I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.
What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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=30101084 And again, if you can't keep from making this personal this discussion ends (see 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?
> 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.
This is a fair point, and I’ll concede on that.
> 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?
What would it take to convince you you that you can survive on water and light alone? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?
In all seriousness though, I believe that workfree (per your definition of work) societies can (and do) exist, but they cannot work on a macro scale. I believe this because in ‘workfree’ societies, members are assigned roles and complete tasks still, the only difference is that there’s no exchange of money.
This works because individuals are able to independently verify whether everyone in the community is pulling their weight. Without every individual being able to do that to every other individual, then you either a) simply have to trust people, which has historically tended to result in a few taking advantage of the many, or b) come up with some way of attesting work has been done, which is just another name for money.
By your definition any society which uses money cannot be a workfree society.
What corner? I'm spending my free time teaching you about work philosophies you haven't heard of. The personal attacks you keep repeating is that I'm arguing that others should work for me and that I shouldn't have to work. If you believe that is the point of my argument then I'm wasting my time.
> This is a fair point, and I’ll concede on that.
Even if wilderness and unused farmland existed in abundance taking advantage of it requires you to disconnect from society. It is not feasible to live that way.
> In all seriousness though, I believe that workfree (per your definition of work) societies can (and do) exist, but they cannot work on a macro scale.
Societies in general do not exist on macro scales. Nations are not societies, they are abstractions whose purpose is to organize work. Of course I can't tell how the world would look like if work became voluntary. I doubt global cooperation would be harder than it is today.
> This works because individuals are able to independently verify whether everyone in the community is pulling their weight.
You are still unable to see that the point of work freedom is that executing useful tasks is not "pulling weight" or "picking up slack" (an expression you used before). If you enjoy what you are doing what difference does it make whether someone is pulling weight or not?
> By your definition any society which uses money cannot be a workfree society.
Yes, kind of. If the distribution of money is uneven society is probably not workfree.
This is not a personal attack. It's literally what you have said. The following are direct quotes: "why should I have to work?"[0]. "we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all? Sure."[1]
If you don't believe that the things you say are the points of your argument, then I agree one or both of us are wasting our time.
> Even if wilderness and unused farmland existed in abundance taking advantage of it requires you to disconnect from society. It is not feasible to live that way. > Societies in general do not exist on macro scales.
I don't understand. If you're saying there's no such thing as society on a macro scale, then what 'society' are you disconnecting from? Why would you not be able to have a society in the wilderness or on the farmland?
> If you enjoy what you are doing what difference does it make whether someone is pulling weight or not?
Absolutely not! Right up until you expect things which are the products of someone else's labour to be provided for you.
0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30102349 1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30128236