That's the premise.



Taking away personal economic power means that economic power gets concentrated somewhere else. One would have to have a lot of confidence in the political system to be content with no economic power.

I would imagine that those who are unable to work or who are of retirement age would be provided for to a greater extent than those who are simply lazy.

Also....who and how is "laziness" determined?

What is the criteria?

Um...you get more if you work than if you don't. That's the motivation.

Do you object to the idea of giving more to those who work? Or do you object to providing for those who don't? You cannot object to both, that is a self-contradictory position.

I have explained how it is different (need is priority, no trade, no amassing wealth etc.)
[/quote]


Actually I had an answer but my computer crashed. Basically, everyone has a right to have their basic needs met, worker or not. (Lets not forget that there rarely is a job for everyone)

Iamme, I think you misunderstood what illy is trying to say.

He is not advocating they get paid by welfare for being lazy. He is saying that people should have the right to work hard at a young age, so they can relax at some later stage and live off their savings if they choose. He is basically making the point that as long as they don't live off the state, they have the right to choose how they live their life.

It is a really good post and point by Illy IMO and one I agree with 100%.

If people want to work extremely hard when they are young, and live off their savings or income from their investments atg a later stage then IMO it is to be applauded. They are not providing a cost for the state as they are self funding their own dream lifestyle(Illy called it laziness but I prefer self funded lifestyle as a term  ), and they are also paying tax on their income as well. So, I don't see the harm for the government with this.

IMO, this scenario is much more advisable that people living off the state because they are too lazy to work.


There is an expression that sums it up perfectly. Some people work while others play so that they can play whilst others work. 

It exists to some extent in the West. The US has a reprehensible system where the unemployed are given welfare for 3 years (I think) and if they don't have a job by that time they are given nothing. Thousands are now entirely dependent on charity as a result.

But even in a society with a decent welfare there is still massive inequality, which cannot just be explained by laziness vs. earnestness. As far as I am concerned, the right to own property is the principle cause of this. Indeed, if one believes in individual property rights, then taxation is a form of state theft, and all that comes from it (welfare included) is the result of theft.

The benefit of my model is that it is much more equitable, without rewarding equally the person who sponges off society. For example, a steelworker may work just as hard as a corporate CEO, but will make many times less money. The same steelworker will never make as much as Paris Hilton has inherited. That is unfair.