GENIUS FORUMS

I had a youung girl get visibly agitated at a small social gathering because I do not ever bother with small talk.

She started asking me lame questions like am a gay or something and generally talking down to me as if I was a deaf moron.

Really I just feel indifference to most people for no reason other than that I have my interests and rarely spot folks who I care to chat with.

So I feel the whole strange vibe some people emanate.

ha they think I am wierd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_ruSmFFdAY

Mulan sounds awful. And contemporary feminism is silly and sometimes destructive, although it certainly had a more valid role when women really were oppressed. These days, women rule practically everything (regardless of the presence of male figureheads) and men are the butt of every joke in the media, so feminism is kind of redundant. Groveling to females for guidance and direction in all areas of life is now promoted as a man's role in our culture. Men are stupid and incompetent, and any TV commercial or sitcom will readily confirm this. The radical feminist mission has been accomplished in spades, so its proponents ought to move on.

And yeah, The Lion King was pretty kick-ass.

David,

That's what it keeps thinking as it approaches the flame again and again and again. The lack of memory and consciousness, and the lack of coherency in its behaviour, makes its life meaningless. That is how I see nearly all people.

And you see the moth who sits there watching the other moths playing in the fire as having a better life? Is his life somehow not meaningless? Do not both types of moths think the other is inferior?

NM: The point is that he has some goal in life and since life is inherently meaningless to have a goal is to be deluded. To be active is to have a goal. Therefore the sage should be necessarily passive.

DQ: Realizing that life doesn't have any meaning in an objective sense doesn't mean that one cannot formulate subjective goals. For it involves realizing that subjective goals are the only goals there can ever be.

This isn't at odds with the moths playing in the fire. The majority of humans, most non-religious ones, realize there is no objective point to life. Most of them want to have fun and be happy.

You're still being taken in by the metaphysical belief that one's goals are only meaningful or undeluded if they conform with Nature's goals. Ah, the irony of our discussions

I have never said anything about nature's goals.... :-S

DQ: So what do you think of my emphasis on masculinity then?

Neil: Your version of masculinity isn't a bully or a dominator. He is just unemotional, completely rational, and has no goals or values in life.

DQ: A bully is simply someone who passively submits to his own insane fears and shies away from dealing with them directly.

No David. Perhaps many or all bullies fit into that category, but bullies themselves are people who actively harm or confront others.

Half the time nature is trying to kill us as a matter of course and the common state of decay we all share.


insert comment on how ignorant this comment was here.

vicdan wrote:
Face it. Suffering doesn't lead to philosophy. Just accept this, and move on.

Actually I never have been debating that position. If only your reading skills were a bit more refined and less emotionally bloated. I only offered the viewpoint that "the suffering of each human pushes this individual into further inquiries". The specific set of causes that "lead to philosophy" or truth-loving is certainly way more complex as opposed to your simplistic magic moment of deciding to "look beyond the vanity of daily life" at a certain age, cause unknown.

Can there be any doubt that being tired of the vanity of daily life could be one of the factors? Or being hurt by it. Or being obsessed with imaginative worlds beyond this one? Or the search for control by dissecting stuff to see how it ticks? There are so many leads possible. But it's unavoidable that the deeper suffering of life will be encountered at some point and if not broken or scared by it, it will propel one along.

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:I'd sooner my improverished reality than your rich fantasy world. You have too crass a notion of suffering. It's Buddhism 101 for you, dude.

Ah, I thought yoyu might go there. Do you realize how ridiculous this cop-out is?

According to the four noble truths, life is suffering. Everyone is suffering. if everyone is suffering but only very few people turn to philosophy, then you can't possibly say with a straight face that suffering pushes one to philosophy, no more than you can assign the same honor to breathing, or being a carbon-based life form.

Talking to you about any issue is almost a total waste of time, Victor. People soon learn this about you because you have no respect for the point people make and only for what you can manipulate it into. I did not say, nor even remotely implied a natural correlation between suffering and philosophical thinking. I said, and you have not refuted, that thinking stems from suffering. I gave a precise and cogent reason why, which you, as is your insufferably usual want, ignored.

Buddha was a prince before he turned to philosophy.

Indeed. Get the picture? Does that not yell from the rooftops something to you?

Was he suffering so much? Well, he doesn't seem to have suffered more than the average peasant, that's for sure. Perhaps it was the mental anguish he experienced, when he realized how much suffering his lifestyle engenders? Ah, but then he was philosopher before his suffering increased so much -- philosophy caused the suffering, not the other way around!

You truly are a comedian and a distorter par excellance. His thinking came after mental disturbance.

Suffering does not lead one to being a philosopher

Yes it does. Suffering leads one to every change of circumstance. Like I said, your understand is crass, as usual.

Victor wrote:

Dan wrote:Well, the solution for those people is simple enough: involuntary euthanasia.

Sweet! So we kill everyone who doesn't like being mooched off of. I like the way you think!

Not just kill them; that would be inefficient. We'd use them as a moocher food-source too.

Failing that they might like to consider that in a pluralistic society everyone pays for something they find morally objectionable.

most morally objectionable recepients of payment aren't in a position to withdraw themselves from the public teat, but choose not to do so. Highways and public schools won't earn the money themselves -- but the voluntarily indolent can.

We keep criminals alive and spend more money on them per capita per annum than we do many welfare recipients. Why?

You need to be wary of the implications of your argument on this point. For it to be reasonable it must be consistent, right? Or are you the only one who gets to have social programs invalidated because they don't like it? I presume, based on the argument that you don't want to subsidise people's "indolence", that you advocate the abolition of every government social program that exists. That would be consistent. Is that what you advocate?

Nope. I have absolutely no problem with helping those who can't help themselves. In fact, I think those people aren't helped enough. What's more, i am even in favor of NIT, which would imply something equivalent to the dole for all who want it -- because that would be the most economically efficient system. Iam, however, very much against people like you and Unidian claiming that I owe you a living.

Vic, you're all over the place with this line of argument. I get your point but you haven't even remotely countered my point about consistency or the natural consequences of pluralism in society with this nifty little jibe. You've just made it a rhetorical argument about what Nat or I are "demanding". That's bullshit, petty tactics. It's certainly not an intellectually decent characterization of my point of view. You seem to think ethics are purely attitudinal. This is where you and society err immensely. It is possible for an ethical position to make one psychologically incapable of what we refer to as employment in certain economic and ideological conditions, wherein those conditions are underpinned by values that an individual might deem bad or even evil. Therefore, to actively encourage by participation those values is to do evil. This leaves room for the pragmatic fact of living by virtue of funds from what one might consider morally offensive sources. I'm sure you don't need me to provide historical examples of this pragmatic reality.

Now, I'm giving this as an example of my own thinking rather than arguing this as Nat's position. He can make whatever he wants of this line of thought. I am simply pointing out that your black and whitish work ethic argument reflects a mentality that I would have thought you would ordinarily find simplistic, if not repulsive.

See, dude? Unlike you and Uni, I can hold policy views which are at odds with my personal preferences, because I recognize the difference between my personal preferences and social function. Try it sometimes.

That paragraph is just plain moronic.

Uni wants physical comforts.

He seems content with the basics. Don't seem so bad to me. Is your solution to let such people starve or not? Out with it!

He just dislikes work even more.

"Dislikes work" is part of your manipulative and intellectually dishonest lexicon. I find it entirely unhelpful.

His rejection of work is not a principled thing, but an artifact of his weakness, a form of self-justification.

I see. So, all the work he does and has done philosophically is, what, effort in the service of self? Sure, but what isn't?

Were he to act like Diogenes and eschew every comfort he possibly could, his claims would be a lot more believable.

Like I said, you gotta stop using Diogenes as an example. It's stupid and inaccurate.

Diogenes believed in rejecting civilization and its comforts, in returning to our basic animal essence. You do realize that the dole is one of civilization's comforts, right?..

Diogenes' chief aim was to mock convention. He's the worst poster boy for your argument imaginable.

Just going back to the original post, one of the best criteria for separating genuine philosophers from pretenders is the output. I have no doubt that a lot of posts here are borne from suffering, but sometimes the people reading them suffer more.

Most people have boring, mundane jobs, but these people deserve respect for sticking it out. The best thinkers in the world are generally achievers; scientists, theoretical physicists, authors, etc. They don’t hang around Centrelink waiting for inspiration. I don’t want to be hypocritical here. I’m on partial supporting parent benefits myself, but I work part-time, and have a lot more self esteem working. I have a lot more respect for check-out chicks standing up all day than someone who lives on their labour and then has the audacity to think they’re a philosopher.

Not working erodes your dignity. You might think it doesn’t, but society doesn’t really want to keep you so you can keep posting in Genius Forum. We work because we’re adults.

Wisdom makes you a good philosopher, not idleness.

Dan Rowden wrote:Talking to you about any issue is almost a total waste of time, Victor. People soon learn this about you because you have no respect for the point people make

Oh, you poor dear! mean old Victor didn't respect your point!

I respect only what i deem worthy of respect, not the point itself just because it's a point. You do the same, as was evidenced by your contemptuous reference to Buddhism 101.

What i find amusing is that you don't recognize that you are equally contemptuous and quick to judge. All that sagehood didn't do much for your self-awareness, did it?..

I said, and you have not refuted, that thinking stems from suffering.

yes, i did.

Indeed. Get the picture? Does that not yell from the rooftops something to you?

Yes, it does -- that he started thinking before he recognized the suffering his status was engendering, and gave it up as a result. He sought wisdom, and recognized the nature of suffering more fully, first.

Whatever prompted him to think, it wasn't suffering different from what anyone else was suffering. This different suffering came after. Before he turned to philosophy, before he recognized suffering more fully, he wasn't suffering any more than a typical peasant -- less in fact.

You truly are a comedian and a distorter par excellance.

Thank you. I aim to please.

Yes it does. Suffering leads one to every change of circumstance.

Yeah. just like breathing and being a carbon-based life form.

The only way suffering could lead to a change of circumstances is if the change of circumstances was preceded by the appearance of suffering where there was no suffering before. Change cannot happen without contrast -- but if suffering is pervasive, then there's no change.

in order to accept change stemming from suffering, you have to reject the notion that suffering is a pervasive, everpresent and immanent quality of life.

We keep criminals alive and spend more money on them per capita per annum than we do many welfare recipients. Why?

Because we are the ones who put them in jail, thus denying them the opportunity to earn a living -- in doing so, we assumed responsibility for providing for their sustenance. Duh. However, we didn't put Uni in his trailer, nor denied him the opportunity to earn a living.

Vic, you're all over the place with this line of argument. I get your point but you haven't even remotely countered my point about consistency or the natural consequences of pluralism in society with this nifty little jibe. You've just made it a rhetorical argument about what Nat or I are "demanding". That's bullshit, petty tactics.

No, it's a very important one which you are ignoring. There is a world of difference between doing something because we freely choose to, uncoerced -- and doing something because we have a moral obligation to do it. Why we do something has a tremendous importance. It's not enough to do the right thing, it must also be done for the right reason, lest we open ourselves up to future errors. Outcome matters, but so does method.

This is Nietzschean 'slave morality' thing Uni is advocating -- imposing moral obligations, and loudly bemoaning their going unfulfilled, is the way of the weak to get what they want, but can't procure for themselves. You and Unidian are practicing canonical 'slave morality' tropes here. This is kinda ironic, because he constantly bemoans how he is a slave of society because society has this weird 'economy' thing going on -- and he is indeed a slave, but only because he makes himself so, through his own choices of coping methods. he is a slave by choice, possessed of slave mentality, advocating slave morality.

Oh yeah, go ahead and tell me how I am crass and crude in my understanding of Nietzsche.

It's certainly not an intellectually decent characterization of my point of view. You seem to think ethics are purely attitudinal. This is where you and society err immensely. It is possible for an ethical position to make one psychologically incapable of what we refer to as employment in certain economic and ideological conditions, wherein those conditions are underpinned by values that an individual might deem bad or even evil.

Indeed -- from that individual's POV. However, the same then applies to those who are psychologically incapable of supporting moochers. What you do is first apply a purely subjective ethical standard to yourself, then turn it around and try to apply some form of objectivist (with lower-case 'o') ethics to everyone else. One standard for you, another standard for the rest of society.

Which is of course rank hypocrisy.

Therefore, to actively encourage by participation those values is to do evil. This leaves room for the pragmatic fact of living by virtue of funds from what one might consider morally offensive sources.

indeed. And if that is what you do -- without any pretense to moral righeousness, if you just admit that you take the money where you can because you personaly believe you oughtn't work -- I would respect it a lot more. Such attitude would be at least honest, and frankly, I haven't seen anything from you otherwise, except by implication of you supporting Unidian.

He, on the other hand, can't deal with simply saying that -- yes, he hates work, so fuck the system, he will take money where he can -- and tries to erect a grand moral edifice to justify his choices.

In short, i prefer an honest thief and asshole to a pathetic, impotent moral slave. If you piss on my shoes, at least have the decency to not try to tell me it's raining.

Now, I'm giving this as an example of my own thinking rather than arguing this as Nat's position. He can make whatever he wants of this line of thought. I am simply pointing out that your black and whitish work ethic argument reflects a mentality that I would have thought you would ordinarily find simplistic, if not repulsive.

My argument has nothing to do with work ethic. I had said this many times before. i don't give a flying fuck if you work. I give a flying fuck if you try to manipulate me into supporting you, and even more so if you try to tell me I have a moral obligation to support you.

Talk about a simplistic misunderstanding... you and Uni jkeep trying to pretend that it's all about an obligation to work, about Puritan work ethic -- but it's not, and has never been. it's about freedom and honesty and truth and coercion, not work.

See, dude? Unlike you and Uni, I can hold policy views which are at odds with my personal preferences, because I recognize the difference between my personal preferences and social function. Try it sometimes.

That paragraph is just plain moronic.

meaning, you have no answer. Didn't think so.

He seems content with the basics. Don't seem so bad to me. Is your solution to let such people starve or not?

The ones who choose to not work? I would love to let them starve, provided the opportunity to obtain work is easily available! Each day, as they feel hunger, they would be freely choosing starvation over work -- and I would happily let them live with their choice. I never hid it. If there were a practical way to exclude moochers from all welfare payments, i would happily do so. Social teat is for those who can't provide for themselves, not for those who hate work.

Out with it!

I never hid it. I am half-way to libertarian. Freedom, baby! I have no problem with letting people suffer the consequences of their free, informed, rational choices. Your daily choice to stay home and starve, rather than go get a job, would be such a free, informed, rational choice. More power to you!

"Dislikes work" is part of your manipulative and intellectually dishonest lexicon. I find it entirely unhelpful.

Even though he himself had said numerous times that he hates work. In fact, i was more gentle in my phrasing the Unidian himself had been.

I see. So, all the work he does and has done philosophically is, what, effort in the service of self? Sure, but what isn't?

Oh, everything is, in a certain sense, sure. But just as nobody will pay you for spending hours doing underwater basket weaving, nobody is going to pay you for philosophizing to justify your philosophizing. labor theory of value is idiocy. Just because you do something you consider 'work', doesn't mean you can expect to get paid for it.

Like I said, you gotta stop using Diogenes as an example. It's stupid and inaccurate.

it's much better than you realize. Diogenes was honest about what he did. He didn't try to pull the 'slave morality' manipulation on anyone.

Diogenes' chief aim was to mock convention.

he wasn't trying to replace it with new conventions aimed at making others support him, though. This is a cruicial difference.

He's the worst poster boy for your argument imaginable.

hahaha. You don't even understand my argument, seeing as you think it's about work ethic (of all the weird beliefs to ascribe to me! I have no puritan work ethic whatsoever, trust me).

Bilby wrote:Most people have boring, mundane jobs, but these people deserve respect for sticking it out. The best thinkers in the world are generally achievers; scientists, theoretical physicists, authors, etc.

Philosophers too. Vast majority of philosophers through history were gainfully employed or independently wealthy. Almost none of them believed that the society owes them a living. This is something Uni and his ilk ignore.

Wisdom makes you a good philosopher, not idleness.

Oh aye...

vicdan wrote:

Dan Rowden wrote:Talking to you about any issue is almost a total waste of time, Victor. People soon learn this about you because you have no respect for the point people make

Oh, you poor dear! mean old Victor didn't respect your point!

Thanks for making my point, Victor, given what I actually said was:

Talking to you about any issue is almost a total waste of time, Victor. People soon learn this about you because you have no respect for the point people make and only for what you can manipulate it into. - italics added

Well done.

Nice to see you Vic, but I'm not buying what you have to offer. When you came to America you obviously took the adage "make hay while the shines" too much to heart because all you do is create strawmen. Do I look like Edward Woodward to you?

This conversation between Victor, Unidian and Dan is ridiculous! This whole same conversation that's been had fifty billion times always starts with Unidian. His position is that he can't work because he has, let's say, "philosophy sickness", and that society is morally obligated to provide for him. The problem is that society gives him welfare for no other reason than because it wants to. If society didn't want to give it to him then that would be that, there's nothing he could do about it. Now if anyone tries to point this out to Unidian, he gets offended and starts up with the insults and ad hominem. This guy's gotta have serious emotional problems or something. Hardly anybody on the message boards can stand him, as far as I can tell. But Dan seems to enjoy reinforcing this attitude in Unidian because they both have a problem with Victor, which by the way began with this very issue on some other message board somewhere. If Unidian's attitude was something like, "Okay, look, I'm sick, I want to pursue philosophy or whatever: Please help me. Thank you!", then NONE of this would have ever happened. But no. His attitude is like, "I'm a philosopher and I ain't workin': Pay me! (takes money) Oh, and by the way FUCK YOU!" I mean, come on! It's ridiculous.

It's more complicated than that, Matt. You are doing Nat a disservice there. If his stance wasn't accompanied by an overall socio-economic model, I'd agree, but it is and I happen to be largely favorable to it. Some say it's self-serving, which I hope I don't have to point out is a ludicrous criticism. Nat's major flaw is he tends to fall into constructing overly conventional justifications for his model, which, I think is understandable given the society he lives in.

I don't even want to go there. I'm just talking about his attitude and why people react to him the way they do. I mean, society doesn't have to adopt his socio-economic model or even take the time to consider it.

Bloody good show, Dan. Go whine in your beer glass.

Matt Gregory wrote:I don't even want to go there. I'm just talking about his attitude and why people react to him the way they do. I mean, society doesn't have to adopt his socio-economic model or even take the time to consider it.

I know. Nor do they have to care about sanity or reason. Does that stop us advocating them? I'm not entirely sure I get your point.

I think you and Unidian waste a lot of time arguing against people who are basically on your side because you guys aren't listening or something. It's . . . really odd.

Dan,

We keep criminals alive and spend more money on them per capita per annum than we do many welfare recipients. Why?

We also recognize an entitlement to the basic necessities of life for prisoners, but not for work-refusers.

Nat's major flaw is he tends to fall into constructing overly conventional justifications for his model, which, I think is understandable given the society he lives in.

Very true, and I think I'm going to give it up. There is really no point in it, as the idea is still way too far ahead of its time for public discussion. As long as I've got the check and a clear conscience, that's good enough for now. And I can always discuss it in certain venues that are specifically oriented toward this sort of thinking.

Matt,

If you think I'm at fault for the direction this thread has taken, all I can say is that you're reading a very different thread from the one I'm participating in. Did you fail to notice the 800 pound gorilla crashing around the room shouting profanities and tearing up everything in sight?

Yeah, I suppose you most likely did miss that, or believe that no such thing has happened, or believe it's me. Meh... I can't account for people's cognitive filters.

Matt,

Hardly anybody on the message boards can stand him, as far as I can tell.

While the truth of this latest gratuitous personal attack is dubious (and it comically came immediately after a complaint about "ad hominems" on my part), I must say that I don't find I'm disliked by anyone I have any particular respect for, so it's not a big deal to me. The obvious possible exception here is Dan - while he and I are on somewhat "iffy" terms personally, I think he is sharp as a tack in many areas, and particularly so when it comes to economic issues. Otherwise, I'm fairly satisfied with both my friends and my critics in terms of who they are. The members of both lists align well with my respective estimates of their character and level of insight.

Why you imagined this was relevant is a mystery to me. Since when is popular approval indicative of anything important on Genius Forum, anyway?

I think you and Unidian waste a lot of time arguing against people who are basically on your side because you guys aren't listening or something. It's . . . really odd.

No one is "on my side" regarding this issue unless they support a universal entitlement to the necessities of a decent life as an inalienable human right, with no qualifying factors. The difference between supporting this and not supporting it is enormous, and as far as I can tell, only Philo, Dan, Trevor, and I support it. To refuse to support it is to declare that homelessness, starvation, and death are acceptable for some people, because a certain number will always resist economic coercion. Such consequences are a serious matter and one is either willing to oppose them across the board, or they aren't willing to do so. The camps are clear.

Unidian wrote:To refuse to support [universal entitlement to the necessities of a decent life as an inalienable human right] is to declare that homelessness, starvation, and death are acceptable for some people

Death is acceptable to all people who choose it. I would not use the force of the state to keep yourself from shooting yourself, and I would not choose the force of the state to keep yourself from starving yourself. As long as you have alternatives -- i.e. getting a job -- then your starvation will have meant that you freely chose to starve rather than work.

As in, you wake up in the morning, hungry after a week without food. Right outside your window (or close by) is a sign: 'workers wanted! immediate pay in cash!' -- and you would look at it, think, and say to yourself: 'Nope, i won't work. i would rather go hungry another day'.

Well, more power to to you.

But what you really want to do is say: 'No, I don't feel like working, so SOMEONE FEED ME!' -- to which my answer would be: 'Fuck you, asshole.'

Imagine that you are stranded on a desert island, starving. I am washed up near you, and I fashion a simple spear to hunt fish with. I offer it to you for free, because I am such a nice guy, and you say: 'No, I don't wanna fish, why don't you catch the fish and feed me instead?' To which my answer would, once again, be: 'Fuck you, asshole. Die if you want to, it's your business.'

What if you had philosophical objections to preparing your own food -- i.e. to actually getting up, pulling some food out of the fridge, and nuking it, or boiling, or whatever? Is the society obligated to save you from starvation by providing the free food preparer for you, too? That's what follows from your assertion, you know: if you would rather starve than do something to alleviate your hunger, the society has an obligation to provide that missing something to you.

because a certain number will always resist economic coercion.

Meaning, by simply refusing to give you their stuff, others are coercing you. Right. Fuck you, asshole. Save your slave-morality blackmail for someone who gives a fuck about your fits of indolent pique.

Such consequences are a serious matter and one is either willing to oppose them across the board, or they aren't willing to do so. The camps are clear.

Oh aye, indeed.

Unidian's position would be a little less ridiculous to start with if he was actually contributing to the social aid he advocates.

I don't know much about him but if he is with the others on this forum he places truth on the alter and sees no reason for anyone to do anything than seek truth and enlightenment. Thus his ideal society is one full of monks and sages where nobody works unless they want to, and those few that want to work provide for all the others who are relaxing in bliss 24/7 and becoming one with Nature.

Matt wrote: Hardly anybody on the message boards can stand [Unidian], as far as I can tell.

There's a lot that I like about Nat, for the most part. He may not respect all of the values of the forum, and he may hold opinions that I disagree with, but when you contrast him to the average human being, there's a lot there to admire.

However - this is coming from a guy who, I sometimes wonder, hardly anybody (including Nat) can stand. :)-

Neil,

Unidian's position would be a little less ridiculous to start with if he was actually contributing to the social aid he advocates.

That's illogical. How can one collect benefits and contribute to them simultaneously? That is asking the impossible.

The social work I do takes the form of raising awareness of universal human rights, promoting progressive consciousness, and that sort of thing. Some here place no value on that. Others do. The same is true of any sort of work whatsoever, except in modern society, people don't feel obligated to pay for this particular sort of work. That hasn't always been the case - for example, it was well-understood in ancient India that householders were to willingly give to Buddhist monks when asked in exchange for the social and philosophical services they provided.

But I realize that seems ludicrous in our culture. A pity, and we have the culture we deserve as a result.

I don't know much about him but if he is with the others on this forum he places truth on the alter and sees no reason for anyone to do anything than seek truth and enlightenment.

Nah. Seeking "truth and enlightenment" is pretty awesome, but it's not for everybody. I see no reason for anyone to do anything but whatever they want to do (violent acts and other obvious misbehavior excepted). Whatever a person's interests and temperament are suited to is what they should be doing, and they shouldn't be forced or coerced into doing anything else. For many people, this will still mean some type of economic work, because that's where their interests and temperament will lead. But for those with a different sort of personality, I want freedom.

Compulsory work is slavery enforced through the coercive power of entirely preventable economic and social realities. Seriously people, what part of slavery is wrong is so tough to understand?

Thus his ideal society is one full of monks and sages where nobody works unless they want to, and those few that want to work provide for all the others who are relaxing in bliss 24/7 and becoming one with Nature.

Yeah, pretty much, although I'd replace "monks and sages" with "free human beings." Remember, you said yourself that those working want to work. They want to work, others want to do other things. Let's arrange it so that everyone can do what they want to do. It's very possible and very desirable. And it's going to happen eventually anyway.

Cory,

I've always enjoyed Nat for the most part.

However - this is coming from a guy who, I sometimes wonder, hardly anybody (including Nat) can stand. :)-

I actually haven't really formed an impression of you one way or the other. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though. :)

Unidian wrote:Compulsory work is slavery enforced through the coercive power of entirely preventable economic and social realities. Seriously people, what part of slavery is wrong is so tough to understand?

Right. So if I offer you a fishing spear on a deserted island, you refuse to use it, and then I refuse to share the fish I caught with you, i am enslaving you, even though all I have done is offer you a free tool, and not one bit of violence or coercion. I enslave you by my mere presence.

Which is really a way of saying that you choose to be a slave. You are blackmailing everyone -- "give me what i want, or I will consider myself enslaved!" Well, guess what? if you are free to kill yourself, you are certainly free to choose to be a slave, too. More power to you, slave!

Furthermore, in your model, you are a slave whether you receive the dole or not -- if you do, then you are a slave who is being fed, that's all. You chose to be a slave, and you remain one.

There is a popular saying in Ukraine -- slaves aren't allowed into paradise (????? ?? ??? ?? ????????). I have nothing but utmost contempt for those who voluntarily choose to be slaves, as should every authentic man and woman.

Alright my turn,

Since nobody consulted me before I was born into this fucked up society I have absolutely no problem seeing a fellow wise man living off of it. If I qualified for anything more than food stamps when it comes to welfare I would do it too. I have no pride invested in maintaining a "working man image" so I can get a pat on the back from Corporate Johnny. To hell with society and to hell with all of its irrational beliefs and greed driven values. If they want to run around pretending to be adults while they act like ego-maniacal little children seeing who has the biggest cock their whole lives then fine, but don't get your panties in a bunch when I don't participate and call you out on your childish behavior. Are they obligated to pay me or anyone else? Objectively, no, but that's a pretty meaningless statement. Subjectively from my perspective, yes they should pay me. Why you say? Because it's the fair thing to do. If I don't want to play their childish games then they should at least have the common courtesy to say, alright we'll accommodate you since you obviously didn't choose to involve yourself in our pig sty, (a pig sty, a.k.a "corporate culture" which has monopolized the entire country and beyond leaving no room for the rational and wise). But society still has a ways to go before it even matures to this point, so in the mean time I'm forced play their games.

Well said. You bring up a valid point which I also cover in my essay Freedom, Capitalism & Work:

The idea that people should work for a living is very nearly universal in its acceptance. We grow up with this idea, seeing it reinforced in our homes, churches, media, and peer groups from a very early age. The belief that "decent people" are to have jobs or own businesses is almost sacrosanct - it is rarely questioned, and when it is, the questioners are usually censured or ostracized in various ways. It is clear that as a society, we are convinced of the merit in the message on the gates of Auschwitz - but it is not so clear why this should be so.

The most common answer, that "people need to earn a living," is obviously tautologous. It is simply an undisguised value judgment which does not even attempt to address the issue of why people "need" to earn a living in a world of increasing material abundance. Despite its total philosophical vacuity, the ubiquitous statement is usually delivered with a granite-like sense of finality, as if it were the sort of truth that is simply unimpeachable, to be challenged only by fools and madmen. But why should people need to earn a living?

Arguments in favor of work's value usually boil down to the question of obligation. We are to work because "the world does not owe us a living." But why doesn't it? After all, we did not choose to be born. To say that we have any obligation in a transaction we did not choose smacks of coercion and even enslavement, but those who point out the fact that no one chooses to be born are customarily dismissed as "childish," "unrealistic," etc. And yet, if I were to give you a candy bar which you never asked for and wait until after you had eaten part of it to inform you that I expected payment, how would you think of me?

Pointing to the inherent unfairness of imposing a sense of obligation on individuals for taking part in a life they never chose is not a denial of life's value, as some may suppose. The aim is not to complain about being alive, but to question the assumption that life is something we have to "earn." It is common to hear life described as a "gift," but what kind of gift comes with an obligation? If supporters of the capitalist "work ethic" were consistent, they would describe life as a "sale." We are sold the right to live in exchange for a lifetime of labor. There is clearly no "gift" element to be found in this - at least not once we leave the shelter of childhood and enter the adult world, where we expected to begin discharging our debt to the world - and insisting that those who question this "need to grow up" simply dodges the whole issue.

The full essay is here. I've linked to it several times, because it addresses most of the common objections and advances the core arguments of the anti-employment position. There are few better resoruces on this subject, frankly. The existing body of work is so tiny that I can say that without much trouble.