Again, no one is claiming that people who participate are stupid for doing so. Why are you insisting on the idea that others see people in financial difficulty as stupid?
Nor did I say I'm the sole arbiter of what's demeaning. We both seem to agree at least that peeing oneself in public is demeaning, but some third person might not see it that way at all.
> Are "poors" too stupid to make decisions for themselves? Everyone in that video received thousands of dollars. I'm nowhere near poor, but if I was given an opportunity, I'd probably participate.
No one's saying they're stupid for participating. If I was offered thousands of dollars for peeing in my pants in public for a video, I'd very probably take the offer and no one would think I was stupid for it; it would still be a demeaning and exploitative offer to make.
If people followed the "optimal move" all the time, assuming you mean it in a financial sense, there wouldn't be any teachers or social workers or librarians.
If everyone gets the relief of knowing they are free to pursue what they like without risk of starving, I imagine it'd be way easier to find meaning in the world than it is now.
GGGGP: The point of life is not to need jobs in order to survive, the point of life is enjoyment
GGGP: Well, for most people, if they don't have to have a job, their life becomes a sucking void of boredom. These are the only two options
GGP: Nope, plenty of jobs can be a sucking void of boredom for people. It's not like having to clean toilets in order not to starve is incredibly meaningful for the people that have to do it
GP: Well, I like helping neighbors for free sometimes. But I wouldn't want to do it every day for strangers
P (me): I don't see the connection. You literally said you enjoyed doing something for free, so you're not talking about jobs. You could still do it if you didn't need a job to survive, nor would not needing a job to survive force you to do it for fun for strangers.
In any case, it's clear we interpreted the previous messages in a very different manner. In particular, as I've said elsewhere, people seem to be confusing jobs with work. Not needing jobs is not the same as people having to stop working, usually quite the contrary - people would be free to work more on stuff that they enjoy.
So forcing people to either get a job or be poor is for their own good, then? Just because you don't agree with how people chose to spend their time in a very nerve-wracking situation? This sounds very condescending.
Becoming unemployed may not be the exact same thing as a lockdown during a pandemic? Don't you think people dying in the hundreds of thousands due to disease has more to do with rise in depression than anything else?
> People volunteer to help those who naturally garner sympathy (poor, homeless, invalid, etc).
Not really? Plenty of people volunteer to help people in jail, for example.
>On the other hand, those in the unproductive class won't want this kind of "help" either.
People won't want help to find meaning in their lives? I find it hard to believe. Churches and clubs, as you also said, used to (and still do) help provide people with that as well, so I'm not sure you truly believe it either.
Over a hundred countries agreed to a 15% global minimum corporate tax rate starting this year. It's not nearly enough, but it's a start, and it shows we can tax rich people and corporations.
So what you're saying is that when people have more guaranteed income uncoupled from a job they have to do, in this case in the form of a retirement, they can and do choose to do lots of meaningful, enjoyable work? Which I think is the original point in this discussion?
No one is arguing for you to either stop helping your neighbors for free nor to do it every day for strangers, so I really don't see the point in this.
Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.