It is surprising to me that this proposition gets an airing at all.

Despite Yuyutsu's protests that we are basically a bunch of spirits yearning to be free, fundamentally we are but a step-and-a-half away from the straightforward subsistence-focussed, hunter-gatherer status of our immediate forbears. To extend Loudmouth's parable a little, imagine for a moment the likely fate of a Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, if he decided to wait for others to kill his breakfast for him?

At base, we are all in this together, whether we like it or not.

To allow people to be able to choose whether or not they contribute to the process of feeding and clothing themselves, and instead give them the option to let others labour on their behalf, would be the most significant contribution to total destruction of our society imaginable.

From another angle, it would reduce our standard of living to a point where we would be forced to return to hunter-gatherer status anyway, so making the entire project self-defeating.

By the way, comparing our society to the Swiss, whose entire late twentieth century economy was built on the leftovers of Nazi larceny, is hardly a parallel that can shed any light at all on our current situation.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I'm certainly not suggesting that anybody should be forced to do anything, not even to watch DVDs, although they could feast themselves on some of your red herrings while they are doing that :)

So how are all those loafers, Buddhas, vegetable-growers, etc. going to be paid ? Old question: where is the money supposed to come from ?

But a fair question. But I suppose those acres of money-trees might help, as long as there are people around who, out of love, are happy to work their 12-hour days for the good of their fellow man, bludger as he or she may be.

Joe

Dear pericles,

<<if he decided to wait for others to kill his breakfast for him?>>

Isn't this the current case already?

Few are doing productive work that actually feeds while the many shuffle paper (or computer bits), driving public-funded cars to sit in air-conditioned offices in attempt to control the few who feed them.

<<At base, we are all in this together, whether we like it or not.>>

Those who like the advantages of a modern economy outnumber those who do not. They made any other lifestyle practically illegal (just see what happens if you try to kill your own breakfast).

The least decent thing then is to expect those who like it and are advantaged by it, to compensate those who don't, allowing them more-or-less the equivalent of that basic subsistence they could have if it wasn't illegal.

<<From another angle, it would reduce our standard of living to a point where we would be forced to return to hunter-gatherer status anyway>>

It may technically reduce the economic standard of living somewhat, but increase the quality of living instead. A return to hunter-gatherer status is exaggerated and out of the question because most people still want their luxuries. It may however return us to a more balanced lifestyle.

Dear Joe,

<<Old question: where is the money supposed to come from?>>

the few who are willing to live frugally will be supported by a fraction of the income of the majority who are not willing to give up their comforts and luxuries.

Mind you, the savings by eliminating the associated bureaucracy will be greater than the expenses. How do we now pay for all those public-servants anyway? Hmmm... we actually get into debt even in the midst of a mining-boom!

Don't we not already feed people who don't work?
Is anyone hungry in the streets of Australia?
The only difference is that we now teach them to cheat and pretend they're desperately looking for work, meanwhile paying all that other staff generously as useless inquisitors!

Two words, DREAM ON!

I say this because our first hurdle will be to pay down the massive debt we have been handed and, chances are, if and when this is achieved, most of us viewing this site will either be dead, or on a pension.

Put simply, you can't pay money to people you don't have.

Dear Rehctub,

You have every right to be upset about Gillard's wasting-spree, but Japan had an even worse and more costly earthquake and tsunami, yet they are recovering well (financially, I'm not referring to the possible impending nuclear meltdown) - and so could we, I believe.

One way to quickly recover from our debt, is to close down unnecessary government departments and sell off their buildings - and the first in line is Centerlink!

Your convoluted thought processes are fascinating to follow, Yuyutsu. But sometimes they trip you up...

>>The least decent thing then is to expect those who like it and are advantaged by it, to compensate those who don't...<<

I'm not entirely sure - because of said convoluted reasoning - but I don't think you actually meant to say "least decent" in this sentence. Mainly because a) it would make the concept one that I might agree with and b) it seems to be contrary to everything else you advocate.

It doesn't help that you start from a fundamentally questionable proposition:

>>Few are doing productive work that actually feeds while the many shuffle paper (or computer bits), driving public-funded cars to sit in air-conditioned offices in attempt to control the few who feed them.<<

If you are describing the mass of public "servants" that we support, volens nolens, with our taxes, then some of that mud definitely sticks. But if you want to avoid compounding errors, you should not allow it to translate into a way of life for all of us. Just because some citizens have found themselves with their snouts firmly in the trough of taxpayer funds, it doesn't make it an acceptable way of life. It is something of a miracle that we survive at all with the dead weight of gravy-trainers hanging off our coat-tails, without turning it into business-as-usual.

>>It may technically reduce the economic standard of living somewhat, but increase the quality of living instead<<

And how would that work, do you think? As the standard of living decreases, fewer people could be bothered to do anything except collect their handouts. Which would necessarily get lower and lower, until...

Nup. The whole idea is just the wishful thinking of the terminally lazy. Nothing more, nothing less.