by NilMostChill | 2025-04-04 21:39:50+00:00
I think that rather than a fundamental misunderstanding this is more of a fundamentally different outlook between us.

I understand the draw of seeing 'value' as a metric by which to judge things but i don't generally take that approach myself.

I find that what constitutes 'value' is too nebulous a concept on which to place foundations.

That isn't to say it isn't useful and that i don't use it, just that it's less of a core belief than it is a useful tool in some contexts.

To take your example of netflix, youtube and adult content, some may see that kind of entertainment as a valuable contribution to modern society and thus by being the facilitator you are contributing to society as a whole.

Youtube especially is the vehicle for a lot of information dissemination (both good and bad, for whatever metric you use for such things).

Spending that time making a pharmaceutical drug that then gets bought and shelved because it undercuts profit margins on an existing product because of corporate greed means you'd have essentially contributed to profit margins rather than society as a whole.

Or just absorbed my the private medical complex as a whole.

See : Insulin

And i wasn't implying people were owed anything for just existing, i specifically implied they were owed the service that they had paid in to for their whole lives.

Whether or not you are entitled to wage increases in line with inflation isn't the point i was making (the economics behind it are fascinating though), i was saying that the idea that people being negligent as a major contribution to lack of retirements funds is a faulty premise in a lot of cases, because it isn't that they could have and chose not to , it's that they never had the opportunity.

> I don't believed I'm really "owed" much besides the right to life, liberty, private property, and the pursuit of happiness,

I agree with the not owed much sentiment but i can't see how you resolve that with "except these somewhat substantial concepts", especially when you throw "private property" in there.

Working from a baseline you aren't owed anything means you aren't owed those things, you go back to pre-civilisation times, you get what you earn and keep what you can defend.

As soon as you start introducing societal concepts such as the right to liberty or private property then you introduce the idea of societal expectations and obligations, from all included parties, including governing bodies.

Even societies with small tribal numbers had the idea of looking after the elderly to a degree.

> I try to take a very humble approach in evaluating what I'm entitled to

and it seems a very privileged view of how modern society currently 'works'.

A lot of the things you have said are applicable to a specific subset of the population, namely lower-middle to upper-middle class ( the traditional class system is a shitty metric but people know it so... ) .

They don't work for anybody near the poverty line and don't apply to people who are already wealthy.

> I don't necessarily think everyone is capable of becoming a multi-millionaire,

Agreed

> but I do think (almost) everyone is capable of working harder, studying more, watching less TV, buying less "wants" rather than just "needs"

Look up the actual poverty line statistics to see what kind of numbers you are looking at for who can afford "needs".

> (recall that the most prolific purchasers of lottery tickets are the bottom two quintiles)

There is a reason for that and a reason why it's sometimes considered a "poverty tax".

With no good options for upward mobility the idea of a very low chance at changing your life is much more appealing.

People with money don't need to win the lottery, so why would they buy lottery tickets?

> of saving up money diligently, of being more frugal than we are

Partially agreed, see my response about actual poverty statistics.

> Obvious exceptions apply to people with profound mental or physical disabilities, of course, but most of us are not quadriplegics or suffering from severe schizophrenia - and even those kinds of barriers haven't prevented people like Stephen Hawking or Terry Davis from going on to produce profound and noteworthy outputs. Obviously that's not the bar for people suffering from such disabilities, but I think most people are capable of much more than we give them credit for.

How about the ones that aren't actively providing 'value' or are in fact providing negative 'value'?

That is one of the reasons i find 'value' based belief systems, when considering people, to be a weak foundation.

Stephen hawking is a bad example because he was 'valuable' before his disability kicked in fully.

Modern society is set up for the 'average' person, anybody deviating from that average is working from a starting deficit.

> I agree that this is a problem, and simply stripping people of benefits they spent a lifetime paying into is as fundamentally unfair as forcing them to pay into a program with no choice to opt out was. The solution needs to be compassionate, and it logically follows to me that the people calling for radical reform should be the first to offer self-sacrifice to be part of the solution.

Agreed and currently the head of the division in charge of creating and applying those solutions (or deciding to cut existing ones) in the US government thinks empathy is a weakness and is a multi-billionaire.

> I'm a big proponent of allowing everyone to have the option to permanently opt out of receiving benefits for life from these programs, in exchange for a small tax credit or deduction to offset the FICA taxes they will continue to pay in to help fund benefits for the current or near-current retirees. I'd be the first to volunteer for such a program.

This is interesting as a concept, though i doubt many of the current governments could pull off the administrative side of such a system.

I also think, they'd actively fight any such suggestion, because given how things are now they'd have a large proportion of the current and future generations opting out, not because the governments want to provide a safety net, but because they couldn't deal with the shortfall in the budget.

This would need to be part of a much larger suite of programs and support mechanisms, you think there's a homeless/drug addiction/crime problem now, just wait until you get a whole generation of people who have concrete proof they won't have a viable means of survival once they hit retirement age.