exactly what would happen - we would end up with worker castes and ruler castes. I see the work already moving in this direction and it is sad. I have absolutely no problems with people choosing to work fewer hours or in less lucrative professions, provided they are not expecting society to pick up their slack. Don’t forget that for every farmer in the fields, you also need some sort of supply chain and distribution network, you need people to build the trucks and drive them, you need people to gather the resources needed to build trucks, you need the folks drilling for oil and those working at the oil refineries, as well as the ships that bring the oil to where it’s needed (as well as folks gathering the resources and turning them into ship parts etc.) We can afford this now because everyone who buys a vegetable in a shop pays a tiny fraction of all these costs. If nobody had to pay for vegetables any more, it’s not just the farmer who is working ‘for free’. This is just one small product, and the simplest example I could think of. I would imagine that computers and the internet would have significantly more people who would need to work for free in order for you to have a computer.

bjourne 5y ago
> No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
  - bjourne 5y ago
    Well, I think that your argument is inconsistent. First you say that I won't be punished for not working. Then you say that I should starve if I don't work. But you still insist that working is optional! Clearly, people should be forced to work according to you. How is this materially different from slavery? And the work you think I should do should be valuable. Who decides what work is valuable? What makes money? If so, can I be a drug dealer? That makes a lot of money. If I can't, then you must admit that what makes money is not a good indicator of what actually are useful services to soceity. You claim that my existence causes "slack" that has to be picked up. I disagree both with the notion that human existence causes slack and that work somehow causes "slack" to be picked up. As said, I could be selling drugs and thus having enough money to buy food and pay rent. But that's not picking up "slack". You seem to be unable to see the big picture. The costs of work and the work-centric lifestyle are massive. People spend significant portions of their lives doing things they'd rather not do and to boot, the associated consumption patterns are changing the world's climate forever. You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all.
    - d1sxeyes 5y ago
      > First you say that I won't be punished for not working. Then you say that I should starve if I don't work. But you still insist that working is optional! Clearly, people should be forced to work according to you. So I did not say any of those things (except that work is optional). I don’t have a Ferrari, but the fact I don’t have something is not a punishment unless it’s freely given to everyone else (eg: liberty, oxygen, etc.). You don’t have to starve if you don’t work. You are welcome to grow your own food, fish and hunt, and sustain yourself without working. However, if you want other people to do those things for you, you need to give them something in return. Your drug dealer example is a good one because it highlights a problem with using the market to determine value. Ultimately, consumers determine the value of product or service, and as a drug dealer you may make a lot of money because consumers are willing to pay for the drugs you sell. I completely agree that value and societal net benefits are not always linked, and this is a flaw in the current system. But I have not seen a better model yet. Your existence in and of itself does not cause slack. Your inability or unwillingness to sustain yourself does. I think accusing me of being unable to see the big picture is a bit rude and unnecessary. I see a very different big picture to the one you seem to see though. > People spend significant portions of their lives doing things they'd rather not do and to boot, the associated consumption patterns are changing the world's climate forever. I completely agree, and have mentioned several times that I think consumerism is a major problem, and by reducing consumerism on an individual level, many people could reduce their own working hours. On a societal level, we would see major environmental benefits. > You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all. I shouldn’t need to prove a position that I’m not arguing. I am arguing that society currently works this way, and you are saying we should change it for this model where you don’t have to work, without any evidence that it would be successful. Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code?

bjourne 5y ago

> No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
- bjourne 5y ago
  Well, I think that your argument is inconsistent. First you say that I won't be punished for not working. Then you say that I should starve if I don't work. But you still insist that working is optional! Clearly, people should be forced to work according to you. How is this materially different from slavery? And the work you think I should do should be valuable. Who decides what work is valuable? What makes money? If so, can I be a drug dealer? That makes a lot of money. If I can't, then you must admit that what makes money is not a good indicator of what actually are useful services to soceity. You claim that my existence causes "slack" that has to be picked up. I disagree both with the notion that human existence causes slack and that work somehow causes "slack" to be picked up. As said, I could be selling drugs and thus having enough money to buy food and pay rent. But that's not picking up "slack". You seem to be unable to see the big picture. The costs of work and the work-centric lifestyle are massive. People spend significant portions of their lives doing things they'd rather not do and to boot, the associated consumption patterns are changing the world's climate forever. You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all.
  - d1sxeyes 5y ago
    > First you say that I won't be punished for not working. Then you say that I should starve if I don't work. But you still insist that working is optional! Clearly, people should be forced to work according to you. So I did not say any of those things (except that work is optional). I don’t have a Ferrari, but the fact I don’t have something is not a punishment unless it’s freely given to everyone else (eg: liberty, oxygen, etc.). You don’t have to starve if you don’t work. You are welcome to grow your own food, fish and hunt, and sustain yourself without working. However, if you want other people to do those things for you, you need to give them something in return. Your drug dealer example is a good one because it highlights a problem with using the market to determine value. Ultimately, consumers determine the value of product or service, and as a drug dealer you may make a lot of money because consumers are willing to pay for the drugs you sell. I completely agree that value and societal net benefits are not always linked, and this is a flaw in the current system. But I have not seen a better model yet. Your existence in and of itself does not cause slack. Your inability or unwillingness to sustain yourself does. I think accusing me of being unable to see the big picture is a bit rude and unnecessary. I see a very different big picture to the one you seem to see though. > People spend significant portions of their lives doing things they'd rather not do and to boot, the associated consumption patterns are changing the world's climate forever. I completely agree, and have mentioned several times that I think consumerism is a major problem, and by reducing consumerism on an individual level, many people could reduce their own working hours. On a societal level, we would see major environmental benefits. > You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all. I shouldn’t need to prove a position that I’m not arguing. I am arguing that society currently works this way, and you are saying we should change it for this model where you don’t have to work, without any evidence that it would be successful. Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code?