• @Ummdustry
    link
    -54 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      114 months ago

      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.

      • @Ummdustry
        link
        1
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          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?

    • Flying Squid
      cake
      OP
      link
      fedilink
      64 months ago

      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?

      • @Ummdustry
        link
        34 months ago

        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.

        • Flying Squid
          cake
          OP
          link
          fedilink
          34 months ago

          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.

          • @Ummdustry
            link
            04 months ago

            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.

              • @Ummdustry
                link
                04 months ago

                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.

                  • @Ummdustry
                    link
                    14 months ago

                    Positive Vs. Negative rights, we’ve been talking about it this entire time. Saying “You can’t murder him” is different from “You can’t let him die”