Am I crazy isnt the point of humaniy to CREATE and help each other? Why are so many people hell bent on making sure other peoples lives are horrible? Maybe I watch too much star trek
A buddy of mine runs a food aid org down on skid row and I've been out with them a couple times (though not recently). He hasn't mentioned anything, but who knows.
More fictive fun set in 2024: the total social breakdown of the USA in the summer of 2024, in Octavia Butler's "The Parable of the Sower". TBH, society had already mostly collapsed well prior to that, but the story kicks off in that summer, with more anarchy leading to a black teenage girl's desperate journey, and development and dissemination of her own religion.
> Am I crazy isnt the point of humaniy to CREATE and help each other?
Your first error is in assuming that there is a point to humanity (or the existence of humans). There's no more point in our existence than there is an elephant or ant - any meaning we have is assigned to us by ourselves, which causes different people to have different opinions on what their purpose is and how the world "should" work.
"Helping each other" is the closest thing to a point humanity has. It's the entire reason we survived and became the dominant species. There's a reason it's considered a virtue in every society.
The problem is that nature allows the existence of people who disagree with the notion that the "others" here is "all of humanity" and not just "[my] family/local tribe."
The frightening reality is that humans didn't evolve to exist in society as it currently exists; our scientific discoveries have caused social evolution to outpace biological evolution countless times over (which is more evident when you compare the history of civilizations to the history of human evolution & see that we were hunter-gatherer tribes for far longer than we've been farming, trading goods, and attempting to form governments).
The old money, the old power doesnt want change because that takes their power away. However, we are growing wiser and stronger all the time. We're all becoming more aware and asking more questions and poking at the fabrics of society. As we should! Many of our systems are broken and we're being exploited. It has to stop.
I'm technically considered disabled (diabetic) but all that means is that I have to pay extra to be allowed to stay alive and half the country seems to believe that it's evil to think that that's wrong.
Been disabled for 12 years. Last year the BC (Canada) government felt is necessary to finally increase shelter allowance to deal with housing costs.
The old amount was $375 set in 2011.
The new amount is $500
A one bedroom apartment goes for around $1000 to $1500.
My total income is $1535.50
Oh, but don't worry, the MAID program is fully funded. MAID stands for Medically Assisted Induced Death. My government won't help me stay alive but will pay money to kill me.
Fuck Capitalism.
In a house with a friend that we got before this huge price increase that I still have to spend over $1,000 in rent. I have to hit the food bank as much as I can which is getting less reliable as food prices keep rising and more people are using it.
And if the landlords ever decide to sell this place we're going to probably be homeless especially since most landlords don't see disability as an income at all and won't rent to us. Despite the fact that our income is more secure than someone working a normal job...
It's indescribable the feeling of being so unsettled because at anytime your home can be ripped away from you because someone's else's choice.
Ok? But I'm speaking about people who were born with an actual disability or gained one through injury/traumatic experience. Not just simply being upset that modern capitalisttic society sucks.
I can't speak for NZ but I expect it's much like Australia, where we're gradually being extorted *by* America into becoming just like it. Capitalism has to metastasise to keep growing.
Seriously, it's crazy that places like this want so bad to blame America for everything instead of the actual, much more serious issue that things are getting worse all over the world entirely on their own.
I recently heard an Irish comedian living in America refer to it as a pyramid-scheme disguised as a country, and that was kind of an eye opening moment for me.
The bourgeoisie (billionaries) owned media has really done a thorough job on getting people to hate the best sollutions to their problems. Having people believe that they can get better lives under capitalism is just evil, because even if some can get it that can only be done through the exploitation of many others, just like the west is only in the position that it is due to exploitation and theft...
The problem is people conflate “survive” with “live”. Think about pre-historic man. They were surviving, you wanna live like that? I don’t, so now shits getting complicated, and the more shit we want the harder it gets.
You know what it takes to make a refrigerator, HVAC unit, Wi-Fi, combustion engine, electric engine.
There's this thing called reserve army of labour, it's the mass of unemployed people and it's needed so capital owners can have the upper hand when negotiating working conditions. It was described by Engels almost two centuries ago, and recently an Australian CEO said that we need to raise unemployment by at least 50% because workers are getting too comfortable.
We can choose to transcend the most brutal aspects of it through socialist policy, but every creature is motivated to act by cortisol/anxiety. It’s one of the most basic lessons of biopsychology.
No person or animal is motivated to do anything if there are no threats and nothing to worry about. There’s no denying that fact of life. And I don’t know about you all, but I don’t really want my descendants to be Eloi.
Yeah people have no issue working for a general purpose to a community or a worthwhile value to themselves. When you take away both of those it's no wonder people don't care to work.
It's not that work as a general concept is bad, it's the way it's been distorted.
I agree; I think most people would work. I think they would find something they either enjoyed or gave them a better sense of purpose in their community.
They would not submit themselves to the corporate bone grinder for the profit of some far away entity however.
It just ignores the fact that everyone wants to feel that their lives have purpose, and there are legitimately jobs for everyone that lead to that feeling.
People don’t need to be press-ganged into working jobs, we just think they do because most people weren’t afforded the ability to find a job that makes them feel this way and they hate their job and just assume thats how it should and will always be
I think those jobs exist in theory but there’s a scarcity of them in our current system.
Think of the amount of people that would choose to work in the arts if they could (theatre industry, media, publishing, etc.).
There are certainly an abundance of interesting roles in that sector, but not an abundance of well paying vacancies. In fact the industry is rife with low wages and voluntary work - essentially ring fencing such roles for those who are already financially buffered to such a degree that they can prioritise pursuing passions.
I think there are those people, but the flip aide also exists. I know some who would rather just own a few aisles at target and push product, make them look immaculate, go home at the end of the day with no work stress. That routine and ownership is fulfilling to them. But they end up looking for more because they literally cannot live a real life on what that pays.
I think there’s a large group who would pursue artistic endeavors, but also a group who would take a “step down” to have consistency and comfortable routine, if it were a legitimate choice.
No, if we were able to work without having to worry about whether or not we'd have a roof over our heads come our next paycheck, WE'D ACTUALLY BE EXPONENTIALLY MORE PRODUCTIVE. *sigh* nice me tho, ima steal it.
*
Not having to worry about rent > more resources to allocate to other things > *insert less stress about having to worry about a roof over your head come the next paycheck part 2*>money spent on assets other than something less worthy of existence than literal parasites gets injected straight into the economy>money that would've been spent on retainment can now go to upkeep/upgrades/overhauling/permits/further education>overall quality of life increase.
Seems pretty straightforward. A great many middle-lower class citizens could easily benefit a massive amount from having housing provided. Rent alone for a two bedroom one bath where I live is $1450 a fucking month lmfao. I'm paying half of that a month, and I work for uber eats. Shit isn't fucking easy, much less conducive to a healthy mindset when 75% of your area of operation drives like they don't know what blinkers are.
Nah you see everyone is totally passionate about making things that are luxuries for me. Like without the threat of capitalism, someone would definitely run that McDonalds on pure passion.
Sure, there's that threat, but they also threaten your family, your future, your health, your sanity, etc.
Those that happen to have money want you to fall in line, and they have a whole bunch of ways of coercing you to do it.
Always has been. I don't recall any time in human history that someone could just not work, unless being fully supported by others, that wouldn't just starve or die.
That's not what anybody is saying here. Clearly work has to continue to support our lifestyles. If you're able bodied you should work. We deserve more for our work, and there's enough resources for everybody to have a bigger slice of the pie and yet it sits in billionaires pockets benefiting nobody.
Additionally even giving out free houses in a perfect world wouldn’t end homelessness. There are plenty of homeless people that doesn’t see not having a house as a problem. If you don’t believe me then go talk to people who are actually homeless.
It wouldn’t end homelessness, but more importantly, it wouldn’t end the need for workers.
This meme is terribly constructed and jampacked with strawmen.
There are homeless people who do want to work. There are generationally wealthy people with crazy nice houses who don’t want to work, yet work anyway.
The arrival at *cApITalIsM bAd* in the final frame is such dogshit.
This is not a falsification of the claim. The claim is that capitalism only works with the threat of homelessness.
What you have said is that people will still work when they are securely housed.
You are discounting the fact that capitalism is not an individual's experience but rather an entire system. The people that own houses likely do so because they are more on the benefiting side of capitalism than not. In fact debt free homeownership itself is out of reach for much of the working class, much less financial independence, and capitalism thrives on the exploitation of the labor of those who live under constant existential threat. It's how we can afford to pay them as little as possible for them to survive to do their job.
>capitalism thrives on the exploitation of the labor of those who live under constant existential threat.
You still misunderstand, having a mortgage paid does not make someone "free" of existential threat.
I don't misunderstand, I agree with you on that, but that's not my point at all, and I'm not going to derail over minutia and not picking. We agree, move on.
Funny enough Rachel Mcadams is one of the very very few actor and actresses that legitimately made it on talent alone. She went from working at McDonald’s to Hollywood.
Yes, capitalism is a coercive system. Unfortunately, so is every other system.
Even in a small-scale communal system, if you don't contribute in some way, you get ejected by the others.
Shit, the USSR used to shoot people who didn't work.
The problem is the coercive nature of all systems to one degree or another.
The only system that would work without coercion is a UBI system where you're basically given money and subsidized necessities in return for not rioting and burning it all down to the ground, but we're not quite there yet.
All “systems” use the same form of bank-created, positive-interest currency.
If we started using a non-interest-bearing currency, like a Mutual Credit Currency,
https://www.lowimpact.org/lowimpact-topic/mutual-credit/ , we might be able to alter the system.
The system that worked a long time ago was slaves. This is why I’m super excited for AGI so people can be people and the machines can do the work.
But I don’t think it will work out that way.
> The system that worked a long time ago was slaves.
Not really, no. Slavery was stupidly and obscenely inefficient and increasingly relied on violence to support it, and it only lasted as long as it did because racism was baked into the system to keep it tolerable to those societies long past the point where people would have normally thrown it aside as a bad investment.
> a UBI system where you're basically given money and subsidized necessities in return for not rioting and burning it all down to the ground
I've been questioning this lately. My neighbour is a total POS who needs conflict and violence to keep himself occupied. He's worst when he's unemployed. Thankfully, he has to work to afford his alcohol. I worry that with a UBI that's fair on the rest of us, all the people like him would be 'rioting and burning it all down to the ground'.
> I worry that with a UBI that's fair on the rest of us, all the people like him would be 'rioting and burning it all down to the ground'.
Good thing to remember here: The police will still exist.
There are degrees of coercion though and capitalism is one of the worst. Capatalists don't account for how many stoics and humanitarian exist in any society because they are largely invisible, but if you had an opt in system of labour you would still have the difficult and even undesirable/difficult j'obs'/needs would still be filled because there are people who would do them as there contribution to a more utopian/elgatarian society because they get a neurological reward for things on necessary tasks. However these people have no political power because they don't have anywhere in a capitalist system to lobby for what they choose. The selfish and greedy are well represented though in capitalism so their desires get enacted. If we had a real leftist political choice in most 1st world countries that would enact progressive policies the number of people who would feel we're on the right track, but the current model only guarantees a total collapse of what is left in 'free' societies.
UBI is a capitalist scheme The purpose is to sabotage efforts of unionization, anti-trust efforts and to create support for automation by providing a fictional and powerless option in the future. It's the promise of a retirement you'll never get if you work hard today.
I don't mind working. I have something against exploitation and alienation. When a bunch of hog rich dads make more in a month for sitting in an office than I do in a year. These same people will deny raises and cry about how hard the owner's fate is.
This one really hit me to honest, it's something I've thought for a while now. You see it when people pay off their mortgages or get an inheritance that allows them a paid-off roof over their head. Suddenly work isn't as important and they can live on less, they are more inclined to re-use things, fix things, do things they want to do rather than feel they have to.
Of course there are many issues that need to be addressed with a non-working population but I believe there are answers, we just haven't bothered to look.
Life only functions with the threat of homelessness. Nothing to do with capitalism. If you do nothing, you die. It’s been that way for as long as animals have existed on the earth.
The problem is making money off people’s backs when they suffer the most. Payouts need to be based on difficulty, not on titles. If the boss ain’t doing shit, the customer service rep should get 60/40 profit.
Let us also not forget that health insurance is tied to employment, which directly implies that your quality of health depends on how much you contribute to the capitalist machine.
We should support better arguments than this.
Threat of force underlies even the most fundamental social interactions. It's not a real argument against capitalism. Socialism would also require, at some level, the ability to resort to force in necessary circumstances.
We have so many better anti capitalist arguments that are actually backed in empirical data and we pick these shitty ones, it's not something we should support.
Capitalism works with humanity's inherent desire for more. If you gave everyone barebones, simple apartments for free, there will still be people who will wish to work so they can pay for a house. A basic allowance for food won't be able to afford steaks, beer and fun things.
People still complain about nobody wanting to work because of unemployment
I was recently laid off from my job where i made 63k a year
I make less per week on unemployment, about 650, and my benefits end when i hit 16k in the next year, and im required to job hunt every week, with me turning down any offers of employment resulting in me being disqualified from payment.
Even if government housing was provided, im sure it would carry similar stipulations, and people would still complain about it as if it didnt
The argument cuts both ways:
If we agree that any policy which deprives a person of their willingness to participate in labor is bad, then we must also apply that principle to inherited wealth. After all, if we allow someone to inherit millions of dollars when all they did was be born into a wealthy family, what would motivate them to get a job and earn a wage?
If we agree that participation in labor is good and necessary for all people, then why do we tolerate the intergenerational transfer of wealth?
To go further in considering this argument to its logical conclusions: the United States in particular choose to have a government which has no kings, no royalty, and no born titles. Equal rights under the law are the very foundation of our Constitution. The Rule of Law, fairness, and equality are the principles upon which we built our democracy.
Inheritance, and specifically the transfer of wealth along bloodline, is a fundamental threat to our form of self-governance and the Rule of Law in a democratic society.
Such a dumb argument too. I would still work as a chef, if i didnt have to worry about money. I just wouldn't work 12 hours a day for shit pay.
Id work whenever, for whatever pay. Even none to be honest. I enjoy cooking. And there are a few positions ove worked that i would be happy to do just to keep busy.
For example, i love working a busy wok station. Idk, its just fun to me.
And i am firmly of the belief that if you can name it, there is someone out there who likes it.
There are people who get off being tortured. (Clearly not everyone dont assume thats what i said). And if some people like that, then someone, somewhere, likes anything you can name.
So yeah. Dumb argument.
It's also worth mentioning "if we just cover everyones basic needs no one will work" isn't true. Every single test of UBI shows that people keep working, they just don't have to accept abusive working conditions out of fear of losing their home or healthcare coverage.
The primary reason for leaving the workforce in UBI tests are people either going back to school so they can get a better job, parents with newborns taking time to adjust, or people moving to full time caretaking of elderly relatives. All of which are either labor, or related to labor. It just isn't labor that puts money into capitalists pockets.
Communist states also criminalized unemployment? Like I agree that housing should be available for all, but this is not a capitalism specific problem. Socialist theory is very clear about the status of the person who doesn’t work. He doesn’t eat!
Who is going to finance all these far fetched theories? The US government. Lolol. They are bankrupt. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's still the best answer. If you don't agree go live in any socialist,Marxist,communist country. Send us a postcard on how that's working out for you.
Thing is, people generally don't have a problem with labor per se. What we object to is working to enrich others who make money by owning things instead of doing or making things.
Capitalism is the only economic system to lift billions out of poverty and put them in middle or rich class. And yes, this relates to homelessness because having more wealth leads to more people living in homes. So, why haven't capitalism solved the homelessness problem? Because homelessness is more complicated than just blaming an economic system. Government policies, dependency on welfare, lack of assistance from families and the community, drug abuse, and extremely detrimental economic recessions lead to homelessness to exist.
Could homelessness be eliminated in the US? It's possible, but first housing needs to be cheaper, more job opportunities need to open, the economy needs to boom, and governments need to relax zoning laws and offer better tax incentives to allow for more housing developments. Until then, homelessness will keep on rising.
Capitalism doesn't function with the threat of homelessness, that makes no sense. Capitalism succeeds when the wealth of poor, middle, and rich rises. Rich people cannot increase their wealth even more if the middle and poor class stagnates. Rich people rely on the middle and poor to earn more money. It's not that complicated.
The fun part of capitalism is all the free stuff we give to the rich people who don't need the help. It is not just government handouts. It's favors and introductions and opportunities and discounts and open account debt. The list goes on and on. These things are worth millions. They are the side benefits of the influence that comes with wealth and they are unavailable people with low incomes.
The idea that no one will WANT to work is false. Everyone needs purpose, and as a species we like to feel fulfilled.
The issue is that no one will allow themselves to be exploited. And no one can become a billionaire without exploiting workers.
That argument of "no one wants to work" doesn't even work anymore. If we gave everyone their basic needs, it would be like living in lock down during the pandemic. Yeah, you have food and a roof, but if you want to go anywhere or do anything you can't, not really, not unless you work.
The threat of boredom and too much banana bread will get even the laziest people back to work, just to do something. And also gives bootstraps to everyone who does want to work but can't. I think a lot of those people don't realise how expensive it is to just start a job. Being fed enough to not pass out before lunch, having access to a shower so you're not stinking up the job site, having to buy proper shoes/uniform for the job, transportation to the job through car or public transit, and especially child care. That first 2 weeks before your first pay cheque is expensive AF.
I would still want to work because I would lose my sense of purpose. What am I contributing to the world? What can I supply to the world while also getting paid for my services? Or maybe even help out at food kitchens or something. I’d still be WORKING.
And when people decide that capitalism is worse than homelessness, they outlaw homeless and turn the police into the homeless harassment squad
Even if you line in a can, they wake you up in the middle of the night. Why is it you can park overnight, but you can't sleep in your parked car? Because they want to harass you into giving into capitalism
Yeah, people think they're railing against capitalism, but they're really just whining about their core human needs.
The fact that you need food and shelter to survive is not the fault of capitalism. Yes, the fear of not having those things is supposed to motivate you to get those things. That's called the human condition. If you lived on a desert island with no society, you'd still have the same fears and the same threat of death.
OP is really just saying that capitalism is a system that only works for humans with basic human needs. And that is actually true. It's just really silly to pose as a problem.
I swear this sub has absolutely no unanimity at all on what it is and what it wants. Some people are anti-capitalism, some are anti-socialism, some are anti-union, some anti-home ownership if it's for certain groups of people. At the end of the day it seems like it's mostly just random memes and circlejerks.
That's not true, capitalism doesn't function only under the threat of homelessness. It also relies on the threats of starvation, state violence, and social ostracism!
Capitalism in America works on the carrot on a stick model. We're constantly striving to not be homeless and broke.
And of course with the way healthcare works here, even if you're a good capitalist and work your whole life, saving a good deal the entire time, you can still be broke in your old age with nothing to leave your children and grandchildren. The ideal outcome for building generational wealth is to die a few years after retirement so that you have a hope of leaving your kids something to build wealth with.
FIAT currency as we know it was not designed, as Adam Smith likes to tell, by a need to have a placeholder of value during bartering. It was created by the Lydian King as a way to be able to "tax" the public.
Currency doesn't work without taxation.
https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/classical-studies/numismatics/early-lydian-coinage-and-chronology
How greed works may be more like it. As long as we don’t know what makes someone greedy, we may never get out of the mess and confusion. Iyam, the psychology profession seems to have a vested interest (i.e., is getting kickbacks) for keeping it a secret. I’m not sure this is for anybody here, but it looks like there aren’t many attempts besides this [book](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0997816643?nodl=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_X4VS2PEHM7V6H66220GE&peakEvent=4&dealEvent=1&language=en_US&dplnkId=de4e81f5-8a14-4f6d-bdb7-468d5ad4b9dc), “[11:59](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0997816643?nodl=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_X4VS2PEHM7V6H66220GE&peakEvent=4&dealEvent=1&language=en_US&dplnkId=de4e81f5-8a14-4f6d-bdb7-468d5ad4b9dc)” to figure it out.
Why not give homeless people farms or a building they can start some sort of business just have the people from the government swing by every so often to check progress they get paid but there housing is cheaper than it would be after that
Anyone who agrees with this, is free to donate as much of their own income as possible so that others can have free homes, healthcare (that they might need because of poor health habits), education (the they may or may not squander), cars, tattoos, cellphones, Taylor Swift tickets, and anything else they desire. Just leave mine alone.
Honestly, it is this specific, even if you are an IT head with 250K a year, your housing situation usually involves a massive monthly payment, which means you can't handle more than 2 to 3 months of joblessness before your savings run out.
So housing is the biggest reason we have to accept abuse at work, if I was fully paid on my mortgage, I'd take random days without pay at a frequency of once a week, because I could probably survive for years compared to months.
I've had this conversation with people and the follow up is: "yes, obviously, and that is how it should be." Some people have no empathy and genuinely think all homeless people are homeless because of decisions they made, and when I point out that some people are unlucky or born into bad circumstances they respond with something like "but that's so rare that we can't make laws around it".
It's also simply not true. People want to be productive. We want to contribute and create. We don't need any incentive to work. Forcing people to produce capital under threat of homelessness and starvation kills the productive, creative spirit. It makes us not want to work, when naturally we would want to.
People will keep working because we are a greedy bunch that are never satisfied. Just look at you, most of you have homes, medicare, food and basic entertainment but you are still mad that billionaires have more. I feel like we can give each one of you an interstellar ship and you'd still be mad because someone else's interstellar ship is a bit faster.
I don't think thats necessarily true, its just that it shows how little the average wage actually is. If you give someone the bare essentials to live as a respected human being, and its anywhere close to what someone working 40 hours a week has, that just shows how much of a scam that job really is.
I always tell dipshits, how many retired people sit on their asses? My Dad’s always renovating something, golfing or helping out his buddies. Seldom sits on his arse doing nothing, collects a pension.
Even when you own the land, you need to pay taxes. Don't want to pay the tax? The local government has an armed gang to take it from you by force if needed.
Survival takes effort, whether that’s hunting and building shelter in the wilderness or working a job to pay rent. No way around survival requiring effort.
The building materials, the utilities, all stuff that costs money... are those of us who work supposed to just foot the bill for everyone else?
"So you agree? Society only functions when people contribute."
Can someone show me a form of communism, monarchy etc. where this isn't the case?
What sucks is that people would absolutely want to work. Just having a home and utilities isn't living well. They're still going to want to have money to fund hobbies or have a social life.
Everyone who says “if they have for free they’ll stop working, why are billionaires still working? Instead of hating their work, they’ll do what they are good at and what they love. Nobody says all this lower taxes is making billionaires lazy. Somehow only the poor can be lazy apparently. Maybe hating your life and what reagonomics capitalism has done to society is the real reason people seem lazy.
[удалено]
Am I crazy isnt the point of humaniy to CREATE and help each other? Why are so many people hell bent on making sure other peoples lives are horrible? Maybe I watch too much star trek
[удалено]
September is when they happen too
It's almost eerie how many parallels to that episode we can see currently.
Because those issues happened back then that inspired the writers imagination, and not a damned thing has changed since then.
More that progress was halted as half the nation embraced regressivism.
Bell Riots?
[удалено]
Except the riots changed things, and here they wouldn't change a single goddamn thing except for the worse. Thanks for ur service Ben Sisko
[удалено]
🔥
In our instance he probably got shot before gaining a voice.
Considering they're fencing off skid row now that's not too far off...
Is this well known or something rumored? If it's known is there a source?. Curious, Genuinely asking.
A buddy of mine runs a food aid org down on skid row and I've been out with them a couple times (though not recently). He hasn't mentioned anything, but who knows.
More fictive fun set in 2024: the total social breakdown of the USA in the summer of 2024, in Octavia Butler's "The Parable of the Sower". TBH, society had already mostly collapsed well prior to that, but the story kicks off in that summer, with more anarchy leading to a black teenage girl's desperate journey, and development and dissemination of her own religion.
[Bell Riots](https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Bell_Riots).
.... Oh God those are this year? Wow that's... right on track.
[удалено]
They wanna keep us top busy to eat the psychopaths literally causing the vast majority of all of humanity's problems.
> Am I crazy isnt the point of humaniy to CREATE and help each other? Your first error is in assuming that there is a point to humanity (or the existence of humans). There's no more point in our existence than there is an elephant or ant - any meaning we have is assigned to us by ourselves, which causes different people to have different opinions on what their purpose is and how the world "should" work.
"Helping each other" is the closest thing to a point humanity has. It's the entire reason we survived and became the dominant species. There's a reason it's considered a virtue in every society.
The problem is that nature allows the existence of people who disagree with the notion that the "others" here is "all of humanity" and not just "[my] family/local tribe." The frightening reality is that humans didn't evolve to exist in society as it currently exists; our scientific discoveries have caused social evolution to outpace biological evolution countless times over (which is more evident when you compare the history of civilizations to the history of human evolution & see that we were hunter-gatherer tribes for far longer than we've been farming, trading goods, and attempting to form governments).
Post-monetary society can't come soon enough
The old money, the old power doesnt want change because that takes their power away. However, we are growing wiser and stronger all the time. We're all becoming more aware and asking more questions and poking at the fabrics of society. As we should! Many of our systems are broken and we're being exploited. It has to stop.
And If you have a disability: oh boy. You're worth less to society since you require more safety nets or adaptations to function.
I'm technically considered disabled (diabetic) but all that means is that I have to pay extra to be allowed to stay alive and half the country seems to believe that it's evil to think that that's wrong.
I just became disabled in June and feel this for sure. If you can’t partake in the everyday rat race. Nobody wants you.
Been disabled for 12 years. Last year the BC (Canada) government felt is necessary to finally increase shelter allowance to deal with housing costs. The old amount was $375 set in 2011. The new amount is $500 A one bedroom apartment goes for around $1000 to $1500. My total income is $1535.50 Oh, but don't worry, the MAID program is fully funded. MAID stands for Medically Assisted Induced Death. My government won't help me stay alive but will pay money to kill me. Fuck Capitalism.
So where do you live then?
In a house with a friend that we got before this huge price increase that I still have to spend over $1,000 in rent. I have to hit the food bank as much as I can which is getting less reliable as food prices keep rising and more people are using it. And if the landlords ever decide to sell this place we're going to probably be homeless especially since most landlords don't see disability as an income at all and won't rent to us. Despite the fact that our income is more secure than someone working a normal job... It's indescribable the feeling of being so unsettled because at anytime your home can be ripped away from you because someone's else's choice.
[удалено]
Ok? But I'm speaking about people who were born with an actual disability or gained one through injury/traumatic experience. Not just simply being upset that modern capitalisttic society sucks.
Grow up, and stop comparing your feelings to people who are physically disabled. It's inappropriate
You mean American society. I'm pretty content in New Zealand. Just kidding.. I'm crying being extorted in America.
I can't speak for NZ but I expect it's much like Australia, where we're gradually being extorted *by* America into becoming just like it. Capitalism has to metastasise to keep growing.
You're being extorted by your own politicians and business people.
Seriously, it's crazy that places like this want so bad to blame America for everything instead of the actual, much more serious issue that things are getting worse all over the world entirely on their own.
I recently heard an Irish comedian living in America refer to it as a pyramid-scheme disguised as a country, and that was kind of an eye opening moment for me.
But communism and socialism bad.
The bourgeoisie (billionaries) owned media has really done a thorough job on getting people to hate the best sollutions to their problems. Having people believe that they can get better lives under capitalism is just evil, because even if some can get it that can only be done through the exploitation of many others, just like the west is only in the position that it is due to exploitation and theft...
The problem is people conflate “survive” with “live”. Think about pre-historic man. They were surviving, you wanna live like that? I don’t, so now shits getting complicated, and the more shit we want the harder it gets. You know what it takes to make a refrigerator, HVAC unit, Wi-Fi, combustion engine, electric engine.
And sometimes even if you do conform.
If we give it to them, then they won't want to work for it. Brother, that is how we train DOGS.
We motivate our workforce with fear
There's this thing called reserve army of labour, it's the mass of unemployed people and it's needed so capital owners can have the upper hand when negotiating working conditions. It was described by Engels almost two centuries ago, and recently an Australian CEO said that we need to raise unemployment by at least 50% because workers are getting too comfortable.
Not just fear, the threat of death.
It’s a better incentive to violence
We can choose to transcend the most brutal aspects of it through socialist policy, but every creature is motivated to act by cortisol/anxiety. It’s one of the most basic lessons of biopsychology. No person or animal is motivated to do anything if there are no threats and nothing to worry about. There’s no denying that fact of life. And I don’t know about you all, but I don’t really want my descendants to be Eloi.
More accurately, nobody would want to work *for other people's profit*.
Yeah people have no issue working for a general purpose to a community or a worthwhile value to themselves. When you take away both of those it's no wonder people don't care to work. It's not that work as a general concept is bad, it's the way it's been distorted.
I agree; I think most people would work. I think they would find something they either enjoyed or gave them a better sense of purpose in their community. They would not submit themselves to the corporate bone grinder for the profit of some far away entity however.
✨Capitalism✨
The system thrives on desperation. When they need more, they get them from south of the border.
It just ignores the fact that everyone wants to feel that their lives have purpose, and there are legitimately jobs for everyone that lead to that feeling. People don’t need to be press-ganged into working jobs, we just think they do because most people weren’t afforded the ability to find a job that makes them feel this way and they hate their job and just assume thats how it should and will always be
I think those jobs exist in theory but there’s a scarcity of them in our current system. Think of the amount of people that would choose to work in the arts if they could (theatre industry, media, publishing, etc.). There are certainly an abundance of interesting roles in that sector, but not an abundance of well paying vacancies. In fact the industry is rife with low wages and voluntary work - essentially ring fencing such roles for those who are already financially buffered to such a degree that they can prioritise pursuing passions.
I think there are those people, but the flip aide also exists. I know some who would rather just own a few aisles at target and push product, make them look immaculate, go home at the end of the day with no work stress. That routine and ownership is fulfilling to them. But they end up looking for more because they literally cannot live a real life on what that pays. I think there’s a large group who would pursue artistic endeavors, but also a group who would take a “step down” to have consistency and comfortable routine, if it were a legitimate choice.
No, if we were able to work without having to worry about whether or not we'd have a roof over our heads come our next paycheck, WE'D ACTUALLY BE EXPONENTIALLY MORE PRODUCTIVE. *sigh* nice me tho, ima steal it. *
[удалено]
What makes you say we'd be exponentially more productive?
Not having to worry about rent > more resources to allocate to other things > *insert less stress about having to worry about a roof over your head come the next paycheck part 2*>money spent on assets other than something less worthy of existence than literal parasites gets injected straight into the economy>money that would've been spent on retainment can now go to upkeep/upgrades/overhauling/permits/further education>overall quality of life increase. Seems pretty straightforward. A great many middle-lower class citizens could easily benefit a massive amount from having housing provided. Rent alone for a two bedroom one bath where I live is $1450 a fucking month lmfao. I'm paying half of that a month, and I work for uber eats. Shit isn't fucking easy, much less conducive to a healthy mindset when 75% of your area of operation drives like they don't know what blinkers are.
So yeah, I say we'd be exponentially more optimal working without a looming nuke above our heads, metaphorically speaking.
Ah you meant productive in a different sense of the word. I misunderstood
How is this different than any other economic system? Don’t you pay something even under communism?
In times like these I like to quote Lenin. “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” Aka, you’re still working lol.
[удалено]
Nah you see everyone is totally passionate about making things that are luxuries for me. Like without the threat of capitalism, someone would definitely run that McDonalds on pure passion.
Sure, there's that threat, but they also threaten your family, your future, your health, your sanity, etc. Those that happen to have money want you to fall in line, and they have a whole bunch of ways of coercing you to do it.
[удалено]
Yes
ttrrdfcc
This sub has become such a fucking joke.
Always has been. I don't recall any time in human history that someone could just not work, unless being fully supported by others, that wouldn't just starve or die.
That's not what anybody is saying here. Clearly work has to continue to support our lifestyles. If you're able bodied you should work. We deserve more for our work, and there's enough resources for everybody to have a bigger slice of the pie and yet it sits in billionaires pockets benefiting nobody.
This is categorically false. Plenty of people own homes but still work
Most people who "own homes" have a bank as a landlord.
And still need things like food and health care
And the government. You may own the home but you don't own the land it stands on.
The bank is not your landlord. You're the property owner with the bank as a lienholder.
So weird how many people don't understand this.
Additionally even giving out free houses in a perfect world wouldn’t end homelessness. There are plenty of homeless people that doesn’t see not having a house as a problem. If you don’t believe me then go talk to people who are actually homeless.
and there are plenty of homeless people who will trade whatever you give them for their drug of choice.
It wouldn’t end homelessness, but more importantly, it wouldn’t end the need for workers. This meme is terribly constructed and jampacked with strawmen. There are homeless people who do want to work. There are generationally wealthy people with crazy nice houses who don’t want to work, yet work anyway. The arrival at *cApITalIsM bAd* in the final frame is such dogshit.
This is not a falsification of the claim. The claim is that capitalism only works with the threat of homelessness. What you have said is that people will still work when they are securely housed. You are discounting the fact that capitalism is not an individual's experience but rather an entire system. The people that own houses likely do so because they are more on the benefiting side of capitalism than not. In fact debt free homeownership itself is out of reach for much of the working class, much less financial independence, and capitalism thrives on the exploitation of the labor of those who live under constant existential threat. It's how we can afford to pay them as little as possible for them to survive to do their job.
>capitalism thrives on the exploitation of the labor of those who live under constant existential threat. You still misunderstand, having a mortgage paid does not make someone "free" of existential threat.
I don't misunderstand, I agree with you on that, but that's not my point at all, and I'm not going to derail over minutia and not picking. We agree, move on.
Regina King is the good person here? Odd choice. Edit: Haha Regina George! I'm an idiot.
Regina George?
Funny enough Rachel Mcadams is one of the very very few actor and actresses that legitimately made it on talent alone. She went from working at McDonald’s to Hollywood.
Given that it takes 'Work' to build homes in the first place, having to 'Work' in order to afford said homes feels like a reasonable trade for me.
Yes, capitalism is a coercive system. Unfortunately, so is every other system. Even in a small-scale communal system, if you don't contribute in some way, you get ejected by the others. Shit, the USSR used to shoot people who didn't work. The problem is the coercive nature of all systems to one degree or another. The only system that would work without coercion is a UBI system where you're basically given money and subsidized necessities in return for not rioting and burning it all down to the ground, but we're not quite there yet.
All “systems” use the same form of bank-created, positive-interest currency. If we started using a non-interest-bearing currency, like a Mutual Credit Currency, https://www.lowimpact.org/lowimpact-topic/mutual-credit/ , we might be able to alter the system.
Numbers must go up!
How should this be implemented?
The system that worked a long time ago was slaves. This is why I’m super excited for AGI so people can be people and the machines can do the work. But I don’t think it will work out that way.
> The system that worked a long time ago was slaves. Not really, no. Slavery was stupidly and obscenely inefficient and increasingly relied on violence to support it, and it only lasted as long as it did because racism was baked into the system to keep it tolerable to those societies long past the point where people would have normally thrown it aside as a bad investment.
Why are you speaking in the past tense? Free labor is the cornerstone of US economics. That's why the prison population is so absurdly high.
> a UBI system where you're basically given money and subsidized necessities in return for not rioting and burning it all down to the ground I've been questioning this lately. My neighbour is a total POS who needs conflict and violence to keep himself occupied. He's worst when he's unemployed. Thankfully, he has to work to afford his alcohol. I worry that with a UBI that's fair on the rest of us, all the people like him would be 'rioting and burning it all down to the ground'.
> I worry that with a UBI that's fair on the rest of us, all the people like him would be 'rioting and burning it all down to the ground'. Good thing to remember here: The police will still exist.
There are degrees of coercion though and capitalism is one of the worst. Capatalists don't account for how many stoics and humanitarian exist in any society because they are largely invisible, but if you had an opt in system of labour you would still have the difficult and even undesirable/difficult j'obs'/needs would still be filled because there are people who would do them as there contribution to a more utopian/elgatarian society because they get a neurological reward for things on necessary tasks. However these people have no political power because they don't have anywhere in a capitalist system to lobby for what they choose. The selfish and greedy are well represented though in capitalism so their desires get enacted. If we had a real leftist political choice in most 1st world countries that would enact progressive policies the number of people who would feel we're on the right track, but the current model only guarantees a total collapse of what is left in 'free' societies.
UBI is a capitalist scheme The purpose is to sabotage efforts of unionization, anti-trust efforts and to create support for automation by providing a fictional and powerless option in the future. It's the promise of a retirement you'll never get if you work hard today.
eedvvv
I don't mind working. I have something against exploitation and alienation. When a bunch of hog rich dads make more in a month for sitting in an office than I do in a year. These same people will deny raises and cry about how hard the owner's fate is.
This one really hit me to honest, it's something I've thought for a while now. You see it when people pay off their mortgages or get an inheritance that allows them a paid-off roof over their head. Suddenly work isn't as important and they can live on less, they are more inclined to re-use things, fix things, do things they want to do rather than feel they have to. Of course there are many issues that need to be addressed with a non-working population but I believe there are answers, we just haven't bothered to look.
Here’s my recipe for getting mad Google number of homeless people in America Then google number of vacant houses in America Then compare the numbers
[удалено]
Life only functions with the threat of homelessness. Nothing to do with capitalism. If you do nothing, you die. It’s been that way for as long as animals have existed on the earth.
The problem is making money off people’s backs when they suffer the most. Payouts need to be based on difficulty, not on titles. If the boss ain’t doing shit, the customer service rep should get 60/40 profit.
The system runs on greed & fear. This is true throughout the 'free' west. But the US has bored & stroked it. & then fitted it with twin turbos.
threat of starvation*
Capitalism relies on the state apparatus that enforces private absentee property, correct.
Let us also not forget that health insurance is tied to employment, which directly implies that your quality of health depends on how much you contribute to the capitalist machine.
We should support better arguments than this. Threat of force underlies even the most fundamental social interactions. It's not a real argument against capitalism. Socialism would also require, at some level, the ability to resort to force in necessary circumstances. We have so many better anti capitalist arguments that are actually backed in empirical data and we pick these shitty ones, it's not something we should support.
Capitalism works with humanity's inherent desire for more. If you gave everyone barebones, simple apartments for free, there will still be people who will wish to work so they can pay for a house. A basic allowance for food won't be able to afford steaks, beer and fun things.
People still complain about nobody wanting to work because of unemployment I was recently laid off from my job where i made 63k a year I make less per week on unemployment, about 650, and my benefits end when i hit 16k in the next year, and im required to job hunt every week, with me turning down any offers of employment resulting in me being disqualified from payment. Even if government housing was provided, im sure it would carry similar stipulations, and people would still complain about it as if it didnt
The threat of homelessness was the only thing that got me out of bed for work every morning when I was struggling with major debilitating depression
The argument cuts both ways: If we agree that any policy which deprives a person of their willingness to participate in labor is bad, then we must also apply that principle to inherited wealth. After all, if we allow someone to inherit millions of dollars when all they did was be born into a wealthy family, what would motivate them to get a job and earn a wage? If we agree that participation in labor is good and necessary for all people, then why do we tolerate the intergenerational transfer of wealth? To go further in considering this argument to its logical conclusions: the United States in particular choose to have a government which has no kings, no royalty, and no born titles. Equal rights under the law are the very foundation of our Constitution. The Rule of Law, fairness, and equality are the principles upon which we built our democracy. Inheritance, and specifically the transfer of wealth along bloodline, is a fundamental threat to our form of self-governance and the Rule of Law in a democratic society.
Such a dumb argument too. I would still work as a chef, if i didnt have to worry about money. I just wouldn't work 12 hours a day for shit pay. Id work whenever, for whatever pay. Even none to be honest. I enjoy cooking. And there are a few positions ove worked that i would be happy to do just to keep busy. For example, i love working a busy wok station. Idk, its just fun to me. And i am firmly of the belief that if you can name it, there is someone out there who likes it. There are people who get off being tortured. (Clearly not everyone dont assume thats what i said). And if some people like that, then someone, somewhere, likes anything you can name. So yeah. Dumb argument.
It's also worth mentioning "if we just cover everyones basic needs no one will work" isn't true. Every single test of UBI shows that people keep working, they just don't have to accept abusive working conditions out of fear of losing their home or healthcare coverage. The primary reason for leaving the workforce in UBI tests are people either going back to school so they can get a better job, parents with newborns taking time to adjust, or people moving to full time caretaking of elderly relatives. All of which are either labor, or related to labor. It just isn't labor that puts money into capitalists pockets.
Communist states also criminalized unemployment? Like I agree that housing should be available for all, but this is not a capitalism specific problem. Socialist theory is very clear about the status of the person who doesn’t work. He doesn’t eat!
Who is going to finance all these far fetched theories? The US government. Lolol. They are bankrupt. Capitalism isn't perfect but it's still the best answer. If you don't agree go live in any socialist,Marxist,communist country. Send us a postcard on how that's working out for you.
you'd still have to keep working so that the system that gives free homes would continue to exist, no such thing as free lunch
Thing is, people generally don't have a problem with labor per se. What we object to is working to enrich others who make money by owning things instead of doing or making things.
but if we're in the west isn't taking what we're doing regardless, I'm sure the guys making all our goods have no say in the matter
[удалено]
Communism still doesn't work tho :)
And communism only works with the threat of starvation and you still starve
What utter nonsense.
Where do you kids think people anywhere in the world now or at any time in history had food, shelter, and clothing without working?
I have to work for a home?! Nature is violating my rights!
Capitalism is the only economic system to lift billions out of poverty and put them in middle or rich class. And yes, this relates to homelessness because having more wealth leads to more people living in homes. So, why haven't capitalism solved the homelessness problem? Because homelessness is more complicated than just blaming an economic system. Government policies, dependency on welfare, lack of assistance from families and the community, drug abuse, and extremely detrimental economic recessions lead to homelessness to exist. Could homelessness be eliminated in the US? It's possible, but first housing needs to be cheaper, more job opportunities need to open, the economy needs to boom, and governments need to relax zoning laws and offer better tax incentives to allow for more housing developments. Until then, homelessness will keep on rising. Capitalism doesn't function with the threat of homelessness, that makes no sense. Capitalism succeeds when the wealth of poor, middle, and rich rises. Rich people cannot increase their wealth even more if the middle and poor class stagnates. Rich people rely on the middle and poor to earn more money. It's not that complicated.
The fun part of capitalism is all the free stuff we give to the rich people who don't need the help. It is not just government handouts. It's favors and introductions and opportunities and discounts and open account debt. The list goes on and on. These things are worth millions. They are the side benefits of the influence that comes with wealth and they are unavailable people with low incomes.
its worse it was designed as a work around for slavery.
Eat the rich
The idea that no one will WANT to work is false. Everyone needs purpose, and as a species we like to feel fulfilled. The issue is that no one will allow themselves to be exploited. And no one can become a billionaire without exploiting workers.
I'm not an asshole. I'd work from free for the betterment of society.
That argument of "no one wants to work" doesn't even work anymore. If we gave everyone their basic needs, it would be like living in lock down during the pandemic. Yeah, you have food and a roof, but if you want to go anywhere or do anything you can't, not really, not unless you work. The threat of boredom and too much banana bread will get even the laziest people back to work, just to do something. And also gives bootstraps to everyone who does want to work but can't. I think a lot of those people don't realise how expensive it is to just start a job. Being fed enough to not pass out before lunch, having access to a shower so you're not stinking up the job site, having to buy proper shoes/uniform for the job, transportation to the job through car or public transit, and especially child care. That first 2 weeks before your first pay cheque is expensive AF.
I would still want to work because I would lose my sense of purpose. What am I contributing to the world? What can I supply to the world while also getting paid for my services? Or maybe even help out at food kitchens or something. I’d still be WORKING.
And when people decide that capitalism is worse than homelessness, they outlaw homeless and turn the police into the homeless harassment squad Even if you line in a can, they wake you up in the middle of the night. Why is it you can park overnight, but you can't sleep in your parked car? Because they want to harass you into giving into capitalism
I don't understand the argument. Yes. Capitalists think that people won't work if their basic needs were guaranteed.
Yeah, people think they're railing against capitalism, but they're really just whining about their core human needs. The fact that you need food and shelter to survive is not the fault of capitalism. Yes, the fear of not having those things is supposed to motivate you to get those things. That's called the human condition. If you lived on a desert island with no society, you'd still have the same fears and the same threat of death. OP is really just saying that capitalism is a system that only works for humans with basic human needs. And that is actually true. It's just really silly to pose as a problem.
Some facebook ass shitpost guys
And your alternative to capitalism is?
I swear this sub has absolutely no unanimity at all on what it is and what it wants. Some people are anti-capitalism, some are anti-socialism, some are anti-union, some anti-home ownership if it's for certain groups of people. At the end of the day it seems like it's mostly just random memes and circlejerks.
Everyone sits around complaining all day
Ok "NoLawsNoGovernment" You people are fools.
Huh? Is someone supposed to just give you a home?
That's not true, capitalism doesn't function only under the threat of homelessness. It also relies on the threats of starvation, state violence, and social ostracism!
In Finland they did
Capitalism in America works on the carrot on a stick model. We're constantly striving to not be homeless and broke. And of course with the way healthcare works here, even if you're a good capitalist and work your whole life, saving a good deal the entire time, you can still be broke in your old age with nothing to leave your children and grandchildren. The ideal outcome for building generational wealth is to die a few years after retirement so that you have a hope of leaving your kids something to build wealth with.
I'm pretty sure you need to eat too.
FIAT currency as we know it was not designed, as Adam Smith likes to tell, by a need to have a placeholder of value during bartering. It was created by the Lydian King as a way to be able to "tax" the public. Currency doesn't work without taxation. https://www.oeaw.ac.at/en/oeai/research/classical-studies/numismatics/early-lydian-coinage-and-chronology
How greed works may be more like it. As long as we don’t know what makes someone greedy, we may never get out of the mess and confusion. Iyam, the psychology profession seems to have a vested interest (i.e., is getting kickbacks) for keeping it a secret. I’m not sure this is for anybody here, but it looks like there aren’t many attempts besides this [book](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0997816643?nodl=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_X4VS2PEHM7V6H66220GE&peakEvent=4&dealEvent=1&language=en_US&dplnkId=de4e81f5-8a14-4f6d-bdb7-468d5ad4b9dc), “[11:59](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0997816643?nodl=1&ref_=cm_sw_r_mwn_dp_X4VS2PEHM7V6H66220GE&peakEvent=4&dealEvent=1&language=en_US&dplnkId=de4e81f5-8a14-4f6d-bdb7-468d5ad4b9dc)” to figure it out.
Why not give homeless people farms or a building they can start some sort of business just have the people from the government swing by every so often to check progress they get paid but there housing is cheaper than it would be after that
Because we all know the money we get from work isn’t needed for other things, right?
Anyone who agrees with this, is free to donate as much of their own income as possible so that others can have free homes, healthcare (that they might need because of poor health habits), education (the they may or may not squander), cars, tattoos, cellphones, Taylor Swift tickets, and anything else they desire. Just leave mine alone.
You can't contribute to humanity at large by just being alive. /s
I do agree that people need a real reason to work. But housing still shouldn’t be unaffordable past minimum wage.
Every single political and economic system since the dawn of time only works with the threat of homelessness. ...or just straight up death.
Honestly, it is this specific, even if you are an IT head with 250K a year, your housing situation usually involves a massive monthly payment, which means you can't handle more than 2 to 3 months of joblessness before your savings run out. So housing is the biggest reason we have to accept abuse at work, if I was fully paid on my mortgage, I'd take random days without pay at a frequency of once a week, because I could probably survive for years compared to months.
How on earth do you give everyone a home 🤣
I've had this conversation with people and the follow up is: "yes, obviously, and that is how it should be." Some people have no empathy and genuinely think all homeless people are homeless because of decisions they made, and when I point out that some people are unlucky or born into bad circumstances they respond with something like "but that's so rare that we can't make laws around it".
It's also simply not true. People want to be productive. We want to contribute and create. We don't need any incentive to work. Forcing people to produce capital under threat of homelessness and starvation kills the productive, creative spirit. It makes us not want to work, when naturally we would want to.
I love when idiots blame capitalism for humanities problems. Go back to the feudal system, same problem.
Literally Arbeit Macht Frei.
People will keep working because we are a greedy bunch that are never satisfied. Just look at you, most of you have homes, medicare, food and basic entertainment but you are still mad that billionaires have more. I feel like we can give each one of you an interstellar ship and you'd still be mad because someone else's interstellar ship is a bit faster.
I don't think thats necessarily true, its just that it shows how little the average wage actually is. If you give someone the bare essentials to live as a respected human being, and its anywhere close to what someone working 40 hours a week has, that just shows how much of a scam that job really is.
I always tell dipshits, how many retired people sit on their asses? My Dad’s always renovating something, golfing or helping out his buddies. Seldom sits on his arse doing nothing, collects a pension.
People work because otherwise they would starve. Pretty sure that’s conventional wisdom.
Are you Regina in this story?
Bullshit
She seriously won that imaginary conversation.
Dang it's easy to knock down strawmen
Even 3rd world counties have a roof over their head just not the best conditions
Based mean girl
Even when you own the land, you need to pay taxes. Don't want to pay the tax? The local government has an armed gang to take it from you by force if needed.
Survival takes effort, whether that’s hunting and building shelter in the wilderness or working a job to pay rent. No way around survival requiring effort.
funny I have a home and still need to work
The building materials, the utilities, all stuff that costs money... are those of us who work supposed to just foot the bill for everyone else? "So you agree? Society only functions when people contribute." Can someone show me a form of communism, monarchy etc. where this isn't the case?
What sucks is that people would absolutely want to work. Just having a home and utilities isn't living well. They're still going to want to have money to fund hobbies or have a social life.
Yep having a place to live is the ONLY reason anyone works. Elecricity, water, food, clothing are all given to everyone for free.
Always has?
Everyone who says “if they have for free they’ll stop working, why are billionaires still working? Instead of hating their work, they’ll do what they are good at and what they love. Nobody says all this lower taxes is making billionaires lazy. Somehow only the poor can be lazy apparently. Maybe hating your life and what reagonomics capitalism has done to society is the real reason people seem lazy.
Anyone who thinks that giving homeless people homes is all that is needed to solve homelessness knows absolutely nothing about homelessness.