(March 14, 2016 at 7:25 pm)KUSA Wrote: I think hunger is a good indicator. If someone gets really hungry and still doesn't work then they probably can't. I am willing to bet that even Brian would work if he missed a few meals.
Do you feel like it is a net benefit to society to use starvation as an incentive to coax work out of a person? I ask because that sounds a lot more like Stalin than anything Bernie Sanders has ever said.
Quote:Do you mean no work or just work that you don't want to do?
Would it not depend on your reason for not wanting to do it? There are jobs, for instance, that are too dangerous for me to want to do it. Furthermore, a person's labor only earns them money if it's marketable.
Quote:You mean that you can't buy as many calories as you burn off?
To put it simply. To be a little less concrete, if I have to work every waking moment just to sustain my existence, I'm basically a slave even if I'm being paid and I have food to eat. There's nothing left for fun or learning or anything except being an automaton.
Quote:If it's severe enough then I don't mind helping out. However, people that perform daily functions such as driving, cooking, shopping, smoking cigarettes, etc. can work. Look at Brian. He smokes his cigs while driving around fucking off but he is so depressed and has so much anxiety that he just can't do anything that might earn some money.
He can work and be productive. He just wants to be a lazy taker because he is allowed to do it.
Again, I feel like medical science is not in agreement with you. You can have a lack of motivation which is neurochemical in origin. You can perhaps starve a person into overcoming that, but you're a lot more likely to kill them instead, or influence them to kill themselves.
I'm speaking from experience here, and the longest gap in my work history over the last 17 years is three weeks in 2008.
