> Unless they are _literately_ unemployable, in which case we should consider them disabled at look after them as if we would anybody else with metal or physical disabilities.

Why? People shouldn’t be rewarded for being disagreeable, unwilling to get along with people, and unwilling to work. If they are literally disabled and can’t work at all, that’s one thing. But even people with mental disabilities can be great employees. Rewarding anti-social behavior with “looking after” incentivizes such behavior. Subsidize behavior and you get more of it. Case in point, all of the fake disability people who have unverifiable soft tissue “injuries” that collect disability as a life choice.

Traits like agreeableness, intelligence, and conscientiousness have some genetic components, and may also influenced by early childhood experiences. A severe deficiency in one or more of these traits may be largely outside an individual's control, but nonetheless prevent the individual from integrating into society and achieving stable employment.

That said, there is still an element of will there, and we should also still try align incentives to give these individuals the best chance of productive engagement with society. The disability scamming is real (though somewhat complicated by the fact that long term unemployment can result in chronic pain symptoms).

I don't think just cutting people a check is necessarily a good idea. I kind of wonder if the problem of unemployable people would be reduced if we removed minimum wage laws.

You would rather have to work with people who have an incentive to behave badly (in order to get fired from jobs they didn't want in the first place), than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute? Between the disabled and underemployed, there must be more than enough people to seriously jeopardize overall economic stability should destitution force them to action.

And where is the role of the employer and the overall culture in fostering a work environment that isn't miserable?

> than to just give them enough to live on until they decide how they're going to contribute?

How many will decide not to contribute?

Who cares? We can sustain all of the socially necessary industries of modern civilization with a fraction of the workforce.

I don't want to work with people who are working just because they are coerced to work. They get in my way and it debases all of us.

What an Orwellian use of the word "coerced". There is presently no coercion to work: only the necessity of survival (just as it always has). On the other hand, the future you envision would require the coercion of the productive minority.

Human society is not what it was 100, 500, 1000, 10000 years ago. Conjuring a farcical "necessity of survival" is disingenuous in a world where the average worker is hyper-specialized, such that they perform a fraction of the labor directly associated with surviving.

On the other hand, since failure to participate in this model - again, wherein a given individual hardly contributes directly to his own survival, but instead supports the society which provides the rest for him, usually far below the value of his work for it - is an existential danger, I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.

> I think coercion is a fine word for the situation.

Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force.

On the other hand, using the state to force a productive minority to slave away for a willfully unproductive majority does actually involve the use of force.

You are literally inverting the meaning of "coercion". Hence the apt description "Orwellian".

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength.

>Except the part where simply choosing not to subsidize someone that could contribute to society but does not involves no actual use of force.

Of course it does. What are the various exigencies, used to secure hoarded property for an individual against a deprived public, but force? You're unable to see it as such, because it's the status quo, but it's not a necessity for a civilized society, even this civilized society.

You're right that I do not share your vision, but I disagree with your diagnosis as to why.

Given that I find what you propose to be so anathema, I feel compelled to clarify what your position is, in case our disagreement is resulting from a misunderstanding rather than a conflict of visions.

What I hear you as saying is that given the wealth available in our society, those who do not wish to work (even if they could) should not have to. The minority who do wish to continue working shall hopefully be productive enough to continue to provide this wealth (and indeed, increase the wealth available) and gladly share it with everyone. If the productive minority are less than willing to share the bulk of the fruits of their labor, It is acceptable to take it by force and without offering them something of value in exchange.

Such a system not merely immoral but nonsense. It assumes our great wealth as a given, when it should be obvious that such is not the case. History has shown many other times of great wealth and surplus, only to be followed by collapse. There is no magic line of societal wealth that, once surpassed, renders us immune from disaster. In such a case, those in who lived in a state of dependence will only hasten the collapse by trying ever harder to extract from those they depended on.

Now, if you were a Marxist concerned about workers not being compensated fairly for their labor, or a Christian concerned for those who could not care for themselves (the elderly, the infirm, orphans, etc.) then I would at least understand. But neither Marx nor the Apostles envisioned a society that supported people who were merely indolent.

Furthermore, that you would equate the use of force to steal another's property with the force used to defend said property is dishonest and abhorrent. And let's be clear: if you appropriate someone else's property when you have the choice not to (i.e. if you could work to provide it for yourself or offer something of value in exchange) then it is theft.

If status and social mobility are tied to contributing, I'd guess more than we'd otherwise expect.

Does that really matter? Most people who consider themselves to be "contributing" aren't really accomplishing much in the grand scheme of things anyway.

You don't need to "accomplish much in the grand scheme of things" to provide value to others and feel appreciated.

But not to the point where you should guilt others for "not contributing".

I would rather them feel guilty than feel entitled to the fruits of others' labor.

What fruits? What labor? My point is that most people's labor bears no actual fruit.

Some people are certainly employed in pointless jobs, but the idea that this is true for the majority is doubtful.

And for those people who's labor is pointless, the solution is to have more meaningful work, not idleness.

I can think of no more pointless form of labor that to toil away for whatever bureaucracy that would be responsible for administering this harebrained scheme.