WanderingNerd · 22-25, F
I vibe with the spirit of that. I’ve slept on enough floors in weird cities and eaten enough dumpster bagels behind venues to know the difference between society working and society pretending to work.
But if we’re gonna talk about it seriously, we’ve gotta define what “free” actually means. Nothing is literally free. Someone grows the food. Someone builds the housing. Someone teaches the class. The real question is how the system distributes the cost and labor.
When you say those things should be rights, what you probably mean is that society should guarantee universal access, funded collectively, taxes, public institutions, cooperative structures, whatever model you’re running.
Which, historically? A lot of countries already do parts of this. Public schools. National health systems. Food programs. Housing projects. Libraries are literally anarchist dream tech, knowledge for everyone, no paywall.
But then you have to ask - who controls the institutions that provide those rights? Because if it’s just a giant bureaucracy or a corporate contractor, congratulations, you have the same problem you had in the first place. The real radical idea isn’t just “free stuff.” It’s democratic control of the systems people rely on. Worker-run hospitals. Community housing cooperatives. Public food systems that aren’t profit-driven.
So yeah. Housing, food, healthcare, education, those should be guaranteed. A society that can build rockets and streaming platforms can absolutely make sure people don’t starve or die from treatable illnesses. The hard part isn’t whether we can do it. The hard part is wrestling control away from the villains who profit from scarcity.
But if we’re gonna talk about it seriously, we’ve gotta define what “free” actually means. Nothing is literally free. Someone grows the food. Someone builds the housing. Someone teaches the class. The real question is how the system distributes the cost and labor.
When you say those things should be rights, what you probably mean is that society should guarantee universal access, funded collectively, taxes, public institutions, cooperative structures, whatever model you’re running.
Which, historically? A lot of countries already do parts of this. Public schools. National health systems. Food programs. Housing projects. Libraries are literally anarchist dream tech, knowledge for everyone, no paywall.
But then you have to ask - who controls the institutions that provide those rights? Because if it’s just a giant bureaucracy or a corporate contractor, congratulations, you have the same problem you had in the first place. The real radical idea isn’t just “free stuff.” It’s democratic control of the systems people rely on. Worker-run hospitals. Community housing cooperatives. Public food systems that aren’t profit-driven.
So yeah. Housing, food, healthcare, education, those should be guaranteed. A society that can build rockets and streaming platforms can absolutely make sure people don’t starve or die from treatable illnesses. The hard part isn’t whether we can do it. The hard part is wrestling control away from the villains who profit from scarcity.
View 2 more replies »
WanderingNerd · 22-25, F
@Luke73 Yeah, I think that instinct, the fortunate helping the less fortunate, is basically the moral engine most people are trying to describe. It’s empathy scaled up to a societal level.
But if a system relies on voluntary generosity, it can collapse the moment generosity dries up. History’s full of examples where charity existed but people still starved because charity wasn’t reliable or universal.
So a lot of people argue the safety net should be structural, not charitable. Think of it less like rich people donating to the poor and more like everyone paying into a giant cooperative shield that protects everybody when life inevitably punches you in the face.
The funny thing is the “less fortunate” category isn’t permanent. People move in and out of it all the time. You can be doing great at 30 and suddenly get sick at 35. Your industry collapses. A recession hits. You get injured. Suddenly that safety net isn’t charity anymore, it's insurance society provides to itself. And honestly? That idea shows up everywhere already. Public roads. Fire departments. Libraries. Emergency services. None of us individually pays the firefighter who might one day pull us out of a burning building. We fund the system collectively because anyone could need it.
So I’d tweak your idea slightly. It’s not just the fortunate helping the unfortunate. It’s everyone agreeing that basic security shouldn’t depend on luck.
But if a system relies on voluntary generosity, it can collapse the moment generosity dries up. History’s full of examples where charity existed but people still starved because charity wasn’t reliable or universal.
So a lot of people argue the safety net should be structural, not charitable. Think of it less like rich people donating to the poor and more like everyone paying into a giant cooperative shield that protects everybody when life inevitably punches you in the face.
The funny thing is the “less fortunate” category isn’t permanent. People move in and out of it all the time. You can be doing great at 30 and suddenly get sick at 35. Your industry collapses. A recession hits. You get injured. Suddenly that safety net isn’t charity anymore, it's insurance society provides to itself. And honestly? That idea shows up everywhere already. Public roads. Fire departments. Libraries. Emergency services. None of us individually pays the firefighter who might one day pull us out of a burning building. We fund the system collectively because anyone could need it.
So I’d tweak your idea slightly. It’s not just the fortunate helping the unfortunate. It’s everyone agreeing that basic security shouldn’t depend on luck.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@WanderingNerd Yes exactly. Everyone should have equal chances. And if voluntarily generosity isn't enough and people play unfair, then there should be done something about that.
Jexie · 26-30, F
Who's gonna pay the people building your house, working in hospitals and schools? They're working too and need to get paid. I used to think that basic things should be free too but reality is much more harsh. It doesn't work that way when you get down to it and it's idealistic thinking. Society already has compensations for people who are less fortunate, and yes, I agree there should be more. But the things you mention just aren't for free, because everyone's playing their part.
bijouxbroussard · F
I’d love to know how other countries who do manage to have these things for their citizens actually do it. Taxes ? We certainly pay taxes. Personally I think that no one here should be able to be a billionaire…then it might actually be possible.
It’s funny, the concept of socialism would save a lot of people from homelessness or at least, living from paycheck to paycheck, but it seems like the poorest in this country would rather have nothing at all than even consider it.
The prevailing attitude was captured by a quote often attributed to Steinbeck:
It’s funny, the concept of socialism would save a lot of people from homelessness or at least, living from paycheck to paycheck, but it seems like the poorest in this country would rather have nothing at all than even consider it.
The prevailing attitude was captured by a quote often attributed to Steinbeck:
Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@bijouxbroussard @Luke73 This is surely right. The mindset is "you too can be rich and look down on the poor if only you work harder". It's a complete lie, but helps to keep people 'in their place' and grinding away for the ultra rich - who inherited from their daddies.
ViciDraco · 41-45, M
I don't know that I agree that they are basic human rights. To me, rights are inherent things that others should not be taking away from you. Houses are not inherent. Someone needs to build them.
I do believe that all of those things should be free as part of society. It's just the terminology I do not like.
I do believe that all of those things should be free as part of society. It's just the terminology I do not like.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MayorOfCrushtown · M
exhale
MayorOfCrushtown · M
@Luke73 just tell me who i need to write to. LOL
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@MayorOfCrushtown The politian of your choice, activists that want to change something, your local organizations that help with food or other do other voluntary work.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@joe438 I mean profit can be a motivation, I agree, but profit isn't a justification for bad things. I'd make a big profit if I force people to work for me in inhumane conditions. Is it ethical? No. Does it happen? Too much in the name of profit.
Your comment made me chuckle. So you're saying the US is a good example for a government letting people live their lives without interfering much? Have you seen the news lately?
Your comment made me chuckle. So you're saying the US is a good example for a government letting people live their lives without interfering much? Have you seen the news lately?
joe438 · 61-69, M
@Luke73 Lots of companies will share their profits with others in society - not all, but many. They will crow about giving back, but that's fine.
Can you name a country that has less overall restriction? Australia restricts guns and has more limitations on speech than the US - most recently is the clamping down on social media to protect kids. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there it is. The UK is much more strict on permitted speech, and of course the EU has the DSA. Germany and Italy rank among the best on the nanny state indices but still below the U.S. Switzerland is the highest ranked in terms of personal freedoms in many ratings. They protect human rights with a web of severe laws for being discriminatory or racist which is kind interesting in itself. No free housing though, and no free food that I can find reference to. They try, like some in the U.S. do, to provide the most affordable housing they can muster.
We're way off topic at this point. I do like your premise that we should be kind to each other and help out, but can that also go along with having no one try and cheat the system and steal?
Can you name a country that has less overall restriction? Australia restricts guns and has more limitations on speech than the US - most recently is the clamping down on social media to protect kids. Not necessarily a bad thing, but there it is. The UK is much more strict on permitted speech, and of course the EU has the DSA. Germany and Italy rank among the best on the nanny state indices but still below the U.S. Switzerland is the highest ranked in terms of personal freedoms in many ratings. They protect human rights with a web of severe laws for being discriminatory or racist which is kind interesting in itself. No free housing though, and no free food that I can find reference to. They try, like some in the U.S. do, to provide the most affordable housing they can muster.
We're way off topic at this point. I do like your premise that we should be kind to each other and help out, but can that also go along with having no one try and cheat the system and steal?
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@joe438 Well if a company gives a million in charity but earns billions in revenue each year, do they really share their profit? It's a thousand of what they make, so...
Having no restrictions isn't the same as freedom. Freedom isn't just about the things you can do but also about not having to worry about something. And you can't tell me the US is a good place to be especially now... it's taken gigantic steps back from being a free country.
And the biggest problem isn't the people trying to take advantage of the social security system, it's the big corporations that control the system. That's not a democracity anymore.
Having no restrictions isn't the same as freedom. Freedom isn't just about the things you can do but also about not having to worry about something. And you can't tell me the US is a good place to be especially now... it's taken gigantic steps back from being a free country.
And the biggest problem isn't the people trying to take advantage of the social security system, it's the big corporations that control the system. That's not a democracity anymore.
YoMomma ·
they aren't a right, they are something people have to work for.. that kind of attitude of entitlement is wrong
FreddieUK · 70-79, M
@Luke73 I'd like to agree, but I'm afraid it's a basic human trait and you'd be hard pushed to find me a system where there is not a rich elite either at the top, or hiding in the background manipulating some puppets. I believe it is possible to modify greedy instincts and the Nordic countries were quite good at that until recently. Compared to the US, much of Europe is ahead in its regulation of the worst excesses, but there is always the pressure from right wing forces to deregulate.
Penny · 46-50, F
entitled much? lol
Penny · 46-50, F
@Luke73 about affordable housing programs? teh government get builders to offer affordable housing units as a condition to letting them build complexes and stuff. in NJ at least. in Boston they called them the Projects. Theyr ejust like condo units that are more affordable to buy but you have to be on alist to get into them and have the money when your name comes up to buy into one. i think thats how it is. The boston ones might have been rentals. im not sure.
eta- youhave to qualify as low income to get on the list
eta- youhave to qualify as low income to get on the list
Uk has free healthcare
joe438 · 61-69, M
saragoodtimes · F
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@saragoodtimes We as a society. I think it’s only fair if the more fortunate ones support the less fortunate ones. No one can choose in what living situation they grew up in.
Ferise1 · 46-50, M
@saragoodtimes they can just print more money
gregloa · 61-69, M
Being lazy isn’t a basic human right. Nothing is free. If you want it, you gotta be willing to work for it. Nobody should expect hard working Americans to pay for lazy people’s housing, food, healthcare, or healthcare.
pdockal · 56-60, M
Who will pay for YOUR freebies ?????
saragoodtimes · F
@pdockal the top 10% income earners pay over 70% of all tax dollars. our school and property taxes are over $40,000 a year. it's going up 8% this year. waiting on the bill
pdockal · 56-60, M
@saragoodtimes
First property tax isn't based on income
It's based on the value of the property
Second most rich don't pay their share because of the deductions & how they earn their money
The middle class foots most of the taxes
If you want equity then you need a flat tax with no deductions
First property tax isn't based on income
It's based on the value of the property
Second most rich don't pay their share because of the deductions & how they earn their money
The middle class foots most of the taxes
If you want equity then you need a flat tax with no deductions
Monalisasmith86 · F
Why should housing be free or healthcare it cost millions to credit gps hospitals
XxBlahxX · F
I would refuse to live in "free" housing. That shits gonna be so ghetto .
CactusJackManson · 51-55, M
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@CactusJackManson Who?
CactusJackManson · 51-55, M
@Luke73 Google it
Ferise1 · 46-50, M
@CactusJackManson he likes Muslims?
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
USA is fascist and thus is an outlaw state without social welfare, fair and square.