Capitalism and Cozy Games
blog.glyph.im
blog.glyph.im
So it's not just that it's a world where you won't starve in a ditch for not working hard enough, but a world where your reward is reliably and indefinitely proportionate to your labor investment. If you work hard, you will succeed; the harder you work, the more you will succeed. Who wouldn't want to live and work in that world?
Game design is fundamentally about feeding a steady flow of novelty to players. Too little and the game gets boring immediately, too much and the development team can't produce new content fast enough, or the game is too short. I can imagine someone arguing that we could rotate people through jobs as their interest fades, but we should be skeptical that we can maintain our standard of living when most jobs are being done by people whose professional experience includes novelty at the rate even a dull game offers.
Think about it, how many people are cheerfully running shops because the shop is also their community? People need to feel useful. They need to feel valued. They need community. Work provides all these things.
Also, many jobs do provide many forms of novelty as one can seek to continually improve at them.
Even as a game, it doesn't fulfill the same kind of enjoyment as the tycoon games. It's fun no doubt, but its not the same kind of fun. There is no struggle or risk in AC, only idle grind. Part of what makes economy games fun is watching the charts, seeing them turn downwards, and trying everything you can to turn those charts back around. Taking risks, having them either propel you to success or ruin your business.
Imagine if the Nook store was not just a void where items come and go infinitely but it was an actual market networked with other players. The value of most of the items in the game would drop to 0, the game would become significantly harder and less casual.
No one would exchange their gold nuggets for clumps of weeds, no matter how many weeds you offer.
Who would want to? There are a lot of jobs in the real world that do work this way, and they are generally not the most desirable jobs. E.g. data entry or picking fruit or customer support or working on an assembly line.
The ability to improve, scale your work, and over time make a bigger impact with less effort is one of the key things that makes any kind of work interesting.
Not to mention a lot of the the most desirable jobs, like, say, professional athlete or movie star, tend to work very differently than what you're describing. Many people work very hard in those fields and never succeed, it's the combination of hard work and skill and a little bit of luck/randomness that makes it interesting.
Maybe software folks are a different breed (perhaps because code and computers are like Adult Legos) but I can’t agree more.
I love what I do, and I often struggle with “my employer is clearly exploiting my desire to work late this weekend” with my literal desire to work late this weekend.
I can’t imagine a world where code is written by computers, that’s maximum cruelty to me.
And only people that really love it will be able to work in that.
Software written by a human may feel more like hand woven cotton than hand made shoes.
Small game dev communities are close to this, but I can't think of other software that's really similar.
What they don't seem to like is other people having massive control over their schedule to perform their work.
Of course, some people hate to work, and some people have crappy jobs no matter how much flexibility they have.
They'd seem to run counter to your idea of what people would do if they didn't have to work.
People do tons of work even when they’re not being told to, in my experience. It’s sometimes “worth” a ton less than the time they put into it, and they’re usually making little or no money at it, but that doesn’t make it not-work.
But yes, people do many things as hobbies that other people do as work.
If I didn't have work to go to, things would indeed be pretty dark, but that doesn't mean I'd prefer falling into a hole of substance abuse and tech addiction.
I can't speak what else all of them do, but one is a frequent source of information on free concerts and plays, local art exhibitions, and so on.
The idea came up in an MMO video, because it attempts to make the claim that grindy MMOs are enjoyable to certain people because it is work they enjoy doing.
If I can dive into some coding one week and whip the garden and landscaping into shape the next and work on a book the next et c, I thrive working longer hours than that.
It’s when I’m doing the same. Damn. Shit. Day after day, week after week, month after month, that I feel drained to exhaustion after doing just a few hours of it.
> Maybe software folks are a different breed (perhaps because code and computers are like Adult Legos) but I can’t agree more.
This is worth a read: "Why did the metaverse die? Because Silicon Valley doesn’t understand the concept of fun" (https://www.fastcompany.com/90965361/why-did-the-metaverse-d...):
> The problems begin with the way Silicon Valley looks at the value of time. This is something I explored as part of the research project I run, called Components. In mid-2022, I analyzed seven years of Product Hunt, the popular clearinghouse for new tech products that has been described as “a must-read website in the VC world,” and a site that investors have come to use “as a sourcing mechanism.” ...
> First, throughout the seven-year period studied, apps tagged with “productivity” gradually dominated the field, going from a minor attribute in the beginning to more than 40 percent of all new products launched by the end....
> ...These apps didn’t metastasize out of nowhere—they reflected the value system of their funders and creators. ... In other words, Wajcman learned, these productivity tools were used to facilitate the creation of more productivity tools. ...
> This leads to the third, and most crucial, finding: Those promoting productivity apps on Product Hunt and those promoting games did not simply tend to be different people—they were the least likely to be the same people among any pair of the 120 most common categories on the site. ...
> In Bataille’s framing, then, what separates the two opposite groups in our Product Hunt analysis is how they understand waste, and means and ends. The gamers assign meaning to wasted time by viewing it as an end in itself to which other means are directed, and naturally orienting all activities toward the maximization of that waste. The productivity app cohort forces itself into an infinite cycle of waste minimization, in which surplus time must be continuously reinvested for further saving, and the means become the ends themselves. The perfectly ordered Google calendar does not facilitate other goals — it is the goal.
> ...
> There are plenty of exceptions to this whole rubric, of course. Any gamer who has had to contend with the petty coerciveness of large studios like Rockstar or Activision Blizzard knows that accountability in the games industry only goes so far. But unlike the bulk of what Silicon Valley has produced over its nearly 15-year bull run, the metaverse had to actually work as advertised, and what it advertised was freeform play. Not only is the Silicon Valley ecosystem not really interested in playing games, but fails to understand why anyone else would either. As London School of Economics professor Wajcman put it, “Calendars will never ask us what we want to save time for,” and neither will any of the other productivity tools. They might be able to help us save time, but they can’t help us waste it.
Where I'm from (southern Europe) my experience is this is far from true. Most people work as a means to an end, and often look for ways to skimp on it.
Sure, people might say "I like my job", with the implicit concession that they indeed need a job to live. If they could keep the same lifestyle without a job, I doubt most of them would keep doing what they do.
It's like cheating in a video game, there might be one part that's really hard and you really just want to get past it, if you grind away and eventually succeed, it's far more rewarding than if you use cheats to skip it.
We've been living in that world since the '80s, most of us; almost nobody writes code anymore. Computers write all the code for us, via software we call "compilers", and we merely give the computers high-level instructions indicating what we want them to do. In fact the majority of programmers these days don't even bother to generate or interact with code, preferring to feed their instructions into interpreters instead!
Python, Java, C++: it's all code, not "high-level instructions indicating what we want them to do"
"feed their instructions into interpreters instead" : that's what "writing code" has meant, since the invention of COBOL and FORTRAN. If that weren't true, then liberal arts majors wouldn't need a code school to learn to do it.
That is rather my point, which I perhaps expressed in too ironic a mode: when people newly discovering the capabilities of LLMs worry about the idea of machines writing code for us, I think they are missing historical perspective, in which we can clearly see layer after layer of machines writing code for us. Whatever mature form LLM-driven tools may take, operating them will ultimately be just another form of coding.
It was very well disguised, then. You said:
"We've been living in that world since the '80s, most of us; almost nobody writes code anymore"
which implies that only Assembler counts as "writing code."
Alas, not all attempts at humor succeed; not for everyone, anyway.
In the same way, we need not fear a future in which machines write code for us, as the previous commenter did, because we can expect that transition to rhyme with previous transitions involving tools which automated code generation in other ways. We can expect that the use of LLM-based tools will feel just as natural, once they have settled in, as the use of compilers and interpreters does to us today.
“stability” and “fragility” also rhyme
It's fun to chop down a tree when it's a button press and a few seconds of waiting, and not when you actually need to swing your axe for a half hour before a single tree comes down. And then realize that you need to split the logs in half and do about 10 more to make enough firewood to last tonight's snowstorm.
It's fun to sit fish when it's a rhythm game, timing button presses, but real fish aren't predictable timing patterns for you to master, they're living beings scared of dying, trying to fight the predator that's going to kill them. It's not fun to that feeding your family tonight means getting enough fish to survive. It's not fun to realize you've run a lake dry of fish and have to move to find new food.
Animal Crossing isn't work, it's play. It's an advanced form of playing house with dolls. Of course people want to do that.
Who provides the health care, education and housing? Actually providing (a large part of) all these things, and many other goods and services that we expect to exist at reasonable prices, is much more tiring, and much less dopamine-inducing, than clicking a mouse while seated comfortably at your desk.
The concrete example I favour is cleaning toilets. Every city-dwelling person uses a toilet regularly; toilets need to be cleaned periodically, and there's a lower bound on how much time and effort that takes. Thus some constant fraction of all human effort must be devoted to cleaning toilets. I can imagine a janitor simulation game, in which people click a few times to "clean", becoming popular. But I can't imagine anyone cleaning toilets for free in their spare time.
And Grand Theft Auto shows us that there is a bunch of people who would run around stealing cars, beating up and shooting people for the fun of it.
Or else maybe there is very limited information you can take from a computer game people play for enjoyment and generalize to society at large.
I caution over-saturating the metaphor[0]. I think the author (and majority of readers) are smart enough to know that video games aren't 100% accurate representations of reality. They're games after all. However, as a medium, much like fiction novels, it can be used to explain ideas and get points across in a way that people can relate to.
[0]: Not that I sanction such behavior but there is an entire criminal element that more or less does exactly this in society no? There in fact, are people that want to do this on some level. At any rate, you can take any metaphor, and over-saturate its meaning to the point of being meaningless.
As an on-topic tangent, I saw a post on social media recently where a guy showed off his incredibly accurate controller setup for a trucking simulator game. A realistic truck dashboard, steering wheel, chair and 180 degrees of screens. You could say this is just a hobby and his way of relaxing. But it felt deeper than that, like maybe this guy would actually enjoy driving a real truck without all the soul-sucking BS that comes with a trucker job.
Another quick example is another social media post where a young woman got bored, dressed up as a Target employee, and actually did some work that an employee might do.
Reading this article, I really do agree that people want to work. They just don’t want to deal with the soul-sucking stuff. Modern capitalism has a way of ruining any potential enjoyment a job might have.
The developers can design Tom Nook to not be cruel because he is an NPC that was designed not to be cruel. Imagine if Animal Crossing was an MMO and Tom Nook was actually another human player. Do you think he would be as kind and forgiving or would some of that cruelty slip back into the world due simply to that Nook character maximizing their own experience of the game? And that isn't necessarily any fault of Nook. They are just viewing the world through a different viewpoint. From their viewpoint, someone occupying their property while not paying is likely going to be viewed as cruel too. Because that is the fundamental trait of capitalism, competition. Any type of zero-sum game is going to have winners and losers and the losers will feel that as cruelty.
There is a reason that most multiplayer games in which you play with the open internet are harsh and unfriendly places, because the average player cares about their own experience and fun infinitely more than they care about yours. That is a better simulation of the real world than a single player game in which everything can be designed for the enjoyment of a single person because that is what happens in the real world too. My landlord cares about their own financial wellbeing infinitely more than they care about mine and therefore their behavior towards me feels cruel.
I don't agree with your sentiment but I think it's an interesting question.
As a counterpoint, consider "One Hour, One Life" by Jason Rohrer [0]. It's an MMO where you spend an hour, or less, living out the life of a player character, starting off as a baby then progressing on through old age. The dynamics of the game are such that you are necessarily completely dependent on other player characters for your survival during the first few minutes of your session.
> There is a reason that most multiplayer games in which you play with the open internet are harsh and unfriendly places, ...
I would guess that this is because they're designed that way. Combat and antagonism are what's customarily used for game play mechanics, so it's no wonder they end up being combative and antagonistic towards players.
Different game mechanics lead to different styles of play. Note that the games I most enjoy playing with friends are co-op, not vs.
[0] https://store.steampowered.com/app/595690/One_Hour_One_Life/
Yes and that was basically my point. Capitalism is inherently about competition. It is a versus game. You can find niche games that were specifically designed to elicit different behavior or play with friends who will have some investment in your enjoyment/wellbeing, but those would get you even further from a simulation of the real world in which most people you interact with on a capitalistic basis are indifferent to you.
I too, am a centrist. We can have capitalism without the cruelty (and the tragedy of commons and external costs on the environment) where markets exist but have limits that don't allow it to lead into exploitation, that is the idea anyway.
Here in the USA, there seems to be a big red flag on the idea of implementing social good programs[0] like universal healthcare, UBI and many other programs. They're not panaceas, but they're a big net good increase on society at large.
Funnily enough, once Americans have these programs and they manage to seed themselves in society, they fight like dogs to keep them. Look at the protests around Republicans trying to roll back major provisions in the Affordable Care Act. Their own base shut it down, because a sizable Republican voting block is lower middle class and receive more government assistance then you might get the impression of as an outsider.
[0]: Often called social welfare, but the term welfare in US politics is heavily tainted. I didn't want to trigger preconceived notions.
When money is the name of the game in elections, the legislature, and even the justice system, how is it even theoretically possible to implement capitalism without the bad stuff? The best you can do is hope the capitalists are nice.
There is lots of bad stuff too, but the social programs can (theoretically) minimize the negative impacts of capitalism.
If everyone has access to food, shelter, transportation, health care, and mental health care (regardless of whether it's gourmet food or luxury shelter), people as a whole are going to be much better off than they currently are, and it will very much weaken the ability of capital to compel people to do things they'd rather not.
I'd argue there would still be problems with such a system, but it's leagues better than what we have now.
I obviously agree that social programs are necessary for a just and humane society. But I also think the opposition from military-industrial complex, energy lobbies, and rent-seekers of all stripes make it impossible to implement these programs effectively. Because at the end of the day the root of the problem is capitalism.
We haven't really seen socialism/communism without a high degree of authoritarianism, which I also don't really like, so I'm inclined to support working towards socialism democratically rather than trying to overthrow the government in a bloody revolution.
I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital. An example would be high property taxes for people/businesses owning a house that isn't their primary residence, which would go to fund social housing.
And we haven't had capitalism without rampant homelessness, corruption, systemic violence, exploitation of the global poor, and various other forms of avoidable misery. The status quo is bloody too, just not for people like me (and I assume like you).
> I do think we need a radical rethinking of the role of state in this in order to make it work though; ideally the state and worker collectives benefit from advantages that make it difficult for the capitalists to steamroll over them on the market, which over time leads to the weakening of capital
I want the same thing, but my understanding is that you can't get the state to align with workers against capital because capital will always outcompete workers at amassing resources simply through scale. One capitalist can extract surplus value from many many many workers at once, and use that value to buy more workers, to the ultimate end of buying the state through lobbying and funding campaigns.
Is there some way we don't end up back where we began?
You may say these things can be considered to benefit capital (because workers who get vacation work better) and I don't necessarily disagree with that point. But the truth is, the existence of a social safety net makes workers unwilling to tolerate some degree of abuse from capital (instead they now have to use undocumented workers if they really need a pool of workers who will tolerate high levels of abuse.)
So if the working class can organize to revolutionize the role of state, and have it compete in the markets for things like social housing, social food, etc, then the state is now working for the people, and aligning with capital will go against the state's interests in addition to the interests of proletarians.
So you get these well-meaning posts about how maybe life would be better if we could keep personal property and freedom and progress as a species, but lose the alienation from labour, coercive pressure, and basically everything else that literally defines capitalism and perpetuates what is bad about our system.
I had the same blind spot for most of my life, but at some point it dawned on me that everything I like about the current system is compatible with socialism, but the changes I would like to see are incompatible with capitalism.
That, sir, is a political platform with some level of appeal.
The difference is that Dark Souls and Factorio can synthesize the mental feeling of work and success without anything being provided to others. I could work on a construction site all day and still count down the hours until I can get home and play Powerwashing Simulator. A lot of our hobbies have become pornographic versions of work.
I'm not morally opposed to a world of "free stuff", but while we still need bread and cars and QC on airplane door plugs we still need people who are motivated to do menial and boring jobs.
Or pornographic versions of skill or learning. The entire point of Guitar Hero was to provide a simulated feeling of competence and skill. You set the difficulty level, spend a small amount of time learning to mash some buttons just so, and all the sudden you're a guitar god, perfectly playing some famous rock song. It felt awesome.
I think it's super suspect to try to determine how people could behave in the real world based on how they behave in twisted-to-be-fun worlds of video games. So while I agree with the OP's criticism of the "hardcore capitalist bootstrap grindset ideologues," I don't think that observations from cozy games can be applied without literally making the real world a cozy game, which would require a lot of "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" shit.
I vividly recall how some percentage of people who were excellent at Guitar Hero went on to try and learn the real guitar, buying them and everything, to be completely deflated quite quickly.
I sometimes wonder if the height of Guitar Hero had any real impact on guitar sales, as I can only provide anecdotes but I don't think I'm alone in witnessing this phenomenon
This is dumb and wrong. People love to work, as long as the work is not smelly, or painful, or difficult. And as long as you can quit when you want, and do it in your own time, and you have no boss giving you feedback.
I'm all for universal healthcare, education, housing, and disability and unemployment benefits.
But a basic income, if large enough for somebody to live comfortably _will_ result in huge numbers of people dropping out of the work force. They will just play these cosy games rather than go out in the world and do hard things.
But I don't believe we could ever make a basic income comfortable because I think inflation will instantly gobble up any increases we make. If you increase the ubi by $50 bucks a month, the cost of beer and rent will increase $50 in the same month.
Few things here I want to point out that I find problematic with this.
One is, perhaps we should let go of the idea that everyone needs to work. There will, simply put, be a % of people who given the choice, would rather opt out of this and do something else with that time. It may be playing games and doing other things that generally aren't considered productive. Perhaps forcing these types of people into the workforce isn't good for the workforce in the first place. Perhaps there is a reason these people feel demotivated to participate in the labor market. Its worth considering the idea that perhaps these are not people who are generally going to be value add, and perhaps serves everyone better by allowing them to opt out of the workforce in the first place.
Second, its not all that binary. People may well be that they opt to do something that at the time doesn't have a lot of traditional monetary value but instead social value, like murals, public art etc. It may be something else entirely that does manage to move society forward, it just wasn't obvious at the time, who knows. Its not binary, like everyone who opts out of the traditional workforce in this paradigm will only engage in self gratifying behavior. Humans are complicated, and all of us respond to new paradigms differently.
Third: by guaranteeing a "floor" of failure to which someone can fall back on, it becomes infinitely easier for the "little guy" to take more risks without requiring someone to seek outside capital in the beginning (or perhaps at all), or otherwise take on debt (such as a business loan). We know in software that businesses can start small, but often pressures of needing funding force businesses that perhaps should have grown more organically to seek VC funding, dooming them to the VC treadmill that could just as well kill the business due to outside pressures. By having a livable floor you reduce alot of personal risk when you gotta think about your family and health insurance over starting a business, because starting a business is the bigger risk.
Fourth: Human nature isn't this binary at all. Lots of people would still choose to participate in higher rungs of society. We are talking about a minimum here, and if human nature has proven anything, its that people will always be striving to be above the minimum of anything. Smaller scale studies in Canada where they implement UBI in a whole town as an experiment have proven this to be true: The overwhelming majority of participants still kept working, even though they explicitly had the option not to. Many used it to improve themselves through education, investing leftover portions for the future etc. People still want to be rich, if you will.
Five: Ultimately, the labor market will simply have to evolve to be more palatable in attracting people to do the work. What that looks like would vary, but it would have to happen, and I think this is a good thing.
And finally, those with disabilities and other things that prevent them from participating in the labor market as it exists today would be able to live more comfortably, and that shouldn't be overlooked.
>But I don't believe we could ever make a basic income comfortable because I think inflation will instantly gobble up any increases we make
We'd need to try it on some scale to see if that assumption is true. Given the scope of social programs in Western Europe, I don't think its this simple.
I _did_ say we need both disability and unemployment benefits to support people who can't or choose not participate in the workforce for whatever reason. I agree that we should support somebody who might want to drop out and write the nest great novel. But I don't think its unreasonable for those people to feel like they have to go without some luxuries.
I think it's OK to choose to be poor in exchange for total freedom, and we should insure that even the poorest of us have food, shelter, education, and health care.
UBI experiments that don't don't guarantee the income for life are obviously not going to induce people to quit a job.
UBI says we need to give everybody the same amount of cash to be fair, I just don't agree that we need to give it to everybody, and perhaps that giving out lots of cash will have unintended consequences.
Though, sure, inability to account for how much that’s worth might make our productivity metrics go nuts.
Regardless, I don't think a ton of people would be content with UBI money and would probably do at least some paying work anyway. People want to live a certain place, have a certain lifestyle, provide for a family (have a family!), send the kids to good schools, have nice stuff, have some pocket money for doing stuff with friends, et c., and none of that goes away just because everyone's getting enough money to scrape by. Concerns about an epidemic of people declining to do anything productive because they won't literally starve on the street if they don't, seem like fantasy to me, and I've yet to see any remotely-serious proposal for UBI that pays out enough that people wouldn't still want to double, or triple, or quadruple that amount, by also having a job.
I know some folks who are probably in the category of people that some worry would stop working entirely (low-paid, not-great prospects, drug enjoyers to a greater degree than is probably, ah, healthy) but guarantee they would not. They'd still want to have money for, like, all the stuff you can spend money on that's not barely-scraping-by, and they'd want it enough to keep working. Now, they might put up with a little less bullshit at work, and employers & managers that can't seem to help treating everyone terribly may have to adjust, or else suffer, if being unemployed isn't quite as bad as it is now....
People love to work when it's literally playing a video game yes (see the initial demand for game testers), but most people do not want to work an actual job (see the turnover rate for game testers). I think you would be hard-pressed to find people willing to collect garbage if you didn't pay them well for it. Some things in life are just flat-out not enjoyable but need done, so society needs a method of motivating people to do unfun jobs.
Why must the market be purely capitalistic? Rather, why any market must bare the mark of others is curious to me; similar as they may be some should not be equal.
Hypothetically - why not make raw materials in the traditional market(s) while also giving it a credit rating (valued in the market based on sustainability) - one that is transferable only against those same credits. So if a public need requires (x) and gains (theoretical) democratic support, credits can be used in place of monetary requirement to build these required needs.
No, they demonstrate that games are not real life. And the people who play Animal Crossings are just a subset of real people.
In animal crossing, the player doesn't feel the characters cold, hunger, head aches, sleep deprivation or flue.
The player doesn't really experience the dreadful responsibility for a kid not to die, the requirement to fill forms, queue with irritated people, be stuck in traffic or the sub every day, etc.
And above that, the interactions are in this context. Nobody tries to hit on your girlfriend who you built your life with, no divorce can take half of your house, no firing send you back to your country because your visa depend on it. You don't have an asshole boss, an entitled customer, an asshole clerk or a depressed librarian.
Prosperity is easier when things are predictable, you have low risk and people are homogeneous. E.G: it's easier to live as a Swiss in your own country than as Tunisian refugee in china.
You don’t have to go find the shovels, mulch, scrap cardboard, whatever. Maybe craft a shovel, but that may take less time than walking to the garage. It’s a minute or less to reach the spot you want to plant it. You will not dig and hit a big rock and have to relocate, or have to worry about hitting utilities. The tree’s roots will not trash your sidewalk if you plant it in the wrong place. The tree will not fail to grow.
“Work” in video games is rarely anything at all like real life “work”, even before you layer on workplace bureaucracy and regulations and stuff. There’s no mess, no danger, (generally) no actual costs, and usually you can’t really screw it up, and if you do, there are no actual consequences. Stuff like travel times or how long it takes to do boring tasks are usually compressed.
Don't these people either have much less or work much harder (alone) by opting out?
By my significant other's standards, I was very lazy in Animal Crossing... all I wanted to do was plant flowers. They wanted to build a neighborhood and collect all the furniture. I didn't grind as much, but I also wanted less.
However, _taxes_ are, at the end of the day, taking money from individuals, via the implicit (and sometimes explicit) threat of violence. Taxes (as in money collected with the threat of violence) are immoral.
Capitalism in it's idealistic state seeks to give everyone agency in what they do, and let the market reward or punish those actions.
However, of course, while communism requires the creation of "the state" (and therefore taxes) to enforce the state of things, capitalism encourages the creation of "the state", so in the end it doesn't really matter.
I guess capitalism gives you a few minutes before "the state" is created.
Social programs are good, in fact, great! Having safety nets lets people take risks they otherwise would not, and it's those risks that can advance society.
However when you knock on my door and say pay for this social program or I will xyz, it's not a social program anymore it's social order at the threat of violence.
The "or else" with social programs needs to be "or else the place that you live will be a terrible place to live"
Edit: I guess formally it's called a goad
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goad
The phrase I'm pulling this from is "don't kick against the pricks"
So for instance according to MMT taxes create an ongoing demand for currency and are a tool to take money out of an economy that is getting overheated. This goes against the conventional idea that taxes are primarily meant to provide the government with money to spend to build infrastructure, fund social welfare programs, etc.
It's a bit the same idea with another modern approach FTPL but in that case with a more cautious and critical look, saying that low taxes allow high inflation and prevents the government from the need to pay its debt.
In any case the real question all those systems try to solve is how to best allocate resources, maximize innovation, growth, employment and limit poverty and inequalities. Be careful that thinking that poor people are stealing your resources with taxes don't become a shortcut for you to accept the tough idea that you have more resources than you need and some people should have less than what they need to support you.
Be careful thinking that the only way to help those in need or to redistribute abundance is through the threat of violence.