Jump to content

No one should HAVE to work if (s)he doesn't want to.


JinnMartini
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...

My first post! This is some low hanging harmless fruit, I'm surprised after >100 reads no one has responded. I couldn't agree more "No one should HAVE to work if she doesn't want to."

 

I would think you'd know this living in Alaska, 'work' is not a requirement to live in the U.S., or any other country I can think of. Paying taxes is also not a requirement, just live off the land friend. You'll get no grief from anyone, unless you try to live off someone else's land. I recommend the lifestyle of Henry David Thoreau for you, and give his book Civil Disobedience a read. 

 

Not sure what you mean by 'decent means to lead a decent life'. Are you a slave because you have to feed your gut or to breath air? This will require 'some' work. There are endless ways to take care of yourself in the wild without man-made items like bullets and clothes. Living in Alaska though you can get a few of these things with your $1,606 tax dividend (if you chose to accept it). Over a lifetime this is ~$95,000, seems generous. 

 

Anyhoo - since you have a computer and an opinion I presume you have no plans to strike out into the wilderness. Maybe consider mining bitcoin...? Careful though, make too much dinero and the tax man will come looking for you.

 

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
On 12/28/2019 at 6:15 PM, JinnMartini said:

And we should still all have decent means to lead a decent life.

REGARDLESS !

 

We are not born to be slaves

 

Much less rats in a rats'  race.

 

 

 

 

 

This idealistic view reminds me of Herbert Marcuse's "great refusal".  It appeared to work well for some people but its shortcomings became evident in the long run and ultimately failed.

 

In my years of working in the accounting field, I did encounter a few highly privileged people who are commonly called the "idle rich".  In particular, the children of people who bought large tracts of land in California, developed those lands, and became billionaires.  Some of their children did not work and, instead, lived off large dividends they get every month from their family estates and trust funds. The net worth of those estates/trusts  well into the millions and often into the billions . There have been other pockets of idle rich such as in Manhattan's Upper West Side along Riverside Avenue, down in Florida, and in Texas among the children of oil barons. 

 

When I do look back in my many years of work I can honestly say I accomplished quite a bit in my time.  Sadly, I did not make much money and today subsist on Social Security.  Yeah, I wish I had the luxury of living in a large country cabin with lots of acreage around me.  But life did not give me that option.  In the 19th century land reformers such Catholic scholar GK Chesterton and distributionists such as Jethro Tull, Hilaire Belloc, Pope Leo, and others taught that lands must be distributed to everyone who wants it.  The Catholic ideal being 3 acres and a cow.  For someone like me who has lived in the Big City all my life, how I wish life had given me the option to own a cabin in such a setting.  That would have been ideal for me. 

 

Thus, while I do believe in some form of distributionism and UBI, I cannot say I agree that no one should not have to work if they don't want to.  However, if life gives them the option, and that's what they want, then go for it.  And if you wish to enable anyone to live that way, that should be your right to do so as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, manhattantransfer said:

 

 

 

 

This idealistic view reminds me of Herbert Marcuse's "great refusal".  It appeared to work well for some people but its shortcomings became evident in the long run and ultimately failed.

 

In my years of working in the accounting field, I did encounter a few highly privileged people who are commonly called the "idle rich".  In particular, the children of people who bought large tracts of land in California, developed those lands, and became billionaires.  Some of their children did not work and, instead, lived off large dividends they get every month from their family estates and trust funds. The net worth of those estates/trusts  well into the millions and often into the billions . There have been other pockets of idle rich such as in Manhattan's Upper West Side along Riverside Avenue, down in Florida, and in Texas among the children of oil barons. 

 

When I do look back in my many years of work I can honestly say I accomplished quite a bit in my time.  Sadly, I did not make much money and today subsist on Social Security.  Yeah, I wish I had the luxury of living in a large country cabin with lots of acreage around me.  But life did not give me that option.  In the 19th century land reformers such Catholic scholar GK Chesterton and distributionists such as Jethro Tull, Hilaire Belloc, Pope Leo, and others taught that lands must be distributed to everyone who wants it.  The Catholic ideal being 3 acres and a cow.  For someone like me who has lived in the Big City all my life, how I wish life had given me the option to own a cabin in such a setting.  That would have been ideal for me. 

 

Thus, while I do believe in some form of distributionism and UBI, I cannot say I agree that no one should not have to work if they don't want to.  However, if life gives them the option, and that's what they want, then go for it.  And if you wish to enable anyone to live that way, that should be your right to do so as well. 

 

Before  MONEY was concocted and created by the devil, you had all the acreage you wished for around you and you only needed to stretch your arm to get all the food you craved for.

 

Some evil forces are at work here, I'm telling you

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JinnMartini said:

 

Before  MONEY was concocted and created by the devil, you had all the acreage you wished for around you and you only needed to stretch your arm to get all the food you craved for.

 

Some evil forces are at work here, I'm telling you

 

 

I could never be a Luddite as there are too many people around and we cannot reach out of our windows to get food to eat.  But one thing's for sure ~ I could never say that urban life is better than good old country living.   Yes, I would modify urban life if I could such as reducing the amount of automobiles,  bringing back the trolleys  & trolleybus (also known as trackless trolleys), increase food distribution such as thru more SNAP (the USA's most successful safety valve program in history),  and by replacing municipal police with local sheriffs who are accountable to the people because they must be voted into office.  We could also help relieve the homelessness problem by converting abandoned military bases into refuges for those people.  How I wish it was possible bring these things into fruition. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, manhattantransfer said:

 

 

I could never be a Luddite as there are too many people around and we cannot reach out of our windows to get food to eat.  But one thing's for sure ~ I could never say that urban life is better than good old country living.   Yes, I would modify urban life if I could such as reducing the amount of automobiles,  bringing back the trolleys  & trolleybus (also known as trackless trolleys), increase food distribution such as thru more SNAP (the USA's most successful safety valve program in history),  and by replacing municipal police with local sheriffs who are accountable to the people because they must be voted into office.  We could also help relieve the homelessness problem by converting abandoned military bases into refuges for those people.  How I wish it was possible bring these things into fruition. 

 

BULLSHIT  !

 

Less humans is the key to prosperity for everyone !

 

Wait till we are 15 billions (or more) and alone on the planet  (besides animals bred for consumption)  and see what a man's life is worth !

 

A BIG NOTHING  !

 

Gas chambers are the answer !

Huge and portable gas chambers !

 

Hitler was way ahead of his time !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did not see this thread heading towards culling the population, but I suppose that's the answer for anyone who's lost the will to 'live'.

 

No mammal on earth has ever been able to "reach out of our windows to get food to eat" without the universe exacting its revenge of risk v. reward. 'Living' is a contest, an effort and not for the faint of heart. Living isn't 'not dying', it's the pursuit of life, love, sharing; you know "happiness". Capitalists don't desire fewer people, who will they sell to? Left/Liberals are better candidates for population reduction, this is less competition for handouts and programs. I've never heard a capitalist wish for fewer people to sell to.

 

You're free to your opinion but if you bring that portable gas chamber to my neck of the woods bring a body bag for you and your friends. Peace!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, manhattantransfer said:

 

 

I could never be a Luddite as there are too many people around and we cannot reach out of our windows to get food to eat.  But one thing's for sure ~ I could never say that urban life is better than good old country living.   Yes, I would modify urban life if I could such as reducing the amount of automobiles,  bringing back the trolleys  & trolleybus (also known as trackless trolleys), increase food distribution such as thru more SNAP (the USA's most successful safety valve program in history),  and by replacing municipal police with local sheriffs who are accountable to the people because they must be voted into office.  We could also help relieve the homelessness problem by converting abandoned military bases into refuges for those people.  How I wish it was possible bring these things into fruition. 

 

Just set up publicly accessible gas chambers.

 

All problems solved !

 

100,000 humans is the most earth can sustain !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 12/28/2019 at 7:15 PM, JinnMartini said:

And we should still all have decent means to lead a decent life.

REGARDLESS !

 

We are not born to be slaves

 

Much less rats in a rats'  race.

 

  IF you don't wanna work for a living ......................................................... FUCKIN' STARVE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 months later...
On 5/5/2020 at 4:39 PM, manhattantransfer said:

 

 

 

 

This idealistic view reminds me of Herbert Marcuse's "great refusal".  It appeared to work well for some people but its shortcomings became evident in the long run and ultimately failed.

 

In my years of working in the accounting field, I did encounter a few highly privileged people who are commonly called the "idle rich".  In particular, the children of people who bought large tracts of land in California, developed those lands, and became billionaires.  Some of their children did not work and, instead, lived off large dividends they get every month from their family estates and trust funds. The net worth of those estates/trusts  well into the millions and often into the billions . There have been other pockets of idle rich such as in Manhattan's Upper West Side along Riverside Avenue, down in Florida, and in Texas among the children of oil barons. 

 

When I do look back in my many years of work I can honestly say I accomplished quite a bit in my time.  Sadly, I did not make much money and today subsist on Social Security.  Yeah, I wish I had the luxury of living in a large country cabin with lots of acreage around me.  But life did not give me that option.  In the 19th century land reformers such Catholic scholar GK Chesterton and distributionists such as Jethro Tull, Hilaire Belloc, Pope Leo, and others taught that lands must be distributed to everyone who wants it.  The Catholic ideal being 3 acres and a cow.  For someone like me who has lived in the Big City all my life, how I wish life had given me the option to own a cabin in such a setting.  That would have been ideal for me. 

 

Thus, while I do believe in some form of distributionism and UBI, I cannot say I agree that no one should not have to work if they don't want to.  However, if life gives them the option, and that's what they want, then go for it.  And if you wish to enable anyone to live that way, that should be your right to do so as well. 

WHat if no one wants to work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
On 1/26/2020 at 9:45 AM, TailWheelPilot said:

My first post! This is some low hanging harmless fruit, I'm surprised after >100 reads no one has responded. I couldn't agree more "No one should HAVE to work if she doesn't want to."

 

I would think you'd know this living in Alaska, 'work' is not a requirement to live in the U.S., or any other country I can think of. Paying taxes is also not a requirement, just live off the land friend. You'll get no grief from anyone, unless you try to live off someone else's land. I recommend the lifestyle of Henry David Thoreau for you, and give his book Civil Disobedience a read. 

 

Not sure what you mean by 'decent means to lead a decent life'. Are you a slave because you have to feed your gut or to breath air? This will require 'some' work. There are endless ways to take care of yourself in the wild without man-made items like bullets and clothes. Living in Alaska though you can get a few of these things with your $1,606 tax dividend (if you chose to accept it). Over a lifetime this is ~$95,000, seems generous. 

 

Anyhoo - since you have a computer and an opinion I presume you have no plans to strike out into the wilderness. Maybe consider mining bitcoin...? Careful though, make too much dinero and the tax man will come looking for you.

 

Cheers!

I mean, the state does still have the power to simply boot you off that land if you don't legally own it, and demand you pay them all the money they've decided you owe them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, problempants000 said:

I mean, the state does still have the power to simply boot you off that land if you don't legally own it, and demand you pay them all the money they've decided you owe them. 

I did state "unless you try to live off someone else's land."

You can't 'legally' squat on state or private land, there's plenty of land to squat on though with little chance of harassment; BLM, forest, etc. There was a documentary about a guy squatting for years in the Olympic Nat'l forest. If I recall, Alaska is the friendliest Homesteading state (Wyoming and Arizona too) so that's an option. However, if someone is on this message board complaining about 'anything' they're likely not cut out for much beyond gov't programs. Peace as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TailWheelPilot said:

I did state "unless you try to live off someone else's land."

You can't 'legally' squat on state or private land, there's plenty of land to squat on though with little chance of harassment; BLM, forest, etc. There was a documentary about a guy squatting for years in the Olympic Nat'l forest. If I recall, Alaska is the friendliest Homesteading state (Wyoming and Arizona too) so that's an option. However, if someone is on this message board complaining about 'anything' they're likely not cut out for much beyond gov't programs. Peace as always.

My point isn't that you can't do it, but that no amount of homesteading is a genuine escape from the system we live under, certainly not from the need to work to survive. Really, it's just a legitimization of that circumstance, turning it from an unnecessary and artificial restriction on human freedom to a simple result of natural scarcity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, problempants000 said:

My point isn't that you can't do it, but that no amount of homesteading is a genuine escape from the system we live under, certainly not from the need to work to survive. Really, it's just a legitimization of that circumstance, turning it from an unnecessary and artificial restriction on human freedom to a simple result of natural scarcity.

Such is human life. However, in search of some kind of answer instead of simply acknowledging a complaint... (as is the way of this 'liberal forum') IF the stone age is more appealing, you can always go to the South American jungle, Central Africa, Central Siberia, etc. and start a tribe. There won't be any 'work' per se, but plenty of labor and challenges to stay alive. One may even call this living. Again, no one on this message board, including myself, is cut out for this.

"I didn't ask for this!" - this is the mantra of all humankind. If you go back to any period in human history you'll find this prevailing sentiment. The idea is that after you acknowledge that life/living has already been defined for you, and after you reject it as not what you wanted, then you jump in and make the best of it.

I suggest to all people stuck in the 'I didn't ask for this' phase, find your superpower and engage it. We all have one and only we can find it. Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...