But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not
working leads to starvation and eventually death. The difference
between a ferrari and existence is that that the latter is a
right. Every human has the right to exist but none has the right to
own a ferrari. It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable
for non-workers (e.g. death) is usually reserved for the most heinous
of crimes. The conclusion is that you and the rest of society deem
non-working a worse crime than, say, assault which only nets you a few
years in prison.
> 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.
> But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death.
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.
If you do not work society takes away your ability to acquire food and housing. This is, indeed, a punishment. That is a physical punishment in the exact same sense as being imprisoned is. There is also a psychological punishment due to the ostracization people suffer. The latter may for many be a more severe punishment than the former. Regardless, there is a severe punishment.
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 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?
It feels as though accusing me of making personal attacks is just a way for you to try to get out of the corner you’ve backed yourself into. The comment history is public, anyone can read back and see who started making assumptions about the other first.
> 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.
> It feels as though accusing me of making personal attacks is just a
way for you to try to get out of the corner you’ve backed yourself
into
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.
> 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
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.
> 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.