Time to reject the Malthusian notion that our lives must be justified by drudgery.

[cannabineer]

No, that would be a stretch. I'm not suggesting anyone toil for the sake of others, but if they do toil more than what is necessary to sustain themselves, the excess ought not to be wasted.

I have also demonstrated that our system is all about the masses toiling for the excess of an opulent few.

How is this different from the central mistake of Marxism? Y'know, the famous one? "Everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need." cn

 

[abandonconflict]

How is this different from the central mistake of Marxism? Y'know, the famous one? "Everyone according to his ability; to everyone according to his need." cn

Marx's central mistake was essentially the same one I am fighting, nobody is bound to serve. However, nobody ought to be entitled to such an excess that others are deprived.

 

[desert dude]

No, that would be a stretch. I'm not suggesting anyone toil for the sake of others, but if they do toil more than what is necessary to sustain themselves, the excess ought not to be wasted.

I have also demonstrated that our system is all about the masses toiling for the excess of an opulent few.

So, are you suggesting that everyone should be equally compensated for their work? The burger flipper at McDonalds is paid the same as the ER doctor? The burger flipper who decides that flipping burgers is boring and unrewarding and decides to retire gets to collect his equal wage?

I am not trolling you, I am just trying to understand your point here.

 

[abandonconflict]

So, are you suggesting that everyone should be equally compensated for their work? The burger flipper at McDonalds is paid the same as the ER doctor? The burger flipper who decides that flipping burgers is boring and unrewarding and decides to retire gets to collect his equal wage?

I am not trolling you, I am just trying to understand your point here.

No, someone who performs an essential function or genuinely makes their community better ought to be rewarded. That being said, the rest of the community ought not to be enslaved by debt to income ratio in a system that can not reward altruism.

I am saying that someone flipping burgers works far harder than someone who inherits McDonalds. That inheritor can not have excess with out the multitudes of burger flippers, who only continue such drudgery in order to survive. So no, burger flippers should not be paid what doctors are paid, but someone working their ass off to make someone who doesn't work their ass off rich does deserve a greater share of the fruits of their labor. In order to do this, work should not be mandatory for survival, but those who perform what work there is to be done, should be rewarded for their contributions. There is enough to go around, and such a system of wage slavery can not reward altruism. It demands action devoid of wisdom. It relies on the deprivation of sustenance of third world peoples. It relies on the prohibition of goods which obviate demand for the goods provided by it. It absolutely favors an opulent few over the masses laboring to make it possible.

 

[abandonconflict]

There is not enough work to go around to justify making everyone work for the provisions which exist in excess and which are necessary for survival. Maybe everyone should just work shorter days.

 

[cannabineer]

Marx's central mistake was essentially the same one I am fighting, nobody is bound to serve. However, nobody ought to be entitled to such an excess that others are deprived.

I'm missing something. How did we sidestep "from everybody/to everybody"? Are you agreeing or disagreeing? If disagreeing, what are you identifying as Marxism's central mistake? cn

 

[cannabineer]

There is not enough work to go around to justify making everyone work for the provisions which exist in excess and which are necessary for survival. Maybe everyone should just work shorter days.

Dissenting opinion. There's enough work for everybody. It's unpaid however, and that's why you don't see squads of the otherwise unoccupied picking grocery bags off Arctic beaches. cn

 

[Doer]

Marx's central mistake was essentially the same one I am fighting, nobody is bound to serve. However, nobody ought to be entitled to such an excess that others are deprived.

This is the problem. Should. No one should. That is Marxism.

Money doesn't grow in trees. So, this idea is Robbing Hood.

 

[abandonconflict]

Dissenting opinion. There's enough work for everybody. It's unpaid however, and that's why you don't see squads of the otherwise unoccupied picking grocery bags off Arctic beaches. cn

Our system does not reward that kind of work.

 

[cannabineer]

Our system does not reward that kind of work.

But even though unrewarded, it's justified, no? cn

 

[abandonconflict]

This is the problem. Should. No one should. That is Marxism.

Money doesn't grow in trees. So, this idea is Robbing Hood.

Money doesn't grow on trees, but everything needed for survival does.

 

[abandonconflict]

But even though unrewarded, it's justified, no? cn

You are applying the word justified differently.

 

[Doer]

Certainly it is a self justification. It makes me happy for myself to pick up crap from the beach as I go. I don't hate the one that left the crap or hate the ones that hate me for being so ignorant as to pick up for someone else.

There is no justification for hate.

 

[Doer]

You are applying the word justified differently.

Just making up definitions, now? The problem is you came out of the gate without explaining what in the world you mean by justification.

 

[abandonconflict]

Certainly it is a self justification. It makes me happy for myself to pick up crap from the beach as I go. I don't hate the one that left the crap or hate the ones that hate me for being so ignorant as to pick up for someone else.

There is no justification for hate.

Good for you. You're starting to get it.

 

[abandonconflict]

Just making up definitions, now? The problem is you came out of the gate without explaining what in the world you mean by justification.

I explained it succinctly actually. Read the title of the thread again.

 

[cannabineer]

Money doesn't grow on trees, but everything needed for survival does.

Apologies but imo that deserves a "you just went full retard" meme. Consider a Paleolithic man, hardly encumbered by material possessions. He typically had two possessions, listed in order of importance.
1) spear
2) garment
Neither (as a good spear has a knapped-stone point) grows on a tree.

To extrapolate, a sustainable/agrarian society has abandoned the skies to the ancestral gods. Don't counsel retreat; that can only lead to extinction. cn

 

[Doer]

Money doesn't grow on trees, but everything needed for survival does.

But, you just want to take the money, that does not just grow itself. It takes risk. You are saying the rich should feed the poor.

And you say it as if the rich are not feeding the poor. The rich fear the mob just like everyone else. There is so much going out of the US, but you still sneer. You can't tell in your own mind, where and when the balance would occur. You seem to want a world where the earning is constrained. That hardly supports earning enough to feed the poor. Dead end. Thomas Malthus.

So, it is not really about breeding and it is certainly not racism. It is more about the house rape of women that know the children will starve. Yes, it is sex and the dark heart of man. Feeding with no responsibility training or opportunity is just making it worse, despite your hate.

 

[abandonconflict]

But, you just want to take the money

I stopped reading here. You're way off.

 

[cannabineer]

You are applying the word justified differently.

I can't comment since I'm just not getting a grip on how you mean it originally. I thought a central plank of your thesis was that justification is to be decoupled from reward, like pay. cn