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

191–200 of 204 posts

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

#191

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #184
bjourne wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I think people would volunteer. Main reason not many volunteer is because they are busy with work. In a workfree society people would have much more free time to spend than they have now.

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

#192

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #183
bjourne wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Such stats are notoriously noisy. Ohloh only analyzes the most popular free software projects so there is a long, long tail of projects that is unaccounted for in the statistics. Furthermore, even if most commits are submitted during office hours (in what timezone?) how can we know that they are paid specifically for contributing? E.g. could be some bored developers commit to their own personal project.

Regardless, the amount of companies involved in free software could be evidence of the superiority of voluntarism over "workism" for complex human systems.

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

#193

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #189
d1sxeyes wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death.

Again, you may choose to farm, hunt etc. for yourself, and choosing not to work would not therefore result in starvation.

> It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers

You keep trying to frame my words in this way. I don’t think that anyone deserves a punishment.

> You are repeating arguments I have already addressed.

I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you.

> I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models.

No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc.

> 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.

I have repeatedly acknowledged problems in the current model. However, evidence of problems with the current model is not evidence of the absence of problems in a different one. At this point I’m starting to feel like you are being deliberately obtuse.

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

#194

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #190
d1sxeyes wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Kibbutzim is an interesting one. My uncle lived on one for a while, he definitely describes them ‘working’ alongside each other.

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

#195

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #191
d1sxeyes wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think people would volunteer. Main reason not many volunteer is because they are busy with work. In a workfree society people would have much more free time to spend than they have now.

I’m glad you think that. Would you volunteer? I don’t think I would. Especially late nights and weekends.

I’d rather do something more fun if I can pick and choose. Maybe race car driver? Or chocolate taster?

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

#196

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #192
d1sxeyes wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Such stats are notoriously noisy. Ohloh only analyzes the most popular free software projects so there is a long, long tail of projects that is unaccounted for in the statistics. Furthermore, even if most commits are submitted during office hours (in what timezone?) how can we know that they are paid specifically for contributing? E.g. could be some bored developers commit to their own personal project. Regardless, t…

I agree it’s noisy, just offering it as some evidence.

I think the statistic that half as many commits are on weekend days is particularly interesting, because people who are really doing it for free would likely contribute MORE outside their working hours.

Do you have anything more concrete?

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

#197

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #193
bjourne wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. Again, you may choose to farm, hunt etc. for yourself, and choosing not to work would not therefore result in starvation. > It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers You keep trying to frame my words in this way. I don’t think that anyone deserves a punishment. > You…

If you do not work society takes away your ability to acquire food and housing. This is, indeed, a punishment. That is a physical punishment in the exact same sense as being imprisoned is. There is also a psychological punishment due to the ostracization people suffer. The latter may for many be a more severe punishment than the former. Regardless, there is a severe punishment.

You keep bringing up "you can farm and hunt" as a cop-out to imply that work is optional. In most countries there is no wilderness with game to hunt in, nor is there unused agricultural land to establish farms on.

> I haven’t seen anywhere you have addressed this point short of bluntly insisting that you should not have to, and others should do this for you.

I addressed this point in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30107745 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30101084 And again, if you can't keep from making this personal this discussion ends (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30112316).

> > I have given you many examples of those, so you cannot claim that you haven't seen better models.

> No, you have mentioned a couple of hobbies with no direct impact on the day-to-day life of most of society. No mention of why people would volunteer to become farmers, hunters, sewage workers, coal miners, refuse collectors, etc.

That's untrue. I have given you plenty of examples of tasks critical to society that people have executed voluntarily. Attempting to satisfy your demand for examples for every "unpleasant" task you can come up with would be a waste of my time and would not convince you either way.

Let's put it this way. What would it take to convince you that a workfree society is possible? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?

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

#198

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #194
bjourne wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Kibbutzim is an interesting one. My uncle lived on one for a while, he definitely describes them ‘working’ alongside each other.

Work is a severely overloaded word. I'm using the Marxist definition which I described in another comment.

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

#199

Post by bjourne »

d1sxeyes wrote: post #195
bjourne wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think people would volunteer. Main reason not many volunteer is because they are busy with work. In a workfree society people would have much more free time to spend than they have now.

I’m glad you think that. Would you volunteer? I don’t think I would. Especially late nights and weekends. I’d rather do something more fun if I can pick and choose. Maybe race car driver? Or chocolate taster?

Yes, I would. It would be a fun way to meet new friends.

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

#200

Post by d1sxeyes »

bjourne wrote: post #197
d1sxeyes wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But you cannot with a straight face claim that work is optional if not working leads to starvation and eventually death. Again, you may choose to farm, hunt etc. for yourself, and choosing not to work would not therefore result in starvation. > It's notable that the punishment you think is suitable for non-workers You keep trying to frame my words in this way. I don’t think that anyone deserves a punishment. > You…

If you do not work society takes away your ability to acquire food and housing. This is, indeed, a punishment. That is a physical punishment in the exact same sense as being imprisoned is. There is also a psychological punishment due to the ostracization people suffer. The latter may for many be a more severe punishment than the former. Regardless, there is a severe punishment. You keep bringing up "you can farm and…

It feels as though accusing me of making personal attacks is just a way for you to try to get out of the corner you’ve backed yourself into. The comment history is public, anyone can read back and see who started making assumptions about the other first.

> You keep bringing up "you can farm and hunt" as a cop-out to imply that work is optional. In most countries there is no wilderness with game to hunt in, nor is there unused agricultural land to establish farms on.

This is a fair point, and I’ll concede on that.

> Let's put it this way. What would it take to convince you that a workfree society is possible? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?

What would it take to convince you you that you can survive on water and light alone? What evidence do you need? If you can't formulate that, then perhaps it is because you don't want to be convinced?

In all seriousness though, I believe that workfree (per your definition of work) societies can (and do) exist, but they cannot work on a macro scale. I believe this because in ‘workfree’ societies, members are assigned roles and complete tasks still, the only difference is that there’s no exchange of money.

This works because individuals are able to independently verify whether everyone in the community is pulling their weight. Without every individual being able to do that to every other individual, then you either a) simply have to trust people, which has historically tended to result in a few taking advantage of the many, or b) come up with some way of attesting work has been done, which is just another name for money.

By your definition any society which uses money cannot be a workfree society.

Post reply on HN