this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2024
1165 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
6810 readers
3041 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And that fact you're salty about that shows that you clearly do believe people have some responsibilty to earn their income, rather than laying idle.
You're under the mistaken belief that people are inherently lazy and need to be compelled to work.
That's not true, and has been proven again and again.
But the owner class doesn't want people with free time to plan how to overthrow them, so you have to spend half your waking life making someone else rich.
When left to their own devices, as the pandemic showed, people explore many creative and productive activities.
I don't believe I ever said that? but to bite the hook anyway:
Certainly people can be creative without compulsion, but that's a different thing from 'Work' in the economic sense. How many of the 'owner class', as you call them, take up as hobbies an essential role like Nurse, Farmer or Carpenter? How many even shirk a prestigious roles as managers, designers or artists that can nonetheless be of benefit?
Certain activities essential for society are simply too unpleasent to be done in the quantity needed without compensation (I will not say compulsion) being offered.
Ok first: A very large part of human effort is busy work, there have been several studies you can easily find on google scholar.
As for the 'owner's class' hobbies. Time for an education: Have you noticed that the VAST majority of successful streamers are trust fund kiddies? Something to consider.
I used to be part of a consulting team in Boca Raton that specialized in digital house audio before any of the current 'smart house' revolution. Nearly ALL of our clients were wealthy, or very wealthy, because that's the only people who could afford to drop $30k on a server rack just to store their massive vinyl collection.
And every fuckdamn one of them and their kids had a 'hobby'. A lot were charity workers, some painters, some carpenters, a few were teachers in high end private schools.
But ALL of them did something, and they worked less hours and had access to better resources than a hundred people who could have done it better with less if they had the opportunity.
THAT IS WHERE THE PETITE RICHE SEND THEIR KIDS! Art jobs, entertainment jobs.
Did you ever consider that the most prestigious school for the arts in the entire united states caters almost exclusively to trust fund kiddies with a tiny handful of charity cases that show exceeding talent?
Sure you'll never find the kid of a millionaire framing out low cost housing but you DO se them fill their tiktok channels with bespoke art that they make more on the streaming than the selling.
And guess what? If you don't have a way to cover the YEARS it takes to make it, then you have to juggle a 40 hour job and COMPETE with the trust fund kiddies who DON"T HAVE TO and have professional studio and production help.
I have to stop now I'm starting to see red.
How many more underprivileged talented, more appealing people are losing marketshare to highly funded outrage media content creators?
No, I believe society has a responsibility to make sure the most vulnerable of us, such as the disabled who can't earn an income, survive.
Why don't you?
I do, that is included in the term 'responsibility', a parent, teacher or guardian has the responsibility the ensure the welfare and safety of the children under their care. Yet, we do not jail anybody if (for example) a child in their care develops cancer.
Likewise, all people have an obligation to do what they can, but are not to be blamed if they are unable to for no fault of their own.
The saying is "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Even the disabled, in almost all cases, have considerable ability. In many cases it might not be enough to cover their cost of living, and the state must subsidize them, that doesn't mean they shouldn't be encouraged from giving back what they can however.
In other words, that child does not need to earn their living. That disabled person does not need to earn their living. They are alive through no fault of their own and society has a duty to keep them alive as much as they can.
Life is not earned. You do deserve to be alive.
No.
In the case of the child, they are expected to earn their living upon adulthood. In the case of the disabled person they are expected to earn their living in the event of a suitable cure or accomodation.
No one, neither me nor you has an inalienable right to be alive, how could we when it is a right that one day nature will in no uncertain terms, deny us?
You might as well declare space flight a human right.
I mean... The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (plus, you know, murder laws) may disagree with you. But have fun with your libertarianism.
Ok, prosecute all eight billion of us for the murder of the seventy million that died last year, see how that works out for you.
What are you even talking about now?
Positive Vs. Negative rights, we've been talking about it this entire time. Saying "You can't murder him" is different from "You can't let him die"
Again- Universal Declaration on Human Rights. It cannot be any clearer. I'll even show you the relevant article. It's very concise:
Maybe you are not in one of the 48 of 58 UN member states in existence at the time that voted in favor of it. Note that there were no votes against it.
If so, I'm sorry your country does not care about basic human rights.
Then why does the UN let 60 million people die each year?
Are you seriously asking why the UN is unable to defy biological and medical science?
Yes
(but only rhetorically, I'm actually asking why you belive that some hypothetical future institution will be able to)
I don't?
You seem to think that 'right to life' means 'right to defy entropy.' It doesn't.
I guess freedom speech isn't a right because people in comas don't have that ability?
The right to free speech is a negative right, in that nobody is forced to do anything to give it you.
What a UBI is asking for is the equivalent to the right to life as giving everybody a printing press is the freedom of speech.
Not necessarily a bad idea, but a very expensive one that maybe ought to wait until the planet isn't dying.
I really do not understand what you think 'right to life' means, but in most civilized parts of the world it means that the government has a duty to make sure its citizens don't die whenever possible. That is not something you have to earn as a citizen.
Why you think that's such a ridiculous position to take, I have no idea.
And also why you think you have to earn being on this Earth when you didn't ask to be put here in the first place is also beyond me. Who gets to judge who's earned enough to be given the right to live? You?