• Floey@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    Okay, but other species aren’t even able to pay to exist. If a human wants them dead, they dead —unless they the property of another human being of course.

    • centof@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      You act as if paying to exist is a privilege. It is a requirement of being a human in our society. A requirement that functionally requires you to be exploited by those who won the birth lottery.

      • Floey@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is a privilege in contrast to other species, the exact juxtaposition done by the OP. It’s like complaining that the free man has to pay for room and board while the slave doesn’t. I’ve heard exact arguments like this from slavery apologists, that slaves had it really good actually.

        • centof@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          How exactly are other species relevant to how we structure our society? It is true that humans are the top dog in the circle of life, but how is that relevant?

          I said nothing about slavery, why are you changing the subject?

          EDIT: I guess I missed the first sentence in the OP about species. I think caring about how other species do things is just a red herring to draw attention.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Also, you could easily not have to pay to exist. You’d just be living a hard hard life out in the sticks or be taken care of in jail with the tradeoff of a lack of freedom.

        • Donkter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Taken care of was not the right phrase, only in the sense that you’ll keep existing for no money. Quality of life for a free existence is not going to be pretty any way you slice it.

        • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The argument is that a person can be willing and able to work, but because resources were distributed unevenly before we were all born, it’s possible to be homeless and hungry. Or more likely, scraping by with a job while a small percentage of wealthy people take a cut of everything you do and you have to be careful not to displease them.

          • Smk@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Your original post is really shit and no one will take you seriously. Everyone has to contribute for society to exist. Even if land was free, we would love in a society. There is no living “alone”. Everyone lives together and everyone contributes. Now, is it the reality currently? Maybe not, but your post does not even address that and it makes just some wild statement about we “have to pay to live and that’s atrocious” while in reality, even in the goddamn wild you have to pay. Not with money but with labour which is what money is about.

            • LesserAbe@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well it certainly drove some discussion.

              I think talking about land, some people think it’s about buying a nice house or something, but really it’s about being able to exist in any physical space. You’re born and now you’ve got to be somewhere, you’ve got to sleep somewhere and work somewhere. If you’re lucky your parents own something. If you’re not you’ve got to pay. (Of course even owning you’ve got to pay tax but that’s another conversation)