"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
People who work too much arent free. they are merely slaves.
Basic needs such as housing should be free for those who dont have them. Its not even expensive. All current homelessness in USA could be solved for mere 100 billion dollars, less than 2% of US budget.
the rent system likewise, if abolished, would greatly increase income of average person.
Work time should likewise be reduced to 6 hours per day. this encourages people more to get a job, as well as inviting foreign workers in too because everyone prefers shorter work time.
Minimum wage should be increased just enough so those receiving it are not living in poverty, but high minimum wage isnt necessary.
Basic income by government for all those who receive income smaller than some selected standard would eliminate all poverty.
Money provided to families per child likewise would reduce poverty significantly.
How much would all this cost, basic income, income for children, houses for homeless, all combined?
Less than 1 trillion in total.
to be more precise, about 700 to 800 billion.
Effects on poverty reduction?
A family of 4 would have, from this, a basic income of 1600$ per month, even if no person in family is employed. that means 19000 per year. If only one person in family is employed, this rises to over 26000$ per year, well above poverty line.
So it would effectively eliminate poverty.
Why do you call yourself a fascist? Those guys are right wing. With these views, you are literally a communist or socialist.
But as in all areas of life, you are obviously very confused
.....
Why do you call yourself a fascist?
I am anarcho-fascist, not fascist.
What you call yourself and the way you describe your beliefs above, are polar opposites, still
No, anarcho-fascism is anarchy implemented by a dictator. And anarchy does involve a lot of socialist elements, because anarcho-fascism isnt anarcho-capitalism.
No, anarcho-fascism is anarchy implemented by a dictator. And anarchy does involve a lot of socialist elements, because anarcho-fascism isnt anarcho-capitalism.
Anarcho-fascism is considered right wing because of the authoritarianism and ultranationalism it embraces.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
Anarcho-fascism is considered right wing because of the authoritarianism and ultranationalism it embraces.
Sorry, you dont know what fascism is. Authoritarianism isnt right wing, as all commies are authoritarian. Nationalism is something different, its not what defines right wing.
this isnt fascism, and its definitely not anarcho-fascism.
this isnt fascism, and its definitely not anarcho-fascism.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
Anarcho-fascism isnt free market capitalism. try again, google AI.
Anarcho-fascism isnt free market capitalism.
You're defining "right-wing" exclusively as capitalism? Maybe, just maybe, you should look it up, sweet summer child.
Take the risk of thinking for yourself, much more happiness, truth, beauty, and wisdom will come to you that way. - Christopher Hitchens
You're defining "right-wing" exclusively as capitalism?
Right wing is pro free market capitalism. Historically, most fascist dictators were not pro free market. Hitler was even a socialist.
So you confuse fascism with right wing, when really, it can be left wing economically too.
linate wrote:
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
So you don't want to work, that is what you're saying, basically.
You must know that most rich people also work, probably more than you. Elon Musk, for example, says he works 16 hours per day. I mean, they have to keep working because if they don't take care of their fortune, they can lose it all.
Maybe you're being mislead by the luxurious trips they make. I don't think it's an everyday thing, but it's definetly what they can pay.
...am I agreeing with something SatanLucy said?
God damnit, I must be getting sick. I hope its not terminal, I dont have health insurance...
Elon Musk, for example, says he works 16 hours per day.
If you believe that is true then I have beachfront property I can sell you on the cheap in the midwest.
Correct Remy.
Correct too Misterio.
How much for the lakeside property with its own beach Alyssa?
How much ya got?
linate wrote:
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom.
I don't think anyone defines "freedom" as "having to work for basic needs", so it's good you can't believe it.
It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
So, you don't want to work, then you need to find someone that is willing to work for you and have them take care of you. I can't believe you think having someone take care of you is synonymous with freedom.
It's how life works, all animals must expend energy to have their basic needs met, you don't want to do the work so you want others to do the work for you, you want to be the rich person with people serving you.
If you don't want to do the work for your basic needs, it's unlikely you will want to do the work necessary to become rich.
There's always the lottery, see if you can find someone who will buy you tickets,
linate wrote:
"I can't believe people think having to work for basic needs is synonymous with freedom. It's literally a bunch of rich people hoarding essential resources and telling us to serve them or die."
A rich person doesn't have to horde anything to make 'working for basic needs' necessary. In the state of nature you would need to build a shelter to keep moisture out, heat in, and the sun off. You would need to maintain that shelter. You would need to gather food or hunt, and you would need to create tools to do so. If there were other people you would need to protect your territory from incursions that would deplete your food supply and so would need to make weapons and fight.
Doing all of this necessary work on your own sucks - you can't focus on one set of core skills and it consumes every spare moment of time. This is why the tribe survives - the division of labor and the sharing of burdens. And then an economy is created. Settled agriculture creates a surplus of food. Nations and political systems arise, trade and war.
This all creates leisure time. There are societies in which certain people have leisure time all the time and other people work as a matter of course. The Antebellum South was one of them. This sort of parasitism doesn't last for long because it encourages indolence, inefficiency, and corruption.
Now there could be a strong case made that people like Musk and Sam Altman are parasites who consume far more than they contribute and get by on graft rather than merit. Sure. Just remove the parasites then. It doesn't alter the necessity of working to live
Alyssa wrote:
Elon Musk, for example, says he works 16 hours per day.
If you believe that is true then I have beachfront property I can sell you on the cheap in the midwest.
It's not what I believe, it's what many former employees of him described how it is to work with him. They told that Musk wants everyone to work as hard as him.
Maybe he's not working as long as that, but he surely was when he was starting up a business like SpaceX.
Alyssa
...am I agreeing with something SatanLucy said?
If you check the big issues page on my profile, we are 66% in agreement. So we actually agree a lot.
It's seriously nice property. White sand beach, clear blue water as far as the eye can see, and you're only twenty miles out from downtown Cincinnati so you have all the conveniences of modern life still readily available. I can reserve it for you but you gotta make me an offer now, I got a bunch of other people who want it.
If you check the big issues page on my profile, we are 66% in agreement. So we actually agree a lot.
Big issues represents a fragment of a microcosm of who someone is in terms of their ideals and ethics, a fraction that isn't perfect as even the big issues has nuance that the rating system can't capture via a "rate me 1-5" system.
No, we do not agree a lot, any brief glance at our interactions on this site will tell you that.
No, we do not agree a lot,
Well, where do you disagree with me the most?
Well, where do you disagree with me the most?
It'd probably be easier to find where I agree with you the most...