Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

mashable.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 204 posts

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#171

Post by mlac »

mlac wrote: post #168
dajoh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because you're in the woods does not mean you can ignore the law. Where do I find this mythical wilderness where no laws apply to me?

Alaska. You can move out there by yourself, do whatever the hell you want (as long as its by yourself and doesn’t impact others), and no one will notice or care. Or you can be a hermit.

In re-reading this thread, I realize something: if you move to Alaska to avoid being forced to work by society, you better damn well believe that you will be forced to work by nature.

I think this says something about the very nature of work. In our modern times it is detached from its purpose (survival of self and species), but that is ultimately what drives the need to work.

This idea that a capable, working-age living thing should be able to free load off of others’ work to stay alive is not dignifying for that person, and unfairly burdens the one who is working to keep the other person alive.

Put another way, just because a farmer can make enough to feed a town doesn’t mean the farmer should only be allowed enough grain to feed his family, with everything else divided among those who don’t work. What’s the incentive to work?

And when you introduce government rules to enforce those things, the farmer is compelled by violence and force to give away his labor.

Just like missing the connection between work and survival, people miss the connection between government regulation and the promise of force behind it as a punishment for non-compliance.

The reason people pay taxes (which is the only way we have as a society to redistribute resources from those who work to those who don’t) is because their money will be taken if it is not paid, or they will be put in jail if they lie about how much they owe.

So while the original comment complains about how you’re compelled to work, that’s actually not true. It is a societal norm to work and to have a good quality of life, but no one is forcing you. But at the same time they are asking to increase government benefits and force those who work to pay for their survival.

All this said - if the conversation is framed around how much work it takes to survive, I think as a society it would make sense for that number to drop as we’ve increased scale of production and automation.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#172

Post by mlac »

bjourne wrote: post #153
NoPicklez wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. You might have invented electricity or the computer through ingenuity, but who is going to build the infrastructure that supports it? Who is going to build the poles in your suburb to get the electricity to you? Who is going to build the telecommunications infrastructure and maintain it such that if it breaks there is someone there to fix it?

How come volunteer fire departments exist?

Because most of them enjoy doing it and their community directly benefits from the work.

Not all pay for work is monetary, but firefighting is still work.

And I just realized - maybe you hate your job. If that’s the case, go find something else you enjoy that happens to pay the bills. Life is too short to be spending your working hours hating life, and if you’re on this site you can probably find some sort of job (or start a business) that you enjoy and others find valuable.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#173

Post by mlac »

bjourne wrote: post #149
NeutralCrane wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because society isn't a free resource, it requires time and effort (i.e. work) to create and maintain, and that work can either be distributed across its members, or it can be done entirely by some and others simply mooch off of their work. If you feel like work is disproportionately done by some and not others, or that some work creates no value, that's a valid argument and worth exploring. But the idea that people…

Workfree societies have existed so it is incorrect to claim that work is required for society to exist. For example, the free software community exists and is workfree. However, it seems you and many others are incapable to rationally reason about these issues since you implied that "people with this particular anti-work view" (i.e. me) just wants to be the ones doing the exploiting. It's plain as day that a massive…

If the jobs are truly unnecessary, the company and society will stop paying for them.

If no one will do that work at a wage that the market will bear, then that job goes away.

And from other comments it appears you only believe work happens when there is An exchange of money. Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that…

Volunteers still “work”. The fact that they are volunteering shows they could be paid for their time and effort, but instead are doing it for free. But it’s not like they weren’t adding value as soon as the exchange of money is removed.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#174

Post by lloydatkinson »

hogrider wrote: post #138
lloydatkinson wrote: post #68

The working theory is the mods, including this one, were paid off to be a total disaster to try prevent the movement gaining further traction. Everyone in the subreddit voted no to a media appearance. That mod decided otherwise with a second interview with another mod not yet aired.

I have no problem believing this but then again it could also totally happen organically bc reddit mods are the biggest assholes on earth, over reaching constantly, totally arbitrary.

Yeah there is that too - some of the most dysfunctional human beings I’ve ever encountered.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#175

Post by bjourne »

mlac wrote: post #171
mlac wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alaska. You can move out there by yourself, do whatever the hell you want (as long as its by yourself and doesn’t impact others), and no one will notice or care. Or you can be a hermit.

In re-reading this thread, I realize something: if you move to Alaska to avoid being forced to work by society, you better damn well believe that you will be forced to work by nature. I think this says something about the very nature of work. In our modern times it is detached from its purpose (survival of self and species), but that is ultimately what drives the need to work. This idea that a capable, working-age li…

This is only true if you define "work" as "tasks that has to be executed to survive". If you live in the wilderness you have to "work" a lot because you have to execute many tasks to survive. That is not what work is. I have to eat and defecate to survive, but you wouldn't call that "work", would you?

The definition of "work" used by every leftist movement in the world is different. They define it as "directly or indirectly selling your time to other humans in exchange for material benefits." Thus, if I hunt alone in the wilderness to get meat for myself I'm not "working". But if there is another person in the wilderness who forces me to hunt to get meat for us then I'm "working".

I hope you understand the difference. Scrubbing toilets is not per se "work". Scrubbing toilets so that someone will give you money to buy food is "work".

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#176

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #163
bjourne wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, you’re saying ‘I should be allowed to opt out of work while others labour in fields and cobalt mines and cocoa plantations’. I didn't write anything even resembling that. If that is your interpretation then continuing the discussion with you is meaningless.

OK, happy to strike that line and we can stop putting words in each other’s mouths. What’s your opinion about the rest of my argument?

Well, I think that your argument is inconsistent. First you say that I won't be punished for not working. Then you say that I should starve if I don't work. But you still insist that working is optional! Clearly, people should be forced to work according to you. How is this materially different from slavery?

And the work you think I should do should be valuable. Who decides what work is valuable? What makes money? If so, can I be a drug dealer? That makes a lot of money. If I can't, then you must admit that what makes money is not a good indicator of what actually are useful services to soceity.

You claim that my existence causes "slack" that has to be picked up. I disagree both with the notion that human existence causes slack and that work somehow causes "slack" to be picked up. As said, I could be selling drugs and thus having enough money to buy food and pay rent. But that's not picking up "slack".

You seem to be unable to see the big picture. The costs of work and the work-centric lifestyle are massive. People spend significant portions of their lives doing things they'd rather not do and to boot, the associated consumption patterns are changing the world's climate forever. You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#177

Post by bjourne »

dnadler wrote: post #167
bjourne wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My job is completely detached from the processes and people that ensure there is food on my table. There is no slack to pick up because there is no contribution. Most software developers are in the exact same position. There is no "contributing" in programming casino sites, optimizing trading algorithms to make fat cats richer, or developing aaa games. Society would be better off if we didn't work.

I would counter by saying that entertainment is actually valuable. Gambling and playing games are things that people choose to spend their time and money doing because they are fun. (Obviously taking advantages of addiction is immoral, but that’s a whole other bag of worms). As for optimizing trading algos, the counter is that making markets more efficient is also valuable to society at large, and that is what most q…

Your counter-argument to my examples of worthless work is "well, actually, that work is valuable!" The reason why you use this argument is because we are so conditioned to believe that money is the same thing as value. Thus, by definition, every work is valuable because someone pays.

Try and think of it from a utilitarian perspective. Is some aaa game creating or destroying more happiness? Is it a net positive for society? For some games perhaps the answer is yes, for others it is no. Children getting obese from sedentary lifestyle and not socialising with friends is certainly a large cost.

> If that were the case all of these “useless” jobs would go away and we would then ask farmers to give us food in exchange for nothing at all?

Sure.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#178

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #166
bjourne wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I reject the idea that money determines what has worth. Because believing so leads to absurd conclusions. Like dealing drugs being more valuable than taking care of sick people, or pills against male pattern baldness being more valuable than aids medicines for sub-Saharan Africans, or Jeff Bezos being a million times more valuable than me. In fact, the very idea that money is what decides worth is what got us into th…

Obvious to whom, and how do you define ‘value’? I’m not being difficult here, these are tough questions. Allowing the market to decide value is the option we currently have, and seems to be the fairest so far. I am sure that it is not optimal, and it has flaws, but no one has yet convinced me that there is a better model.

Workless societies depend on voluntarism so there is no need to precisely define value. For instance, who decided that creating Linux was valuable use of Linus Torvalds time? In situations where you really have to define value, democratic votes is fairer than "letting the market" (i.e rich people) decide.

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#179

Post by bjourne »

mlac wrote: post #172
bjourne wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How come volunteer fire departments exist?

Because most of them enjoy doing it and their community directly benefits from the work. Not all pay for work is monetary, but firefighting is still work. And I just realized - maybe you hate your job. If that’s the case, go find something else you enjoy that happens to pay the bills. Life is too short to be spending your working hours hating life, and if you’re on this site you can probably find some sort of job (or…

Volunteer firefighting is not work. See my work definition here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704 No, I actually enjoy my work, as I wrote in my first comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30099687

Re: Anti-work subreddit goes private after rough Fox News interview

#180

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #165
bjourne wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't answer my question, does it?

In the most literal sense no, but I think it does address your point. Honestly it’s an odd example to pick because there are paid firefighters too - why would you need to pay firefighters if enough people are willing to do it for free?

"How come volunteer fire departments exist?" is a rethorical quesiton. Whether volunteer firefighters have other jobs is beside the point. Clearly, useful tasks can be executed without a work context.

The reason you need to pay firefighters is because society is work-centric.

Post reply on HN