h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not sure I follow your meaning on this one... Could you be a little more specific? I wouldn't want to give you the wrong answer.

Indeed they should. It seems to me that there are two types of people on this planet: those who feel happy and fulfilled if they have work to do, and those who feel happier if they have no work to do.
A utopian society could be created if the people who need to work to maintain their mental stability waited hand and foot on those who would prefer to surf the internet and eat crisps all day long. Everyone would be happy.
A utopian society could thus be easily created, but we'll never persuade the fools in government of this, because government is (obviously) full of workaholics who could never understand the joys of loafing.
Lazy people are thus doomed to misery.

Lazy people should be housed and fed, but the food should be placed in such a place as to make it difficult to reach-thus if the lazy person was hungry they would have to become un lazy (if the word exists) in order to reach the food.
With carfull monitoring, those people succesfull in being fed could then be returned to society as non-lazy. those who dont get any food should be left to there own lazy lethargic devices

May I suggest that one of the Editors moves this thread to Ask h2g2?


Scout

No they shouldnt we should remove the food altogether and the housing give them a bucket and a ladder (the means to earn a living) and throw them onto the street !

Fascist.

Why should those that do work, not reap the same benefits as those who cannot be bothered to work or even get a job?

They would. But the benefits awarded to the lazy - the right to stay in bed all day and yawn - would be unappealing to those who like to work. The benefits awarded to the energetic would be the right to a good solid hard day's work and the sweat of honest labour. So you see, everyone would be happy. Viva la revolution!

None of you seem to realise that no-one actually wants to work. Just some people can be bothered to work in order to get a better standard of living.
Workaholics working and lazy people loafing would NOT be utopia - everybody would starve.
In fact, one of the main reasons why communism failed was that there was no incentive to work as everyone was paid the same anyway, and so the people who would work in order to get a higher standard of living didn't work, and so no work got done.
That said, we should lodge and feed lazy people for humanitarian reasons.

"no-one actually wants to work"

This is far from true. When my mother-in-law retires she will go insane. She lives for work and thrives on stress and pressure. She won't know what to do with herself when the state tells her to stop working and accept a handout for the rest of her life. I have no doubt that she'll devote herself to countless voluntary working positions to keep herself sane.

I have the greatest respect for such people, but lazy people are also deserving of the right to curl up in front of the TV and go to sleep.

i also would point out the lazy people who lay around on sofa all day have not been given the acclamation they deserve in saveing the planet,no fossel fuels burnt and now animals slaughtered for shoe leather in traveling back and forward every day to work. sedentry lifestyles also mean calorie intake is often negleted for days on end leaveing more food and resources for those who want them.
I would also point out if all the lazy people of london decided to go out monday morning the ensueing rush of people for the bus or train would cause to much chaos so lets have a cheer for all those who are saveing the planets resources in this way

I think this could work. Sign me up.

Fester? I'm not festering, thank-you very much!

'lazy people are also deserving of the right to curl up in front of the TV and go to sleep.'

Sure. I don't disagree; they have that right. However, if they demonstrate no utility to society, society should not demonstrate utility to them.

Everyone who works and heads a family should get enough money to live (that is, a household income should be sufficient to supporting the household). Disabled people should receive support if they can't work--though many disabled people could. (Since when was walking a prerequisite for anything?) Aside from the living wage, or perhaps direct payment of goods, people should get disposable income based on their utility. A doctor would earn more than a burger flipper, for instance.

Those who are useless to society can still make a living. Artists, for instance, would live on their success. If people used their disposable income to buy their books or lithographs or music, they would be able to live. Otherwise, they'd find gainful employment--or starve.

So this ideal system is a slight modification of capitalism in which everyone can find work and everyone who works gets enough money to live. This incentive to work is necessary because, though not everyone would slack off, enough people would (most likely) that society would cease to function.

You could still potentially save up enough in disposable income to take years of vacation. Lazy people might organize their work into runs in which they earn a large amount of money and temporarily retire.

Artists are useless to society? Please. A society without art would indeed be useless not ideal.

What use is a society? Only in regulating its members, which it can do without art. Art neither creates nor sustains life, only happiness. Happiness is not the goal of society.

Art has its use, but for individuals, not society. Thus it is the individuals who should sustain it, rather than the monarch of society, government.

So you think that regulating members of a society is what a society is for. Or to restate, society only exists in order to regulate its members. It sounds like a self referential definition unless I am missing something here.

So what is the goal of regulating society? Why do we even bother? Why would any one want to live in a society that has no art? Doesn't matter cause no society has ever existed with out and has been until only recently been state (or church) sponsored.

I hope you are shielding your eyes every time you pass a peice of public art on the street. (unless you are an unfortunate who lives in a place where it does not exist.) I wouldn't want you receiving any benefits or annoyance from any art you may encounter. This would include shielding your eyes when you pass any gracefully designed buildings, stained glass windows in any church you yourself don't attend,

You do not differentiate between government and society. They are related, of course, but they are hardly as closely linked as you imagine.

And your claim that I should not admire public art (not that much is at all enjoyable; can't find any contemporary art in the classic style). It's a positive externality: it benefits those who do not pay for it. It has worth. But it isn't a function of society.

Society is not the source of artwork and does not create it. It is neither the means nor the end. Society does, however, determine what art is acceptable. That's a regulatory function, not a productive or consumptive function.

You ask for a goal in regulating society. I take it you mean society's regulation of individuals. The goal is to regulate individuals, of course, because the well-being of each should not be harmed by another's ambitions.

So, you had three arguments: that society is responsible for everything that has worth, that enjoying something would make it a function of society, and that government is an integral part of society. That last may be true.

i think it depends on the hight of laziness,and how long a person has been lazy for.I've got to admit I'm feeling pretty lazy right now but for the past 2 days i've been working my tail off.so i feel as though i deserve my little bit of lazy (.everyone needs to chill every now and then
but I'm not sure it would be kind to allow the truly lazy to fester.It's got to be boring floping on a sofa and eatting all day,after all "general hospital"&"Jenny Jones" can only hold your intrest for so long.I think our Veggi friends should be tickled and forced to do something at least mildly productive