You're viewing a single thread.
Or and hear me out, the universe we live in isn't going to cater to you. It has nothing to do with what you deserve. What an absurd tweet.
That's certainly what people who expect you to earn your living think. Most of them have inherited their money.
And that fact you're salty about that shows that you clearly do believe people have some responsibilty to earn their income, rather than laying idle.
You're under the mistaken belief that people are inherently lazy and need to be compelled to work.
That's not true, and has been proven again and again.
But the owner class doesn't want people with free time to plan how to overthrow them, so you have to spend half your waking life making someone else rich.
When left to their own devices, as the pandemic showed, people explore many creative and productive activities.
people are inherently lazy and need to be compelled to work
I don't believe I ever said that? but to bite the hook anyway:
Certainly people can be creative without compulsion, but that's a different thing from 'Work' in the economic sense. How many of the 'owner class', as you call them, take up as hobbies an essential role like Nurse, Farmer or Carpenter? How many even shirk a prestigious roles as managers, designers or artists that can nonetheless be of benefit?
Certain activities essential for society are simply too unpleasent to be done in the quantity needed without compensation (I will not say compulsion) being offered.
Ok first: A very large part of human effort is busy work, there have been several studies you can easily find on google scholar.
As for the 'owner's class' hobbies. Time for an education: Have you noticed that the VAST majority of successful streamers are trust fund kiddies? Something to consider.
I used to be part of a consulting team in Boca Raton that specialized in digital house audio before any of the current 'smart house' revolution. Nearly ALL of our clients were wealthy, or very wealthy, because that's the only people who could afford to drop $30k on a server rack just to store their massive vinyl collection.
And every fuckdamn one of them and their kids had a 'hobby'. A lot were charity workers, some painters, some carpenters, a few were teachers in high end private schools.
But ALL of them did something, and they worked less hours and had access to better resources than a hundred people who could have done it better with less if they had the opportunity.
THAT IS WHERE THE PETITE RICHE SEND THEIR KIDS! Art jobs, entertainment jobs.
Did you ever consider that the most prestigious school for the arts in the entire united states caters almost exclusively to trust fund kiddies with a tiny handful of charity cases that show exceeding talent?
Sure you'll never find the kid of a millionaire framing out low cost housing but you DO se them fill their tiktok channels with bespoke art that they make more on the streaming than the selling.
And guess what? If you don't have a way to cover the YEARS it takes to make it, then you have to juggle a 40 hour job and COMPETE with the trust fund kiddies who DON"T HAVE TO and have professional studio and production help.
I have to stop now I'm starting to see red.
How many more underprivileged talented, more appealing people are losing marketshare to highly funded outrage media content creators?
No, I believe society has a responsibility to make sure the most vulnerable of us, such as the disabled who can't earn an income, survive.
Why don't you?
I do, that is included in the term 'responsibility', a parent, teacher or guardian has the responsibility the ensure the welfare and safety of the children under their care. Yet, we do not jail anybody if (for example) a child in their care develops cancer.
Likewise, all people have an obligation to do what they can, but are not to be blamed if they are unable to for no fault of their own.
The saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Even the disabled, in almost all cases, have considerable ability. In many cases it might not be enough to cover their cost of living, and the state must subsidize them, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged from giving back what they can however.
In other words, that child does not need to earn their living. That disabled person does not need to earn their living. They are alive through no fault of their own and society has a duty to keep them alive as much as they can.
Life is not earned. You do deserve to be alive.
No.
In the case of the child, they are expected to earn their living upon adulthood. In the case of the disabled person they are expected to earn their living in the event of a suitable cure or accomodation.
No one, neither me nor you has an inalienable right to be alive, how could we when it is a right that one day nature will in no uncertain terms, deny us?
You might as well declare space flight a human right.No one, neither me nor you has an inalienable right to be alive
I mean... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (plus, you know, murder laws) may disagree with you. But have fun with your libertarianism.
Ok, prosecute all eight billion of us for the murder of the seventy million that died last year, see how that works out for you.
Look you live in whatever imaginary land where we've reached some star trek utopia where everyone's needs are meet; and I'll touch grass and live in the real world where a vast majority of the planet would kick your ass out for not contributing, and those that would let you live and eat off their work probably live is some of the most impoverished conditions you deal with.
Pragmatic thinking is dead replaced by this vapid rhetoric. You can support you fucking fellow person while expecting them to contribute.
My imaginary land, which I admit is imaginary, is one where we all agreed that people have a basic right to survive and the idea that someone "deserved to die" was not a thing.
But it sure would be nice if the wealthy people who ran this world didn't make you think it was. Which they apparently have done.
The Star Trek utopia WOULD be fantastic... everyone does what they are good at / enjoy, and their basic human needs are met. The people with some issue that can be corrected thru technology, such as a visor to correct blindness, can perform equally well if not better and can contribute to society. The downfall will be the people who just absolutely cannot contribute in any way still have their basic needs met. I'm not saying that they shouldn't.... but the general idea that "they don't contribute so why should I have to contribute" WILL be there for some to use as an excuse to try to game the system to get something for nothing. Then someone that is contributing, doing what they are good at / enjoy, looks up one day and realizes that where they used to only "have to work 10 hours a week" they now have to work 20 hours a week to continue to support the incapable, which is good, but also to support the lazy "if he doesn't then why should I" group, which is not good..... then even more people jump on the if it's free it's for me train. Then before you know it you have one person working 60 plus hours a week, instead of 10, to have their basic needs met while supporting 4 others that refuse to contribute AND the one that really is incapable of contributions. And when that one person expects greater compensation for their workload or just naturally acquires greater compensation thru hard work they are demonized for their greed and wealth accumulated from their hard work. Meanwhile more people line up with their soft hands out for more free stuff. IF everyone pulled equally to the best of their ability that would be great.... but they won't. There will always be people who work harder to get more. There will always be people who work less and expect the same as the one working hard. There will always be people who won't work at all and still expect someone else to supply them with their basic needs plus a McMansion, new car, cell phone, and and and.... Meanwhile there are people, who thru no fault of their own cannot contribute, struggling to have their needs met because there are so many freeloaders in the system that available resources are stretched too thin. . .
Maybe if everyone would do their part and work to the best of their ability doing what they are good at / enjoy to have their basic needs met.....
True... However within this universe we have constructed a society that is capable of doing this very thing if we choose to. It's people with attitudes like yours though, that prevent that from happening.
Our society exists entirely to shield the individual from the horrors of the universe. However our society also only has the power to do so because of individual contributions. Now I'm all for making our society efficient enough that we can create a safety net at the lower end. But we must take care, because the more a group is removed from this give-and-take the less bargaining power they have to change how the society is run. This is already happening and it's kind of inevitable that it will get worse, so we'd better figure it out now.
I think people seeing their own responsibility as natural instead of artificially imposed would go a long way toward helping people be happy.
No, our society is not capable of keeping everyone alive without effort.
I don’t know how that could make any sense to you, but whoever it is that said that to you needs to be treated with skepticism from now on.
Or hear me out, humanity has collectively solved nearly every resource shortage problem but poverty is artificially created to compel people to work for others.
It should be a human right not to starve to death, do you disagree?