[ExI] keynes vs hayek again, was: RE: 3d printers for sale

Charlie Stross charlie.stross at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 15:11:12 UTC 2012


On 27 Aug 2012, at 10:21, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 27 August 2012 15:22, Charlie Stross <charlie.stross at gmail.com> wrote:
> Let me enumerate some of the ways this doesn't work.
> 
> Firstly: the definition of "unemployed people" is a movable feast, even if we examine people of working age. Is somebody in a hospital bed with locked-in syndrome unemployed? How about early-onset dementia? Or paranoid schizophrenia? Or someone with terminal cancer, or post-viral syndrome (some days they can work, other days they can barely get out of bed due to fatigue and muscle pain).
> 
> Let us take another traditional "anticapitalist" theme which is much less debated these days in comparison with welfare.
> 
> What about people who do not work because they are rentiers (annuitants, people living of their means, whatever one says in English) or are maintained by others? 
> 
> Should appropriate socials pressures exist to have them contribute to the community they live in?

Back off even further: how does one define "contribute to the community they live in"? (Is a rentier with a private income who devotes their idle life to painting or writing fiction -- and is therefore able to produce works of art that entertain people but don't necessarily generate enough income to live on -- a parasite? What about a rentier with a private income who generates employment in the cocaine trade?) Or how about the traditional "vicar's wife" or "first lady"? Someone who probably isn't working for a living but who is making themselves useful indirectly?

Or even further: *why* do we consider it useful or morally good for everyone to make a tangible contribution?



-- Charlie



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list