No such obligation exists now. What if no one wants a job doing dirty work? What if you cannot pay them enough to do it? How would you force them too if the money you can afford to offer isn't enough? I don't think I have any problems you don't also have to contend with.
Because the option to compensate them is still possible.
pursue my passions unhindered.
Your passions are not covered in your basic needs. If just not starving or freezing to death is enough for you that fine but you don't get anything else.
So just to be clear, the amount of resources I get is based on how hard I work and the type of work I am willing to do.
what of people that cant work (disabled, etc)
No. It is based primarily upon your need... but how hard you work and what kind of work is a better yard stick than how much wealth you have.
And the harder you work, the greater your "need."
And the harder you work, the greater your "need."This does not logically follow.
what of people that cant work (disabled, etc)
what of people that cant work (disabled, etc)Do you mean in secularmerlin's fantasy land, or in the real world?
You still have to figure out the logical inconsistency of how we can distribute resources "based primarily upon your need" but also based on "how hard you work and what kind of work" you do. (See your post #70)
That's probably because I was answering a question as to why people need to be employed, not trying to justify employment.What's the difference? If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary. On what grounds do you engage in this hair splitting.
If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary.
I am unaware of any other way to become truly wealthy.Lay a claim to land, work it, and build a cabin.Produce something valuable and exchange it for something else that retains value.Lay claim how exactly? Sorry it seems like you are oversimplifying here.You just claim that you are in the right to work the land. It's really that simple, but it would make sense to keep some proof in case anyone were to dispute you.Sorry but I don't understand what is to keep your claim from being challenged.Well a claim might be challenged by another claim or it might not. It seems obvious that challenging a claim is a matter of discretion.How is the dispute settled then? Might makes right?
If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary.I had kind of a difficult time relating to this statement.
A dispute could be settled through concession or if the relevant parties decide to compromise, coming to an agreement. It might be nullified if the claimant just up and left.
If employment cannot even be justified you can hardly claim that it is necessary.I had kind of a difficult time relating to this statement.That something were necessary would be a justification. Something you cannot even justify having happen is defacto unnecessary.
A dispute could be settled through concession or if the relevant parties decide to compromise, coming to an agreement. It might be nullified if the claimant just up and left.And what if neither party is willing to concede or compromise?
I'm actually working this out as I go and you are helping.
Well so far, we seem to have a system where people go to work so that they can earn respect
As long as humans are involved, you will always have greed and exploitation.
One can both justify something that you consider unnecessary, and consider something necessary which you cannot justify.
Then the dispute wouldn't be settled by either party.
Really I think you are making this more complicated than it has to be.
One can both justify something that you consider unnecessary, and consider something necessary which you cannot justify.Then I'm not sure we are using the words in the same way. For me something necessary is defacto justified by virtue of its necessity.
#81In the course of a robbery a guard pulls his flashlight and starts beating the hell out of an armed robber before they can hurt a bystander. In order to avoid severe bodily injury, they protect themselves out of necessity and severely injure the guard in return until the threat has ceased. Is this behavior just? Some people may very well say, "no". Morally, no matter how realistic and dire the need there was no point where the robber would be in the right to be wielding a weapon throughout the course of this event, let alone using it with such force.
Then the dispute wouldn't be settled by either party.So who gets to settle on the land then?
You are the revolutionary who wants to completely upheave society as we know it.
On an intellectual level, I can appreciate you seeking a society that is focused on the wellbeing of humanity.
For elaboration on substantial difference between the terms, you could see the top of post #81. Definitions are provided.
