6 ms·

It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty.

aliasxneo 12d ago
What if health and liberty to someone looks like them not providing any net positive to society? What compels someone to work 12 hours a day to share those resources with such a person?
- MrDrMcCoy 12d ago
  Some people look to the nice things they have and think to themselves "I want everyone to have these things."
  - aliasxneo 12d ago
    No argument there. The question is whether history shows us that that represents a majority or minority of people.
- AndrewKemendo 12d ago
  Sounds like an unhealthy person and situation such that 12 hours of labor is mandatory Step one would be to help them get into a situation where that wasn’t true
  - aliasxneo 12d ago
    If enough people decide they want to spend their liberty not working, then the 12 hours is a necessity, not something "unhealthy" about the person.
    - AndrewKemendo 12d ago
      Sounds like you’ve got your world model rock solid
      - aliasxneo 12d ago
        It mostly just feels like basic maths, not really a world model. Productivity is a finite resource. If there's a deficit in productivity, people will necessarily suffer and, in the worst case, die. The problem is world views that suggest giving everyone a free choice that enough people will choose productivity while everyone else chooses leisure. I'd be more apt to believe it if we had evidence of it being a natural outcome.
        pocksuppet 12d ago
        It doesn't have to be so extreme though. Basic scenario: 20% of everyone's income is taxed and then distributed equally to everyone (no matter what, and without setting any fixed dollar amount), another 10% pays for administrative functions and government stuff except welfare, and the remaining 70% is theirs to do with as they please. What would happen? Would everyone quit their job? I don't think so, because 70% is a lot. Some people with jobs that pay so poorly their 70% is less than everyone's average 20% would quit, but that's good, because those were zombie jobs.
        aliasxneo 12d ago
        I'd be fine with this so long as people who didn't contribute any taxes couldn't vote. Otherwise you're just signing up for those who choose to work to get exploited by the leisurely.
        pocksuppet 12d ago
        How much is "none"? Exactly $0.00? Can someone who donates $0.01 to the government every year vote?
        AndrewKemendo 11d ago
        “I need the world to comfort my fears” You’re correct. A society filled with people with this view can’t work
        Moomoomoo309 10d ago
- awakeasleep 12d ago
  You’re making a point about loafers but non-wage earners are always going to outnumber wage earners, and able bodied loafers are a minute fraction of who we must provide for (the young, the elderly, students, the disabled, etc)
PorciiVorbesc 12d ago
>It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty. In the Europe, like several rich western countries, we mostly replaced the extended family with the government welfare state, for better but mostly for worse. So current young workers are contributing to a failing state ponzi pension system that will leave them in poverty by the time they retire in several decades, and they will also lack the care of the extended family unit that was the norm decades ago thanks to collapsed birth rates. Double whammy.
- AndrewKemendo 12d ago
  Doesn’t sound very much like a healthy family to me
  - PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
    WDYM?
briandw 11d ago
Unfortunately this does not work at nation scale. We are not insects. Tribes fail at levels over a few hundred and that scale only works because of blood ties. Communism has failed to produce good outcomes every time it's been tried. Even coops aren't competitive with traditional corporations.
- AndrewKemendo 11d ago
  Agreed, the human biological system likely needs radical augmentation in order to actually realize such a system The median cortical volume fails beyond dunbars number, so some kind of compensation is needed

What if health and liberty to someone looks like them not providing any net positive to society? What compels someone to work 12 hours a day to share those resources with such a person?

MrDrMcCoy 12d ago
Some people look to the nice things they have and think to themselves "I want everyone to have these things."
- aliasxneo 12d ago
  No argument there. The question is whether history shows us that that represents a majority or minority of people.
AndrewKemendo 12d ago
Sounds like an unhealthy person and situation such that 12 hours of labor is mandatory Step one would be to help them get into a situation where that wasn’t true
- aliasxneo 12d ago
  If enough people decide they want to spend their liberty not working, then the 12 hours is a necessity, not something "unhealthy" about the person.
  - AndrewKemendo 12d ago
    Sounds like you’ve got your world model rock solid
    - aliasxneo 12d ago
      It mostly just feels like basic maths, not really a world model. Productivity is a finite resource. If there's a deficit in productivity, people will necessarily suffer and, in the worst case, die. The problem is world views that suggest giving everyone a free choice that enough people will choose productivity while everyone else chooses leisure. I'd be more apt to believe it if we had evidence of it being a natural outcome.
      - pocksuppet 12d ago
        It doesn't have to be so extreme though. Basic scenario: 20% of everyone's income is taxed and then distributed equally to everyone (no matter what, and without setting any fixed dollar amount), another 10% pays for administrative functions and government stuff except welfare, and the remaining 70% is theirs to do with as they please. What would happen? Would everyone quit their job? I don't think so, because 70% is a lot. Some people with jobs that pay so poorly their 70% is less than everyone's average 20% would quit, but that's good, because those were zombie jobs.
        aliasxneo 12d ago
        I'd be fine with this so long as people who didn't contribute any taxes couldn't vote. Otherwise you're just signing up for those who choose to work to get exploited by the leisurely.
        pocksuppet 12d ago
        How much is "none"? Exactly $0.00? Can someone who donates $0.01 to the government every year vote?
        AndrewKemendo 11d ago
        “I need the world to comfort my fears” You’re correct. A society filled with people with this view can’t work
        Moomoomoo309 10d ago
awakeasleep 12d ago
You’re making a point about loafers but non-wage earners are always going to outnumber wage earners, and able bodied loafers are a minute fraction of who we must provide for (the young, the elderly, students, the disabled, etc)

PorciiVorbesc 12d ago

>It looks like a healthy extended family where resources are shared towards a common goal of health and liberty. In the Europe, like several rich western countries, we mostly replaced the extended family with the government welfare state, for better but mostly for worse. So current young workers are contributing to a failing state ponzi pension system that will leave them in poverty by the time they retire in several decades, and they will also lack the care of the extended family unit that was the norm decades ago thanks to collapsed birth rates. Double whammy.

AndrewKemendo 12d ago
Doesn’t sound very much like a healthy family to me
- PorciiVorbesc 11d ago
  WDYM?

briandw 11d ago

Unfortunately this does not work at nation scale. We are not insects. Tribes fail at levels over a few hundred and that scale only works because of blood ties. Communism has failed to produce good outcomes every time it's been tried. Even coops aren't competitive with traditional corporations.

AndrewKemendo 11d ago
Agreed, the human biological system likely needs radical augmentation in order to actually realize such a system The median cortical volume fails beyond dunbars number, so some kind of compensation is needed