WHAT I MEANT IN THOSE QUESTION POSTS:

Ross Dolan

Ross Dolan

Well-known member
Contributor
First of all, I thought (made an assumption) most people would prefer to have more time to do whatever they wanted to do…rather than to have to “earn a living.” I thought that would be a run-away.

I was wrong. Several people hedged on that…enough so that it was not a given.

Secondly, I thought most people would like to see productivity maximized…so that there would be more of everything that people needed or wanted. I thought that also would be a run-away.

I was wrong there, too. Many people had reasons for why they would not champion maximizing productivity.

Here is my position:

I think people should have to spend much less time “earning a living” and have much more time to do the things they WANT to do. I called that “want to do” time “leisure time” …but I indicated that I did not mean sitting around doing nothing. “Leisure time” OFTEN involves a great deal more “work” than people do while “earning their livings.” And I suspect that for many people, “leisure time” would involve doing the work they do while “earning their livings.” They enjoy what they do…BUT IT WOULD BE A CHOICE RATHER THAN SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO in order to stay alive.

I see no politician or political party even touching on this…nobody advocating for making “leisure time” more important than “earning a living” time.

I just wonder why.

Maximizing productivity probably will have to include having machines do as much of the work that has to be done as possible. That, of course, would involve figuring out some way to distribute goods (or money/scrip) so that the people not “earning a living” could continue to live reasonable lives.

Maybe that is the big bugaboo.
 
Knuckles Neanderthal said:
With more time on people's hands there will be more alcohol and drug consumption. Not everyone will find something productive to do.
Click to expand...
Modern Americans tend to be ignorant cowards deep into spiritual crises....all to often embracing Evil...and "free time" is the Devils workshop.

No good can come from less work at this time, in fact too little work very well might be a huge part of the arrival of this new dystopia.

Life too easy is the really bad thing for humans, not life too hard....as the Greeks figured out.
 
We should have known that we were in trouble by the 50's and 60's when tech in the homes reduced women to neurotic basket cases. Men were not the problem....too little work was the problem.
 
Ross Dolan said:
First of all, I thought (made an assumption) most people would prefer to have more time to do whatever they wanted to do…rather than to have to “earn a living.” I thought that would be a run-away.

I was wrong. Several people hedged on that…enough so that it was not a given.

Secondly, I thought most people would like to see productivity maximized…so that there would be more of everything that people needed or wanted. I thought that also would be a run-away.

I was wrong there, too. Many people had reasons for why they would not champion maximizing productivity.

Here is my position:

I think people should have to spend much less time “earning a living” and have much more time to do the things they WANT to do. I called that “want to do” time “leisure time” …but I indicated that I did not mean sitting around doing nothing. “Leisure time” OFTEN involves a great deal more “work” than people do while “earning their livings.” And I suspect that for many people, “leisure time” would involve doing the work they do while “earning their livings.” They enjoy what they do…BUT IT WOULD BE A CHOICE RATHER THAN SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO in order to stay alive.

I see no politician or political party even touching on this…nobody advocating for making “leisure time” more important than “earning a living” time.

I just wonder why.

Maximizing productivity probably will have to include having machines do as much of the work that has to be done as possible. That, of course, would involve figuring out some way to distribute goods (or money/scrip) so that the people not “earning a living” could continue to live reasonable lives.

Maybe that is the big bugaboo.
Click to expand...
I think this is all somewhat related to peoples views of human nature. In other words are humans basically good or bad. I tend to believe humans are self focused. They think of themselves before anyone else. Some might say thats bad I just think it's realistic. I submit that nothing in the extreme is good for us which is why having too much time and being left to our own devices with that time is disastrous.
 
Yakuda said:
I think this is all somewhat related to peoples views of human nature. In other words are humans basically good or bad. I tend to believe humans are self focused. They think of themselves before anyone else. Some might say thats bad I just think it's realistic. I submit that nothing in the extreme is good for us which is why having too much time and being left to our own devices with that time is disastrous.
Click to expand...
Okay...a valid opinion.

Mine is different.

On a specific: "They think of themselves before anyone else."

My experience is that most (or at least, MANY) think of themselves AND THEIR FAMILIES before anyTHING else.

I suspect we could have a great deal of trouble trying to reconcile those differences.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Okay...a valid opinion.

Mine is different.

On a specific: "They think of themselves before anyone else."

My experience is that most (or at least, MANY) think of themselves AND THEIR FAMILIES before anyTHING else.

I suspect we could have a great deal of trouble trying to reconcile those differences.
Click to expand...
Yes their families are their interest. That's not incompatible with what I said. I also care about my car before I care about yours because it's mine. Me before you.
 
Yakuda said:
Yes their families are their interest. That's not incompatible with what I said. I also care about my car before I care about yours because it's mine. Me before you.
Click to expand...
I suspect MOST, if not all, people think of themselves and their families first...above all else. It is a human thing!

Most politicians feel that way also. After all, we do choose our politicians from the human population. Then we are flabbergasted when a politician does something that benefits self and family above what benefits the general population.

I guess we think that politicians should be different from humans.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I suspect MOST, if not all, people think of themselves and their families first...above all else. It is a human thing!

Most politicians feel that way also. After all, we do choose our politicians from the human population. Then we are flabbergasted when a politician does something that benefits self and family above what benefits the general population.

I guess we think that politicians should be different from humans.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Agreed but I'm never flabbergasted.

Not necessarily but I think we can expect them to "work" for the people they represent. I go to my doctor and I know he sees me not because he is interested in me per se but because he gets paid. What I should be able to expect from him in his "work" though is to do what's good for me,his patient, not himself.
 
Yakuda said:
Agreed.

Agreed but I'm never flabbergasted.

Not necessarily but I think we can expect them to "work" for the people they represent. I go to my doctor and I know he sees me not because he is interested in me per se but because he gets paid. What I should be able to expect from him in his "work" though is to do what's good for me,his patient, not himself.
Click to expand...
But I suspect there are MANY doctors who say, "I want to see you again in 3 months"...MORE BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THEMSELVES than for the medical welfare of their patients.

I expect most politicians do what they think is correct for the country and the people they represent...although half the people they represent want them to do conflicting things. However, when the good of the country conflicts with that politician's chances of being re-elected...they mostly choose concern with being re-elected.
 
Ross Dolan said:
First of all, I thought (made an assumption) most people would prefer to have more time to do whatever they wanted to do…rather than to have to “earn a living.” I thought that would be a run-away.
Click to expand...

This has to be the fucking dumbest statement in the history of JPP. You have learned NOTHING about ANYTHING.

Marxism is a proven failure and anyone still professing it would work is an epic moron.

Ross Dolan said:
I was wrong.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on everything. That's because you are an uneducated leftist who gets his information from MSNBC and CNN.

Ross Dolan said:
Secondly, I thought most people would like to see productivity maximized…so that there would be more of everything that people needed or wanted. I thought that also would be a run-away.
Click to expand...

You don't "think," you emote empty headed bullshit.

You can't have it both ways.....more time to do nothing and have more productivity dumbass. :palm:

travis-dougie-payne.gif
 
Ross Dolan said:
But I suspect there are MANY doctors who say, "I want to see you again in 3 months"...MORE BECAUSE OF THE FINANCIAL BENEFIT FOR THEMSELVES than for the medical welfare of their patients.

I expect most politicians do what they think is correct for the country and the people they represent...although half the people they represent want them to do conflicting things. However, when the good of the country conflicts with that politician's chances of being re-elected...they mostly choose concern with being re-elected.
Click to expand...
:eyeroll:
speed-racer-royalton.gif
 
Ross Dolan said:
First of all, I thought (made an assumption) most people would prefer to have more time to do whatever they wanted to do…rather than to have to “earn a living.” I thought that would be a run-away.

I was wrong. Several people hedged on that…enough so that it was not a given.

Secondly, I thought most people would like to see productivity maximized…so that there would be more of everything that people needed or wanted. I thought that also would be a run-away.

I was wrong there, too. Many people had reasons for why they would not champion maximizing productivity.

Here is my position:

I think people should have to spend much less time “earning a living” and have much more time to do the things they WANT to do. I called that “want to do” time “leisure time” …but I indicated that I did not mean sitting around doing nothing. “Leisure time” OFTEN involves a great deal more “work” than people do while “earning their livings.” And I suspect that for many people, “leisure time” would involve doing the work they do while “earning their livings.” They enjoy what they do…BUT IT WOULD BE A CHOICE RATHER THAN SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO DO in order to stay alive.

I see no politician or political party even touching on this…nobody advocating for making “leisure time” more important than “earning a living” time.

I just wonder why.

Maximizing productivity probably will have to include having machines do as much of the work that has to be done as possible. That, of course, would involve figuring out some way to distribute goods (or money/scrip) so that the people not “earning a living” could continue to live reasonable lives.

Maybe that is the big bugaboo.
Click to expand...
Because a ludicrously imperfect universe manifested itself with no intervention from an all-loving deity,
the revenue we accrue from working pays for our leisure pleasure.

Is it a horrible fucking system?
You're damn right it is.

To this point, we've failed to replace it with something better.

This informs my opinion on the purpose of self-determined government.
None of us asked to be dragged onto this horseshit planet.
It was imposed on us,
although many of us are guilty of imposing it on offspring of our own.

Since we're here, though, our smart move is to envision government that makes
life as bearable as possible for as many of us as possible.

One way we can improve on this effort is to excise all of those
who oppose a hands-on government social safety net.
The anti-government people are the malignant tumors on the world population.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top