Sorry, Yuyutsu, you lost me: who deserves compensation, and for what ? For just existing ? Paid for by whom, who surely by virtue of actually working, is worthy of more 'compensation', not less ?

And why should someone have grievances against me, just because I work (hypothetically speaking)?

People who work enjoy the benefits of society ? Yes, maybe, precisely because they have earnt them. Drones and blow-flies don't really earn very much at all in comparison. Those who work, CREATE precisely those benefits - what do the drones do for society ?

Sorry, Yuyutsu, you lay down so many red herrings that one doesn't know where to begin. But I suppose they could feed your drones :)

Ideology or reality: which prevails ? Reality is 'there', ideology is 'somewhere else'. Build your ideology on reality, not fantasies. And the reality is, I suspect, that there have always been 'free riders', loafers, ever-ready to bott off other people, in all societies, even hunter-gatherer societies, although there, they would have had to use their wits (perhaps become 'elders' as quickly as possible) to avoid effort and share in what the women gathered and the men occasionally hunted for. And the reality has been also, that they have everywhere and always been a drain on society.

So why shouldn't all able-bodied people work, preferably at what they liked doing, but really at whatever was necessary for their society to continue ? Contribution and benefits should roughly match.

Joe

Dear Joe,

Each one of us deserves compensation for having a particular lifestyle imposed on us by modern society whether we like it or not.

We are just so used to it, but we shouldn't really take it for granted.

If you tried to live out in nature, either individually or in groups/tribes/packs, picking and using its resources as you please, as our forefathers did for 100,000s of years, you would be charged with 1001 offences, arrested and thrown in a small cell. These offences would include trespassing, breaking fences, contaminating water-reservoirs, lighting fires, stealing, hunting and fishing protected animals, use of weapons, endangering traffic and rail, indecent exposure, entering reserved military/security zones, improper disposal of garbage, building and mining without permit, breaking quarantine regulations, failing to register children and pets, having illegal pets, failing to pay council-rates and for water and sewerage, breaking health-and-safety regulations, etc.

The scientific inventions of modern society allowed it to reduce mortality, expand in numbers and fill the earth, not leaving space for other modes of life. The only remaining mode of life that is now legal, is to have your needs met through the use of money - and that money can normally be only obtained by working in a formal and acceptable capacity.

In summary, modern society tells us: "work and play the money-game our way; or starve; or be locked up (and if you try to resist, we'll shoot you down)". In fact even starving is not a real option because sooner one is declared insane and locked up in another room where they are force-fed.

While no amount of compensation can be truly adequate for the loss of freedom, as our freedom to pursue a different mode of life which doesn't involve modern-society was forcibly taken away, we at least deserve compensation, which is to be paid with the only remaining legal means of survival - money. Any demand to work for that subsistence-level money, the rough equivalent of what we could earn while pursuing other modes of life, would amount to slavery.

(to be continued when my quota allows...)

Yuyutsu "Anyone who finds themselves in financial difficulty should be able to request to convert their current-year's negative-income-tax into weekly cash payments"

So we're back to an army of paper-shuffling bureaucrats.
And cash payments for many people anyway.

I say, ditch the paper-shufflers and pay cash. Then nobody ever needs reevaluating.

Kilmouski, "people do need to be housed and it is only a matter as to what the standard will be and how this housing will be funded."

The market will decide.
Some people want mansions, some would be satisfied with cheap Japanese-style "capsules".
Public housing has created as many problems as it solved.

Pericles "suddenly, fraud becomes the norm."

How can there be fraud if it's an automatic payment for everyone?
Only if some get it and some can't, can there be fraud.

"providing free money as a reward for doing precisely nothing"

Consider it a reward for "not robbing people", which would require greater expense on police, courts and prisons and make our streets far more dangerous.

Loudmouth "Work or starve"

You're presuming full employment is actually possible.
If not, then there'll always be people who can't get work, no matter how hard they try.

Increasing mechanisation/computerisation is making more and more human labour redundant.
And with an additional 100,000+ immigrants every year, we are *never* going to catch up.

"why should someone who is working pay a cent towards some bludger who isn't"

The majority of wealth is in the hands of a few persons (the 1%) and corporations. They will pay for this.
Joe Blow will pay little tax and also get the payment himself. Not a bad deal.

And what of people who cannot work, even though they'd like to, because of temporary or permanent disability?
Why should the able-bodied compensate such "bludgers" in your dog-eat-dog world?

Shockadelic,

What don't you understand about 'able-bodied ' ?

I'll tell you one thing: if I had my life over again, I would never, never voluntarily contribute towards the income, no matter how frugal, of a person who was able-bodied, and who was making no effort to either study or train or find work. That goes for your 1 %, the extremely wealthy, as well as the bludgers and swivers at the other end of the spectrum. And most of the time-serving public servants in between as well. Christ, who IS working in this society apart from non-Anglos ?

I was asking where the money is supposed to come from, but the only fatuous answer is: from the wealthy. Good luck with that.

I've heard of some dumb ideas but this one comes close to taking the cake.

Joe

It's not just close, Joe.

>>I've heard of some dumb ideas but this one comes close to taking the cake.<<

It not only takes it, it wolfs it down and hoovers up the crumbs.

What I find really fascinating, is the mindset behind such a proposition - that there should be a division of society between those who work, and those who bludge. What mental processes can lead a person to the conclusion that, somehow, it is the right of the individual to secede from contributing to society, but at the same time feel that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with allowing others to maintain them.

Yuyutsu's complaint that "it is the fault of society, anyway", is the classic drop-out mantra from the sixties. Interestingly, many of those sixties hippies grew up to mastermind the "greed is good" eighties, while the rest settled down to bring up 2.3 children and work in an insurance company. Hippiedom simply was not a sustainable lifestyle.

There is a cost associated with living. What is missing from the provider/bludger equation is the contribution the bludger intends to make to keep the world turning.

Incidentally, Yuyutsu...

>>If you tried to live out in nature, either individually or in groups/tribes/packs, picking and using its resources as you please, as our forefathers did for 100,000s of years, you would be charged with 1001 offences<<

Correct. The problem being the idea of "using its resources as you please". If you were to find yourself an unoccupied space, that no-one has previously invested in, you can do as you please.

It is a big country. And an even bigger world. If that is the life you prefer, then there's absolutely nothing stopping you indulging in it. There are plenty of examples of drop-out societies around, making their own rules and living by them.

The fact that you can't indulge yourself the same way in Pymble or Toorak does not validate your position.

Re: ... If you were to find yourself an unoccupied space, that no-one has previously invested in, you can do as you please.

Yes, and I have a further suggestion:

Get a DVD player and Bronowski's "The Ascent of Man" and run it backwards this could be most instructional.

Kilmouski ( my Russian Blue Cat).