> 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.
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.