If you're not in favour of universal and unconditional:

🍍 Housing
🍍 Drinkable water
🍍 Food
🍍 Medical care
🍍 Income

If it's your considered belief that some people literally deserve to die of starvation or exposure or something because they aren't good enough at *making money*:

You're a monster, please un-follow me

Β· Web Β· 13 Β· 221 Β· 251

"But people don't NEED money!"

Yes, they do

Beyond having basic necessities met, everyone deserves the dignity afforded by the ability and autonomy to pursue their own goals and projects

This means money

Maybe you can imagine some world without moneyβ€”fine, whatever

Just replace "money" with whatever would go in the slot for the thing that affords people the ability to get stuff done on their own terms in your fantasy

Show thread

"But this is slavery! And exploitation!"

Yes, you have moral obligations

Deal with it

But don't you dare make glib comparisons to slavery in my mentions

Show thread
@matrix07012 @bgcarlisle "Slavery" is a very strange way of putting it, though you raise somewhat of a valid point - though according to John Roemer's notion of exploitation, even if such a society would be exploitative in some way, it would likely be less so (quantitatively speaking) than a capitalist one. The main objection to Roemer's model of exploitation is that even under a Socialist mode of production, the disabled could still be said to be "exploiting" those who pay for their care, but Roemer's model isn't the only one about in town any more, and there are models of exploitation which do not have that problem, but still account for capitalist exploitation.
Your task is to define both exploitation and slavery and show how the definitions are relevant, or whether there is even an alternative for a society considered as social production, not merely private individual labour.

Every member of every society both depends on others and is depended on by others. If that's "exploitation" or "slavery" necessarily then we ought to reconsider the necessarily negative value of those terms.

@bgcarlisle I wouldn't say "income" is necessary for living. What really is necessary: food, housing, drinkable water, medical care, modern services: electricity, education, transport. Money is not so importan, we haven't understand it is just a way to get the importan things to live a happy life. At the end, we can't eat money (forgive my crappy English).


I'm troubled by the potentially tremendous gap between meeting people's survival needs--which can be tricky enough*--and affording them sufficient whatever to preserve their dignity. Dignity is a tremendously elastic concept--I know SUV drivers with families to tote around for whom a more practical minivan is beneath their dignity.

*see planned, later post


as for survival, the corn-based food system owes much to the very progressive Henry A. Wallace. He succeeded in building a system where calories are more abundant and available than ever.

The catch is that system is optimized for a goal that's off center from what we really need (and though we know more now about what we need, we're still figuring some of it out).


(in tech circles, this is often bitcoin, but I'm sure that's obvious to all reading)

@sydneyfalk Oh jeez

You said the word

Now they will find this thread and give us Opinions oh no

@bgcarlisle personally it really fucking annoys me when people are like "you shouldnt say that people need [thing that probably is bad but is necessary in current society]" like okay sure but im more concerned with getting people relief now, then figure out the logistics of radial idealism later

@FirstProgenitor How can you say that people NEED water?

When we have ascended to be gods, we will drink nectar

@FirstProgenitor @bgcarlisle there's a very big difference between "people don't need [thing]" and "people shouldn't need [thing]"

unfortunately most idealists forget this and just assume anyone saying "people need this" are also in favor of keeping it that way

@bgcarlisle money is certainly easier to deal with than time-based work credits.

@bgcarlisle i don't like not being able to eat when i don't have money. it would be better to eliminate money and do labour exchanges, i think.

@lyliawisteria Right, what I mean in the first post is that all of those things are independently things that each person should be given, universally and unconditionally

So regardless of whether you spend all your money on $FOOLISH_THING, you should still eat and live

@bgcarlisle maybe we could also stop making things that nobody asked for and nobody needs.

@bgcarlisle I want other people to work for my existence why don't the right get this?
@bgcarlisle a lot of things happen that none of us "deserve". life isnt concerned about you, you and i are insignificant as fuck

i dont follow you though

I just don't want to pay for other people's wants...

And I don't think it's moral to force people to work, labor or toil for the benifit of others...

Feel free to unfollow me if you think that slavery is moral.

@bgcarlisle What you refer to, is about what #UniversalHumanism represents. When all human life is valued equally – extensible to nature, too (e.g. ecocide) –, stuff like exploitation doesn't even come up, as it would violate the most basic principles. Since we have a "stable" monetary system, and inequality, today, is waaay bigger than ever before, these concepts become blurry... lightyears away. The West propagates human rights etc., it's up to #CriticalTheory to transcend that sh*t. #DontHate

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!