Brian Holden

For some unknown reasons your daddy did not tell you that Imperial-Classical-Greece had slaves who supplied goods and services and left to masters the free time to pose questions about the nature of what surrounded them.

Was your daddy telling you the full truth by omitting to make you note that the time-to-think of the Master-Greeks was stolen from their slaves?

Probably your daddy was trapped by the dogmas of our history books and had no eyes for the inhabitants of this land, Australia, where in times, preceding the so called Greek civilization, without the help of slaves, had not questioned, but embraced nature with all its plants and animals as their Goddess.

The Aborigines, as we newcomers call them, had thought of many devices, some far more daring then the ones we knew at the time in which Europeans stole their sacred soil.

And, notably, they never thought of money.

They must have perceived that the only valid currency of every living entity, is TIME.

Hi Skeptic,

You write, "Aborigines .... had thought of many devices, some far more daring then the ones we knew at the time in which Europeans stole their sacred soil."

Fifteen thousand years ago, all of our ancestors, yours and mine, were hunter-gatherers. They hunted food day after day, and they (i.e. the women) gathered food day after day. They had to put a hell of a lot of effort into that, just to survive from one day to the next. They may not have perceived all of that effort as work, but they certainly didn't sit around all day.

"Aborigines .... had thought of many devices .... " ? Of course, like hunter-gatherers everywhere, they had to cope with their environments with all of the ingenuity they could muster.

But if you know of "many devices", let us know.

Over tens of thousands of years, they, everywhere, would have developed intricate perceptions of how it all worked, but not necessarily accurate ones: with limited technology, and limited means to develop their technology, no matter how ingeniously, their (our) understanding of everything around them would have been rudimentary - whether in Stone Age Scotland, India or Australia.

All over the world, hunter-gatherers (us) - and later, the early pastoralists - would have over- or mis-used their environment, eventually exterminating most of the large mammals, deforesting their country and impoverishing the soil, everywhere. Everywhere: Iran, North Africa, the Yucatan Peninsula, the Deccan, central Australia.

Hunter-gatherers did not live in some form of 'primitive communism'. They did not have, could not have had, superior knowledge of the world. They were as intelligent as we are, but did not have the benefits of a bitter knowledge of history, nor of the hard-won technologies to avoid environmental damage. We were them, they were us, in a much cruder, more ignorant, time.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Joe

One consequence of sitting around all day, not ever working, nothing to work towards, nothing to look forward to, is that people start getting on each others' nerves. As well, the moral fabric starts to break down, since nothing is all that urgent or crucial or salient, especially if people feel that they are being excluded from the actual world. Abuse and violence tends to follow and this article, on New Democracy, is a harbinger of what happens next:

http://www.opendemocracy.net/tani-adams/chronic-violence-new-normal-in-latin-america?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=201210&utm_campaign=0

It's not all sweetness and light, doing nothing. For a short time, of course it is (that's called 'holidays'), but forever ? With nothing to really work towards ? You might as well be in prison.

Joe

Not even with a comment!

I'll go along with this as long as the paying of taxes to support those who choose not to work is also a real choice. Holly can pay them, he's apparently happy to do so. I'm not so keen on doing so.

If I'm exchanging time that could be spend more enjoyably doing other things for the sake of the money to support those other things then I'd rather keep more of the money.

I like working but I've not yet found a way to combine the types of work I enjoy and a good income so I do work that I enjoy at times but would not do if it did not make a substantial difference to my income.

I suspect the idea that some should be able to live of the efforts of others is a big part of why so many don't have the balance we'd like to have. It's not just consumerism but the amount of money we get taxed when we do work (or spend) which goes to support the choices of others.

I've made this point previously, I think our tax system could be restructured around time rather than income. Potentially we could all have a tax obligation of one working day a week (picking a number) to society either in cash or community work. What you do with the rest is your own business.

R0bert

Some interesting point raised. I can agree with Houe's ideas, in that the most fortunate people are those who really enjoy what they do; it's ridiculous to suggest, for instance, that the likes of Tiger Woods would stop playing golf if he couldn't make millions of dollars out of it.
While our Qantas pilots are on ridiculously high wages and demanding more, domestic pilots in the USA are working for less money than many truck drivers. They love to fly. Equally, Australian small farmers have to be in it for the life style. God knows there's no money in it.
On the other hand, I agree with Robert's point. I don't believe anyone should get a free lunch, that someone else has to pay for. Surely it isn't too much to ask of the unemployed to do some voluntary work, one or two days a week?
My favourite solution is free education. With so many over 50's out of work or under employed (self included) I see no reason why schools could not be open 16 hours a day, with people sharing their skills and knowledge.
Unemployment benefits could be paid on a hourly rate; the more hours spent increasing knowledge and skills, the more benefit paid. Community service could be an alternative for those who don't like learning.
Such schools could be where our 'leisure class' hangs out, doing all that 'cultural stuff'; intriguing our younger generations with benefit of our experience and wisdom.
That' d be a hoot.