[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
Fri Jun 21 20:27:48 UTC 2002
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, Russ Johnson wrote:
> I honestly don't believe planning for a retirement where you don't
> have to work anymore because you've saved enough is sloth.
No, planning for *early* retirement is sloth.
But even, that, I might not say is always true. I can totally understand
somebody wanting to get out of wage-slavery as quickly as possible.
But seeking the highest pay possible is greed, pure and simple.
As I said before, people are always going to be capable of keeping things
from one another. And it is an acknowledgement of that fact that leads us
to say that a thing is worth what others are willing to pay for it. This
gives the seller complete control. It places the determination of value
on the needy, who often cannot properly assess the value. A single glass
of water, for example, is priceless to a thirsty man and valueless to a
man with a reliable well. This man with a well might dump a glass of
water on the ground if some dust settles on the surface. But, under the
system where the seller sets the price, he might charge a thirsty man for
this same glass that he would otherwise throw away. In our society, if
the seller considers his or the buyer's relative need and, as a result,
lowers the asking price, he is considered a sucker. If the seller
considers her or the buyer's relative need and, as a result, raises the
asking price, he is considered shrewd and "a good business man". This is
totally backwards.
> Personally, I do not wish to work for another person for my whole
> life.
I totally understand that. Nobody likes being a wage-slave.
But there's a difference between "working for another person" and "working
for the good of all people." One includes yourself. But you know
what? That's still not why you do it.
> I want to get to a point where I can choose to work if I wish, but if
> I don't want to, or something comes up, I can choose to do something
> else.
You want to be able to choose not to do work. That's sloth. That's born
of a disconnect between your livelihood and the work you do. If there was
a more direct relationship, you wouldn't be thinking things like
that. Not working would mean not surviving.
But I don't really believe that's what you mean. I don't think you're
actually slothful. I think you're trying to say that you want the freedom
to stop doing things that you hate doing and do things, instead, that you
like doing, all the while continuing to do the things that you NEED to do.
I think that should be part of your freedom from birth.
However, in our society, you have to do the bidding of the wealthy in
order to receive the means of survival. Most people have no choice.
> Is there no "retirement" in this sense in the philosophy you have
> forwarded?
Did you read it?
I wouldn't say there is "retirement", but there is dotage. But I don't
think the determination of whether or not someone is able to contribute is
your role to determine when you share. The elderly, infirm, young, weak
of mind, and handicapped are living things like the rest of us and you
should be doing whatever you can to meet their needs as your own.
I think we'd all be surprised (even me) how little work this turns out to
be. Then we will have copious free time to do the things we want and help
others with the things they want.
J.
--
-----------------
Jeme A Brelin
jeme at brelin.net
-----------------
[cc] counter-copyright
http://www.openlaw.org
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list