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

181–190 of 204 posts

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

#181

Post by bjourne »

mlac wrote: post #173
bjourne wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

This is a circular argument, isn't it? Why is the work necessary? Because society pays for it. Why does society pay for it? Because the work is necessary.

I reject it. Money != value.

> Raising a kid is the hardest job and work that I’ve ever done. I don’t get paid money for that…

That's a good example of a task that is valuable (in the real sense) but not work (since it is voluntary). Here is how I define "work": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30127704

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

#182

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #164
bjourne wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, free software is workfree as tasks are executed without there being monetary gain. Time is not traded for money. Read my other comments in this thread for examples on (worse than) useless jobs.

> Time is not traded for money. I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. I agree there are hobbyists who do give their time without expecting any financial return, but the free software…

> I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc.

Sure, in the same way that an Amnesty volunteer could be an undercover CIA agent paid by the government. That, however, is not the community's main mode of operation.

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

#183

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #182
d1sxeyes wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Time is not traded for money. I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. I agree there are hobbyists who do give their time without expecting any financial return, but the free software…

> I dispute that. Many contributors to free software are doing so in exchange for money, either directly by being paid by their employer or allowing ‘sponsored features’, or indirectly by soliciting donations or through monetising their software through support contracts etc. Sure, in the same way that an Amnesty volunteer could be an undercover CIA agent paid by the government. That, however, is not the community's…

It’s impossible to tell for sure, but it looks like approximately half of open source contributions take place during working hours, and workdays have twice as many contributions as weekends, so I would say that yes, it is at least one main mode of operation.

You mention Linus Torvalds in another comment, but did you know he has been paid to work on Linux since around 1997?

https://www.techrepublic.com/article/for-50-percent-of-devel...

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

#184

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #180
d1sxeyes wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a rhetorical question, I don’t think it achieves the goal you intend it to.

The reason you need to pay firefighters is because a few people might give some of their time, but a fire department needs to operate 24x7.

When you can’t find enough volunteers in your society, how do you solve the problem of buildings burning down at a time no-one chooses to volunteer?

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

#185

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #178
d1sxeyes wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Workless societies depend on voluntarism

This presents a workless society as a real thing, rather than a hypothetical. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any workless society (apart from hunter gatherer tribes and history). If you have examples of a society that functions fully without work, then please share, I’d be interested to see how you solve volunteering for unpleasant or undesirable tasks that no-one wants.

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

#186

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #176
d1sxeyes wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

So I did not say any of those things (except that work is optional).

I don’t have a Ferrari, but the fact I don’t have something is not a punishment unless it’s freely given to everyone else (eg: liberty, oxygen, etc.).

You don’t have to starve if you don’t work. You are welcome to grow your own food, fish and hunt, and sustain yourself without working. However, if you want other people to do those things for you, you need to give them something in return.

Your drug dealer example is a good one because it highlights a problem with using the market to determine value. Ultimately, consumers determine the value of product or service, and as a drug dealer you may make a lot of money because consumers are willing to pay for the drugs you sell. I completely agree that value and societal net benefits are not always linked, and this is a flaw in the current system. But I have not seen a better model yet.

Your existence in and of itself does not cause slack. Your inability or unwillingness to sustain yourself does.

I think accusing me of being unable to see the big picture is a bit rude and unnecessary. I see a very different big picture to the one you seem to see though.

> 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.

I completely agree, and have mentioned several times that I think consumerism is a major problem, and by reducing consumerism on an individual level, many people could reduce their own working hours. On a societal level, we would see major environmental benefits.

> You say that benefits outweigh all that because otherwise society wouldn't function. But you have no proof at all.

I shouldn’t need to prove a position that I’m not arguing. I am arguing that society currently works this way, and you are saying we should change it for this model where you don’t have to work, without any evidence that it would be successful. Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code?

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

#187

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #175
mlac wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ind…

> But if there is another person in the wilderness who forces me to hunt to get meat for us then I'm "working".

So in your work-free society, hunters have to work?

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

#188

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #187
bjourne wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ind…

> But if there is another person in the wilderness who forces me to hunt to get meat for us then I'm "working". So in your work-free society, hunters have to work?

No.

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

#189

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #186
bjourne wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. So I did not say any of those things (except that work is optional). I don’t have a Ferrari, but the fact I don’t have something is not a punishment unless it’s freely given to everyone else (eg: liberty,…

But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. The difference between a ferrari and existence is that that the latter is a right. Every human has the right to exist but none has the right to own a ferrari. It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers (e.g. death) is usually reserved for the most heinous of crimes. The conclusion is that you and the rest of society deem non-working a worse crime than, say, assault which only nets you a few years in prison.

> You don’t have to starve if you don’t work. You are welcome to grow your own food, fish and hunt, and sustain yourself without working.

You are repeating arguments I have already addressed.

A better model than equating money with value is workfree societies driven by voluntarism. I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models. Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest that the current model is not the best we can do but you seem unable to consider that evidence.

> Where’s your proof? The fact that some people like to spend their free time saving lives or writing code?

Yes? That those communities exist within a work-centric society strongly suggests that work is not required for humans to do useful tasks.

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

#190

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #185
bjourne wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Workless societies depend on voluntarism This presents a workless society as a real thing, rather than a hypothetical. I might be wrong, but I’m not aware of any workless society (apart from hunter gatherer tribes and history). If you have examples of a society that functions fully without work, then please share, I’d be interested to see how you solve volunteering for unpleasant or undesirable tasks that no-one wa…

They have existed on small scales. Everything from hippie communies to Christian monasteries to Israeli kibbutzim. The reason tasks are undesirable is because the tasks are detached from people's lives. Raising kids is certainly "objectively" undesirable, yet people do it for free and at great costs. Why? Because it's meaningful.
Post reply on HN