View Single Post
Old July 1 2013, 04:00 AM   #598
marksound
Fleet Captain
 
Location: Planet Carcazed
Re: Roddenberry's Worst Ideas

sonak wrote: View Post
Carcazoid wrote: View Post
Charles Phipps wrote: View Post
Bluntly, part of why I dislike this argument is that many times the individuals involved fall back on "The Couch Potato" argument which exists solely to serve his own needs and will exist as a drain on society unless motivated by fear of starvation.

The problem is, we have plenty of examples this flat out is not true in RL from people who are rich yet continue to work and people who are taken care of by socialist governments yet continue to work.

The thing is, many times arguers don't rebuttle these points, they flat out ignore them. This page is filled with mentions of these various RL incidents and the pro-money group's response is, "People won't work if they're not paid." It's like none of these things are even mentioned.

I'm a proponent of capitalism in RL but even I think people are SLIGHTLY more complex than this.
I think you're wrong.

In real life, there is no scenario I've ever seen where this works.

If no one volunteers to do a particularly nasty but necessary job, who would assign someone to do it against his will?

If a person gets lazy and decides he doesn't want to work, would society cut off his food? Evict him from his home? If he is not contributing, is his life worth supporting? Then what? Exterminate the non-contributors and the undesirables?

Don't think it hasn't been proposed. George Bernard Shaw said, "Sir or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence?" Look into the early 20th century progressive movement, including eugenics. Yes, eugenics.

It's crazy, but it's true. How many people right here on this forum would eventually agree with a proposal like that if it meant not having to deal with people who don't think the way they do? People like me?

er, you do realize that there are millions of people that don't work AT THIS VERY MOMENT who get support through welfare, right?

So WHY, in a post-scarcity future, where there's LESS NEED for work, would there be pressure to "get rid of those not contributing?" That makes no sense. I suspect that those who voluntarily chose not to work would be greeted with shrugs, since everyone would have enough resources to go around.


As to the "who does the crappy jobs?" argument, it's an easily taken care of one. Either technology would eliminate the need for those jobs, or they'd be rotated on a fair and democratic basis.
You'd have to ask Mr. Shaw and his contemporaries. He asked, paraphrasing, "if your life is not contributing to society, what good is it to you?"

Look it up. Progressivism isn't the cure-all it's touted to be.
marksound is offline   Reply With Quote