• 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.

      • 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)

    • 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.