4 ms·

What so wrong about that? She doesn't want to work. Her choice. Get over your puritanical veneration for work. She is wise to have found a way to not work and s

What so wrong about that? She doesn't want to work. Her choice. Get over your puritanical veneration for work. She is wise to have found a way to not work and spend her time in leisure.

wumbernang 11y ago
What is so wrong: It's dishonest. Dishonest as she has built her life on a web of lies at the extreme cost of others. Everything she owns is on credit and has no intention of paying for it for example. If she's short of cash, her solution is to find someone to fuck and get another kid to pay the bills. She has three children. The oldest is disabled but not and has two criminal records already. The middle one has been kicked out of two schools. And she has a social worker for the third one. Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving this legacy. For ref, I'm not for work entirely and as someone who automates people out of it, I understand that there isn't likely to be enough work to go around one day. Also I have three children and actually look after them.
- sgift 11y ago
  > Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving this legacy. That's good to hear, so you dislike our current society, especially the modern work environment? Good for you, I hope more people wise up. I would love to hear your suggestions for an alternative work enivronment and a better society. (Hint: Sarcasm)
  - wumbernang 11y ago
    Star trek has all the answers. (Hint: Facetious :)
- littletimmy 11y ago
  No, that is presupposing that the way the system works is honest and just. I don't agree with that at all. The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working (hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before? Is it somehow noble for her to sell her body into labor to work in a society that can feed all without making her into a wage slave? "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence becomes an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus
  - wumbernang 11y ago
    Actually a better way to deal with the world is to chip in and honestly reap the benefits of hundreds of years of civilisation, industrialisation and the general improvement in quality of life. I mean we can all have that attitude, live off the land and be rebellious but the price we pay for that is a collapse in all the benefits participating in society brings. I doubt you've ever actually tried living like this. I spend a good amount of my spare time tending an allotment and a large garden (as a context switch) and it's hard work just to get some vegetables for leisurely eating, not just to feed yourself with all the other concerns of life as well. My potatoes got rot a couple of years ago; that would have been famine historically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) I'm not sure she could or would even consider digging trenches for your squashes and I'm not sure you would even though you're spurting idealism.
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      False dichotomy. One does not have to be a rabid individualist in one's quest for freedom from wage slavery. There are many political arrangements, such as anarcho-syndicalism, which reject the traditional hiearchies of power but nonetheless enable people to work together to create civilization. What I am talking about is rejecting the modes of power prevalent, not civilization entirely.
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working (hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before? If that's the issue, there is a simple solution. We can provide hunter/gatherer levels of subsistence for anyone who wants it in some roped off, undeveloped land. Anyone who wants latrines, heating, clean water, textiles or metal still needs a job in the modern world. This will cost essentially nothing and will allow people to live as hunter gatherers. Somehow I suspect this isn't quite what you had in mind.
    - ahh 11y ago
ionised 11y ago
The problem with that line of thinking is that her 'free' lifestyle comes from the taxes of others. That causes a lot of resentment among many people. It's basically an abuse of the welfare system.
- littletimmy 11y ago
  It is not "taxes of others". It is simply taxes. You are obliged to give taxes for welfare so that the poor have incentive to sign into the social contract and don't confiscate your private property. Consider it payment for your lifestyle. What incentive would this person not to kill you and take your wealth were she not getting welfare?
  - wumbernang 11y ago
    It is exactly taxes of others. There is no taxation on welfare technically speaking as you didn't create any value to have tax removed from. One of the things that is explicitly allocated from my taxation is policing. In some states/counties in some countries, that doesn't necessarily prevent those who are receiving welfare from taking your property either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
    - littletimmy 11y ago
      Taxes are not only on creation of value, they are also largely derived from ownership of productive assets. That is the one I dispute, for I don't believe that a person naturally ought to accept ownership of all means of productive by those who came before and acquired these assets through whatever means.
  - douche 11y ago
    > What incentive would this person not to kill you and take your wealth were she not getting welfare? A twelve-gauge with #4 buckshot would do the trick nicely. I am obliged to give taxes for welfare because if I don't men with guns from the government will come and confiscate my private property.
eveningcoffee 11y ago
Hey, could you send me some money as I too would like to spend my time in leisure?

What so wrong about that? She doesn't want to work. Her choice. Get over your puritanical veneration for work. She is wise to have found a way to not work and spend her time in leisure.

wumbernang 11y ago

What is so wrong: It's dishonest. Dishonest as she has built her life on a web of lies at the extreme cost of others. Everything she owns is on credit and has no intention of paying for it for example. If she's short of cash, her solution is to find someone to fuck and get another kid to pay the bills. She has three children. The oldest is disabled but not and has two criminal records already. The middle one has been kicked out of two schools. And she has a social worker for the third one. Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving this legacy. For ref, I'm not for work entirely and as someone who automates people out of it, I understand that there isn't likely to be enough work to go around one day. Also I have three children and actually look after them.

sgift 11y ago
> Making a career out of dishonesty isn't acceptable morally. Neither is leaving this legacy. That's good to hear, so you dislike our current society, especially the modern work environment? Good for you, I hope more people wise up. I would love to hear your suggestions for an alternative work enivronment and a better society. (Hint: Sarcasm)
- wumbernang 11y ago
  Star trek has all the answers. (Hint: Facetious :)
littletimmy 11y ago
No, that is presupposing that the way the system works is honest and just. I don't agree with that at all. The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working (hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before? Is it somehow noble for her to sell her body into labor to work in a society that can feed all without making her into a wage slave? "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence becomes an act of rebellion." - Albert Camus
- wumbernang 11y ago
  Actually a better way to deal with the world is to chip in and honestly reap the benefits of hundreds of years of civilisation, industrialisation and the general improvement in quality of life. I mean we can all have that attitude, live off the land and be rebellious but the price we pay for that is a collapse in all the benefits participating in society brings. I doubt you've ever actually tried living like this. I spend a good amount of my spare time tending an allotment and a large garden (as a context switch) and it's hard work just to get some vegetables for leisurely eating, not just to feed yourself with all the other concerns of life as well. My potatoes got rot a couple of years ago; that would have been famine historically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland) I'm not sure she could or would even consider digging trenches for your squashes and I'm not sure you would even though you're spurting idealism.
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    False dichotomy. One does not have to be a rabid individualist in one's quest for freedom from wage slavery. There are many political arrangements, such as anarcho-syndicalism, which reject the traditional hiearchies of power but nonetheless enable people to work together to create civilization. What I am talking about is rejecting the modes of power prevalent, not civilization entirely.
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  The earth is bountiful enough for a person to live off it without working (hunter-gatherer). Is it her fault that she was born at a time when all land and productive capacity has been appropriated by those who came before? If that's the issue, there is a simple solution. We can provide hunter/gatherer levels of subsistence for anyone who wants it in some roped off, undeveloped land. Anyone who wants latrines, heating, clean water, textiles or metal still needs a job in the modern world. This will cost essentially nothing and will allow people to live as hunter gatherers. Somehow I suspect this isn't quite what you had in mind.
  - ahh 11y ago

ionised 11y ago

The problem with that line of thinking is that her 'free' lifestyle comes from the taxes of others. That causes a lot of resentment among many people. It's basically an abuse of the welfare system.

littletimmy 11y ago
It is not "taxes of others". It is simply taxes. You are obliged to give taxes for welfare so that the poor have incentive to sign into the social contract and don't confiscate your private property. Consider it payment for your lifestyle. What incentive would this person not to kill you and take your wealth were she not getting welfare?
- wumbernang 11y ago
  It is exactly taxes of others. There is no taxation on welfare technically speaking as you didn't create any value to have tax removed from. One of the things that is explicitly allocated from my taxation is policing. In some states/counties in some countries, that doesn't necessarily prevent those who are receiving welfare from taking your property either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
  - littletimmy 11y ago
    Taxes are not only on creation of value, they are also largely derived from ownership of productive assets. That is the one I dispute, for I don't believe that a person naturally ought to accept ownership of all means of productive by those who came before and acquired these assets through whatever means.
- douche 11y ago
  > What incentive would this person not to kill you and take your wealth were she not getting welfare? A twelve-gauge with #4 buckshot would do the trick nicely. I am obliged to give taxes for welfare because if I don't men with guns from the government will come and confiscate my private property.

eveningcoffee 11y ago

Hey, could you send me some money as I too would like to spend my time in leisure?