> You keep implying that all jobs are just supporting the "corporate" entity or whatever but what does that really even mean?

As I said, I simplified it for the purpose of illustration. These kind of topics are incredibly complex - especially when you go outside of the conventional "get a job, buy a house" routine and thus lack a shared context/perspective - so describing everything accurately at once in a single comment is very hard, if not impossible. The best I can do is to keep things readable and mostly accurate, and elaborate on any points of confusion.

> There are plenty of non-profits that employ software developers

This is correct. However, they normally have a very narrow focus, which means there's not a lot of variation. That's an excellent way to become unproductive and unmotivated. I can simply do much more useful stuff when I'm not tied to a particular single agenda or purpose. I'm optimizing for productivity, not for social acceptance.

> and plenty of other businesses that provide useful/genuine services.

Sure, but providing useful services is not their goal. Making money is. The 'useful services' are just an (attempted) method of getting there. If making money weren't their goal, they wouldn't be a commercial business - they'd be a non-profit.

> There is nothing inherently wrong with a corporation or business.

There is, but that's quite a complex topic that goes beyond just the points mentioned here.

> If you are so against people working for corporations and the work that they produce, perhaps you should stop using computers and other electronics?

How is that a reasonable conclusion? Computers and other electronics are not something that can exclusively be produced in a commercial manner, that just happens to be how they are produced right now. I don't exactly have a choice there. How does that lead to me having to stop using that technology, seeing as there is nothing wrong with the technology in itself?

> You just aren't making a lot of sense here. Your reasons for not wanting to work are because it creates "strings" and "distorted priorities".. What is distorted about earning(giving effort) and receiving a paycheck?

The distortion is that your goal is now that paycheck, rather than doing useful things. If a conflict ever arises between the two, that leads you to having to pick between 'doing it right' or retaining your income, guess which one will win? These conflicts happen to people on a daily basis, they're just commonly waved away or ignored through various cognitive biases.

A tit-for-tat type of income inevitably leads to a shift in goals. Your goal is no longer the stated purpose of what you're doing, but rather following the wishes of whoever is bringing you that income. It creates a dependency, and not a healthy one.

> Its only about the most common thing across every society on earth.

As are corruption and dishonesty. That something is 'common' doesn't somehow make it morally justifiable or not distorted.

> You want people to fund you because working "didn't work out" for you?

No, and I've actually been quite clear about this. I want people to fund me if they appreciate what I do. That is the difference between accepting donations (which voluntary contributions effectively are), and panhandling. I'm essentially just giving people the choice to compensate me for my work, rather than forcing them to do so through a commercial business model.

I really don't understand the insistence you're putting on "just get a job". If the social cost vs. social benefits of my proposal are better than if I were to get a job, where is the problem?