this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2025
738 points (95.1% liked)
Greentext
7478 readers
531 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, why the fuck not? Social safety nets and access to basic human necessities like food, shelter, and healthcare should not be gated by some arbitrary number of "working hours".
because society would collapse. social programs only work by having more people putting into them than are taking out. they are a form of insurance.
resources are not infinite. the insurance company can't operate if it's pay outs exceed it's pay ins.
So your argument is that if everyone has access to basic necessities, society would collapse? What in the slipperiest of slopes are you talking about?
If your "society" is dependent on people voluntarily going into wage slavery, maybe it should collapse.
It's no an argument dude. It's material and economic reality.
The problem with the current safety net is we don't have enough going in. And you want to put less in while everyone takes out more.
That isn't how reality works. You seem to think the garden of eden is just a matter of politics. in order for there to be food, medical care, etc, people need to provide it. people need to work.
We're talking about two different things then. I'm talking about how things should be.