Hello all,
I'm not part of the anti-work movement, but I wanted to understand it better (this is not intended as the start of a debate). Would a few people mind sharing their thoughts?
- I understand the anti-work position on work as: people should have their basic needs provided for, and should work only to receive additional luxuries beyond that. In other words, you have a house provided for you, regardless of whether you work or not, and the incentive to work is to potentially get a bigger, fancier house. Is this a fair summary?
- In an anti-work world, would people need to become more self-sufficient? When I owned a home, I paid other people to fix things I didn't know how to fix; now that I'm renting again, my landlord deals with that. In an anti-work world, would I need to learn how to do things like replace windows or install siding on my own?
- To the extent that we still need services from other people, what should happen if not enough people choose to work? I.e., I need food, but not enough people choose to plant crops, drive trucks, or distribute the food.
- If there would be a state organization that cares for these things (food, fixing houses) what would the incentive be to sign up to work for it? Would the workers who participate in that enjoy a higher status and living standard than people who choose not to work? Would the people who manage the state organization, i.e., supervisors, accountants, executives, also enjoy higher status and standard of living?