> What you're saying is that your personal "principle" is more important that facts. And it seems you're saying it should be that way for all time because you think your principle is just and right - even if automation replaces a ton of jobs, or even if something else happens so people don't really have to work much anymore, your moral principle demands that everyone work.

They said back in the 80s and 90s The computer revolution would stop end all the office work. Now there are probably more people in offices than ever. I think automation will just create different jobs. Neither you or I will know what those are likely to be.

> Don't you think the world changes and that what worked before isn't necessarily going to work for all time? I mean, read a book about being a good housewife in the '60s if you want to see how far we've come in just 60 years.

The fact of the matter is that it isn't ethical to rely on the good people in the population to work and pay for people that can't be bothered.

> I understand you're a bit put off by people getting "money for nothing" but as I said,

No I find it to be completely unethical.

> maybe the facts here are showing you live a better life because you do pay a little for people to get money for nothing. i.e. crime is lower, people are happier, etc.

I am not living a better life. Things are largely the same for me. Those unwilling to work are living at the taxpayer's expense.

Also I don't care about happiness. There are other things that are more important than happiness. I don't care about my own happiness. Happiness is for children. This is a deeper philosophical question that I will admit I don't have the tooling for. However you keep on saying happiness like I care about it.

Also if you making arguments about Happiness isn't the best way to go on it. There are accounts of slaves being happier being slaves than being free.

> As I showed with facts, it's only 5% of the Australian population who live that way, and of course some of those would only get it until they do find a job. Certainly not all of them are slackers (of course, some are)

I've told you the "facts" are irrelevant to me (and many others). Even if it was 0.01% of the UK I still think it would be wrong. I don't want to pay for people sitting on their behind. So you are forcing me to pay almost half my income for something I deeply disagree with, because not working isn't an option for me and never will be. It has nothing to do with enjoying work or not enjoying it.

> As I said, you need to keep it very clear in your head you are already paying for millions to do exactly that, and society as we know it would utterly crumble if we didn't. Who would pay for prisons, the elderly or handicapped?

I am fine for paying for those things. Because that is what/who the state should be providing for. I am not okay for people sitting on their backside.

I don't care that theoretically there would be less crime. I couldn't care less. Also not having free money doesn't allow you to break the law.

> The part I find most fascinating of all about this is how the media has conditioned people to be outraged about real and everyday people getting "money for nothing" and how they're slackers and are ruining the economy. Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I haven't been conditioned by anyone to think this. It is incredible insulting to be told by you that I have a problem with something because I been somehow brainwashed. Please keep on having this attitude though because it won't do you any good.

> Two pages later we learn the banks have another multi-billion dollar bailout, large companies are pay extremely little tax.

I agree they shouldn't have been bailed out.