• idiomaddict@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    18 days ago

    We produce more than enough for everyone though. If we didn’t, I understand limiting it to those who cooperate, but that’s not the case.

    I don’t understand why we should let humans go hungry and/or cold because they enjoy drugs or dislike holding a job. We would rightfully be upset about a dog without a home through the winter, and they don’t contribute to society (except by providing people with joy and companionship, which unemployed drug users also do).

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldOPM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      18 days ago

      Society can’t support too many people who want to sit around and get high without contributing.

      The reason we produce more than enough is because of the people who do contribute. If they start opting out because they see other folks skating by then soon we aren’t producing enough.

      • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 days ago

        If they start opting out because they see other folks skating by then soon we aren’t producing enough.

        How many people do you honestly think will look at these tiny homes with the bare necessities and decide that’s better than working? During the pandemic, many people had, for the first time in their lives, financial support and no work. They took up hobbies and started businesses in large numbers, because people don’t generally enjoy being totally unproductive for long stretches of time.

        If the number of people who don’t want to work gets to be too high, we cut the funding. I just don’t think it’ll come to that, because most people generally like doing more than subsisting.