5 ms·

> 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! Clea

> 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
But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. The difference between a ferrari and existence is that that the latter is a right. Every human has the right to exist but none has the right to own a ferrari. It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers (e.g. death) is usually reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The conclusion is that you and the rest of society deem non-working a worse crime than, say, assault which only nets you a few years in prison. > 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. You are repeating arguments I have already addressed. A better model than equating money with value is workfree societies driven by voluntarism. I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the current model is not the best we can do but you seem unable to consider that evidence. > Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code? Yes? That those communities exist within a work-centric society strongly suggests that work is not required for humans to do useful tasks.
- d1sxeyes 5y ago
  > But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. Again, you may choose to farm, hunt etc. for yourself, and choosing not to work would not therefore result in starvation. > It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers You keep trying to frame my words in this way. I don’t think that anyone deserves a punishment. > You are repeating arguments I have already addressed. I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you. > I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc. > Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the current model is not the best we can do but you seem unable to consider that evidence. I have repeatedly acknowledged problems in the current model. However, evidence of problems with the current model is not evidence of the absence of problems in a different one. At this point I’m starting to feel like you are being deliberately obtuse.
  - bjourne 5y ago
    If you do not work society takes away your ability to acquire food and housing. This is, indeed, a punishment. That is a physical punishment in the exact same sense as being imprisoned is. There is also a psychological punishment due to the ostracization people suffer. The latter may for many be a more severe punishment than the former. Regardless, there is a severe punishment. You keep bringing up "you can farm and hunt" as a cop-out to imply that work is optional. In most countries there is no wilderness with game to hunt in, nor is there unused agricultural land to establish farms on. > I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you. I addressed this point in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30107745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30107745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30101084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30101084 And again, if you can't keep from making this personal this discussion ends (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112316). > > I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. > No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc. That's untrue. I have given you plenty of examples of tasks critical to society that people have executed voluntarily. Attempting to satisfy your demand for examples for every "unpleasant" task you can come up with would be a waste of my time and would not convince you either way. Let's put it this way. What would it take to convince you that a workfree society is possible? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?

bjourne 5y ago

But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. The difference between a ferrari and existence is that that the latter is a right. Every human has the right to exist but none has the right to own a ferrari. It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers (e.g. death) is usually reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The conclusion is that you and the rest of society deem non-working a worse crime than, say, assault which only nets you a few years in prison. > 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. You are repeating arguments I have already addressed. A better model than equating money with value is workfree societies driven by voluntarism. I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the current model is not the best we can do but you seem unable to consider that evidence. > Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code? Yes? That those communities exist within a work-centric society strongly suggests that work is not required for humans to do useful tasks.

d1sxeyes 5y ago
> But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. Again, you may choose to farm, hunt etc. for yourself, and choosing not to work would not therefore result in starvation. > It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers You keep trying to frame my words in this way. I don’t think that anyone deserves a punishment. > You are repeating arguments I have already addressed. I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you. > I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc. > Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the current model is not the best we can do but you seem unable to consider that evidence. I have repeatedly acknowledged problems in the current model. However, evidence of problems with the current model is not evidence of the absence of problems in a different one. At this point I’m starting to feel like you are being deliberately obtuse.
- bjourne 5y ago
  If you do not work society takes away your ability to acquire food and housing. This is, indeed, a punishment. That is a physical punishment in the exact same sense as being imprisoned is. There is also a psychological punishment due to the ostracization people suffer. The latter may for many be a more severe punishment than the former. Regardless, there is a severe punishment. You keep bringing up "you can farm and hunt" as a cop-out to imply that work is optional. In most countries there is no wilderness with game to hunt in, nor is there unused agricultural land to establish farms on. > I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you. I addressed this point in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30107745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30107745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30101084 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30101084 And again, if you can't keep from making this personal this discussion ends (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112316 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112316). > > I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. > No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc. That's untrue. I have given you plenty of examples of tasks critical to society that people have executed voluntarily. Attempting to satisfy your demand for examples for every "unpleasant" task you can come up with would be a waste of my time and would not convince you either way. Let's put it this way. What would it take to convince you that a workfree society is possible? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?