4 ms·

if he refuses to work, he will stop getting money/benefits from the state. If he commits crimes to get money, he will be put in jail. After third crime he will

by smm2000 13y ago

if he refuses to work, he will stop getting money/benefits from the state. If he commits crimes to get money, he will be put in jail. After third crime he will get life sentence and he will not inconvinience society any more. Putting people in jail is expensive but I think society can afford it. Not much different from what we have know. Busywork can be totally environmenrally friendly. For example, manually sorting recycle and compost comes to mind.

bane 13y ago
There's an unlimited supply of very necessary busywork in infrastructure maintenance that's not currently happening right now at both the U.S. Federal and State level. Nothing new needs to be built, just bridges painted, roads resurfaced, water systems cleaned out etc.
icebraining 13y ago
What if he refuses to work because he has a totally valid reason to do so, which was not contemplated by the "all-knowing" State? I see that all the time with unemployment benefits, particularly now that they're increasing the amount of busywork necessary to receive them. "Oh, taking care of your neighbors' daughter while they work is not a valid reason in form A45-3, so you're cut off unless you come to some useless training course"
- bane 13y ago
  Taking care of their neighbors' daughter is not a valid reason not to work. That person had a choice, and made the wrong decision. Just like the person who's daughter it actually is made the choice to go to work instead of stay and watch their daughter. You'll find a great many of the "valid" reasons for not working usually come down to very basic life choices of work or do something that's not work. That being said, I think the state needs to provide basic work support services like childcare, medical care, birth control education and workplace regulation around sick days, parental leave etc. so most of those failed choices go away.
  - icebraining 13y ago
    That raises a few questions. One is that such line of reasoning is inherently authoritarian. What makes you more competent to make that decision over the other person? If it's based on democratic consensus, should we be vote on a Official List of Allowed Activities? To drive the point home, how much do you want to bet that you'd be allowed to be a "coder" in a time when the average person had never seen a computer? Hell, forget coder: what kind of job is "startup founder"? Most of them fail anyway! I say you get a real job. Secondly, is the trust in the bureaucratic machine. Anyone who spent at least a few years in East Berlin before the unification can probably tell you a few good stories about that. Like the postmaster who delivered a few tons of copper during the post office renovations, who then had "delivering tons of copper" assigned as a mandatory job goal for the next three years, until he sorted it out. Related reading: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html

by smm2000 13y ago

bane 13y ago

There's an unlimited supply of very necessary busywork in infrastructure maintenance that's not currently happening right now at both the U.S. Federal and State level. Nothing new needs to be built, just bridges painted, roads resurfaced, water systems cleaned out etc.

icebraining 13y ago

What if he refuses to work because he has a totally valid reason to do so, which was not contemplated by the "all-knowing" State? I see that all the time with unemployment benefits, particularly now that they're increasing the amount of busywork necessary to receive them. "Oh, taking care of your neighbors' daughter while they work is not a valid reason in form A45-3, so you're cut off unless you come to some useless training course"

bane 13y ago
Taking care of their neighbors' daughter is not a valid reason not to work. That person had a choice, and made the wrong decision. Just like the person who's daughter it actually is made the choice to go to work instead of stay and watch their daughter. You'll find a great many of the "valid" reasons for not working usually come down to very basic life choices of work or do something that's not work. That being said, I think the state needs to provide basic work support services like childcare, medical care, birth control education and workplace regulation around sick days, parental leave etc. so most of those failed choices go away.
- icebraining 13y ago
  That raises a few questions. One is that such line of reasoning is inherently authoritarian. What makes you more competent to make that decision over the other person? If it's based on democratic consensus, should we be vote on a Official List of Allowed Activities? To drive the point home, how much do you want to bet that you'd be allowed to be a "coder" in a time when the average person had never seen a computer? Hell, forget coder: what kind of job is "startup founder"? Most of them fail anyway! I say you get a real job. Secondly, is the trust in the bureaucratic machine. Anyone who spent at least a few years in East Berlin before the unification can probably tell you a few good stories about that. Like the postmaster who delivered a few tons of copper during the post office renovations, who then had "delivering tons of copper" assigned as a mandatory job goal for the next three years, until he sorted it out. Related reading: http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/hykKnw1.html