I don’t get why it’s so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn’t need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I’m religious, no, I’m not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)
The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That’s work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).
What do you mean with quality of life? Remember people will only get their basic needs met. If they want more quality they have to pay for it and thus have to work. So the rest should be figured out by the free market (even better than now because labor market isn’t free if people have to work to survive). Of course there will be a certain percentage that is okay with just surviving but I am sure their needs can be met by the taxes of the overwhelming amount of people who want more than that.
Well, like I said, even today, it is basically impossible to starve to death in the Western world. You can get your caloric needs met from charity programmes and government assistance alone. It requires you to sacrifice your dignity and accept a very low quality of life, but you will not die.
So if coercion is defined as “forced to perform some action under threat of not having one’s biological needs met”, nobody is in fact coerced to do anything.
In some parts of the Western world (particularly in the US), prison is also forced labour. The state I live in has abolished it but many other states still have it.
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which
You don’t sound religious at all, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that, but im completely against churches feeding and housing people because they impose rules upon the recipients. I don’t believe in charity, so that’s part of it.
I don’t get why it’s so controversial that people should be able to survive without a job. It doesn’t need to be glamourous, but nobody should be unhoused or unfed. We are blessed with plenty and we should share. And before it sounds like I’m religious, no, I’m not saying churches should be responsible for that, government should. (Though obviously I have no problems with any religious groups feeding and housing people as well.)
The argument is mostly that if nobody has to work, too few people will choose to work, and then the quality of life for all will deteriorate. It is still true that our modern society requires an enormous amount of upkeep just to keep the quality of life where it is now. That’s work and if nobody does it then services will stop functioning.
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on homeless shelters and soup kitchens right now in the modern day, without the need to work. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which motivates people to work (or steal).
What do you mean with quality of life? Remember people will only get their basic needs met. If they want more quality they have to pay for it and thus have to work. So the rest should be figured out by the free market (even better than now because labor market isn’t free if people have to work to survive). Of course there will be a certain percentage that is okay with just surviving but I am sure their needs can be met by the taxes of the overwhelming amount of people who want more than that.
Well, like I said, even today, it is basically impossible to starve to death in the Western world. You can get your caloric needs met from charity programmes and government assistance alone. It requires you to sacrifice your dignity and accept a very low quality of life, but you will not die.
So if coercion is defined as “forced to perform some action under threat of not having one’s biological needs met”, nobody is in fact coerced to do anything.
and if you’re not doing good then there’s always the “go to jail” route: free housing and food, at the cost of your freedom
In some parts of the Western world (particularly in the US), prison is also forced labour. The state I live in has abolished it but many other states still have it.
I completely forgot this was a thing
Still a way not to die I guess?
What happens if the prisoner refuses to work?
It seems like they get less privileges, not specifically punished
In many cases, psychological torture (solitary confinement)
It doesn’t state that this is a punishment that can happen when refusing to work
Removing consumers from a consumer economy does what exactly to that economy?
Technically speaking, one could theoretically survive solely on a single job right now in the modern day. This would keep you biologically alive, but for most people, this is a degrading, unfulfilling existence. Which
You don’t sound religious at all, so I’m not sure why you mentioned that, but im completely against churches feeding and housing people because they impose rules upon the recipients. I don’t believe in charity, so that’s part of it.
The moderate(ish) Evangelical right will often agree no one should go hungry but believe it is the church’s responsibility, not the government.