FC #82

“What proportion of people will work if they don’t have to in order to get the basic necessities (or even minor luxuries) of life?”

This seemingly innocent question is actually one of vital importance, Fletcher. I believe that no economic system will work if this isn’t taken into account in said system’s design.

Based upon my life’s experience (admittedly not a completely scientific method of determination), the breakdown goes something like this:

-50% of able-bodies human beings will work hard no matter what, because it gives their life purpose.

-25% will work hard but will work a lot less hard if they didn’t have to to feed and house themselves.

-20% will work only if it’s the only alternative to starving to death.

-5% won’t work under any circumstances.

If you accept these numbers as being pretty close to the way things are, you’ll see right away that making it easy to live without working will reduce the productivity of nearly half the population of any given country. Yes, you’ll have to make some allowances for natural resources, culture, etc., but it readily becomes apparent that, despite the assertions of Roddenberry, a society where all wants are removed will quickly degrade into the worst type of decadence.

When the truth of this is understood, one realizes that the only economic system that makes sense is one in which there is a very real possibility of facing suffering and even death, or of requiring private charity with behavioral requirements rigorously attached, if a person chooses not to work.

In other words, the Western world before the advent of the welfare state.

The collectivist “solutions” of the past century or so have failed because they don’t address these realities of human nature and attitudes and behavior with regard to work.

When I see people like Krugman saying that “making it easy for someone to keep living without having to work will diminish their efforts to get off the dole” is inexplicable, I know I’m dealing with a jailhouse lawyer mentality. He knows damn well that the statement is true (as evidenced by his writings as put forth on this thread)but will use whatever semantic and legalistic calisthenics are required to attempt to prove the opposite. Gotta preserve the narrative, after all.

Worse is the conceitedness and arrogance of leftists like Krugman and Obama who are so convinced of their towering intellect and powers of persuaion that they think they can talk ANYONE out of whatever behavior pattern they might possess. Sorry, guys, but you just aren’t that good at sales. Nobody is, or ever will be.