This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
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.
Luke73 · 26-30, M
@WanderingNerd I agree with that, and you're right, in that sense nothing is free. But I think the solution should be that the more fortunate ones help out the less fortunate ones. That no one needs to individually worry about (finacial) safety but you know that society does that for you.
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.