4 ms·

Yep. If you advocate for the end of work and don't address the obvious problem of how you feed, clothe, house, educate, and heal people within 3 paragraphs, the

• mattlutze 11y ago
  His arguments for making the play possible, are 1. To help people around things they might at that moment like to do, 2. then let people do things only as much as they want, 3. then suggests that, for things things almost no one would choose to "play" at, there's people with "aberrant and perverse penchants" who would likely do them. He suggests an example of organizing (or, compelling, i.e. making someone work) small hordes of children that like playing in the mud, to clean bathrooms and toilets. The author is, disconnected, I think. I'd quote Billy Madison at this point but it wouldn't be polite. I'm a bit disappointed this post is making its way up the front page.
• batou 11y ago
  Indeed. What these philosophers, if you can call them that, miss is that history has a number of horrific things we learned from fucking everything up over and over again and killing each other. I'm not sure we're done yet but if we don't learn from those mistakes and hypothesize about just blasting all social contracts away, we're idiots. Society is fragile. Move one chess piece at a time.
  • x5n1 11y ago
    Society is not fragile. Perhaps to minorities societies are fragile in relation to their rights. But societies are robust. Just don't get caught on the wrong side of the fence.