posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 12:49 PM
Originally posted by doctornamtabI envision a society based on mutual contribution, not how well we can take advantage of one another.
If we provide free food and shelter (what most people work for anyway) our values will shift from economic values to aesthetic values. People will be
creative, they'll make art, grow a garden, exercise, take care of their kids, etc. We'll have time and energy to do things we normally cannot do. We
will finally be able to take hold of what makes us human, our creative minds and social, supportive nature.
Except, naturally, for the people who produce this "free" food and "free" housing. They wont have time or energy for aesthetics because they will
be too busy producing for those who spend all their new found free time making art, growing a garden, and exercising. It ALMOST
sounds like the
producers have been relegated to slave status to subsidize the newly found free time for others. I wonder how that will work out in the end? Surely it
wouldn’t cause resentment.
Got John Galt?
And speaking of which, aren’t there more necessities than food and shelter? Is electricity a necessity? How about clothing, medicine, a bed, shoes?
And if these too are necessities and necessities are required to be provided free of charge (free to the end user of course), do we need even more
people giving their labor away for the common good?
And to that end, who decides who gets the free time for “aesthetics pursuits” and who works to provide these free necessities?
And just on that off chance that the producers get fed up working 16 hour days, 7 days a week so that others are free for their “aesthetics
pursuits” (I know, that would never happen) what happens when they say “where’s my freebies?”.
Sounds like we need a police force to get them back working for the common good.