Ah, but see, if you work more hours than there are in a day, or find some niche in which your compensation is great enough that you can be one of the very few who elsewise build a fortune, you may reach a point where other people work and you just get stuff.
It is my opinion. I think economics is a soft science. You can't reliably run a experiment and expect the same results, most of the analysis is in retrospect. Some of the things that are now considered as consensus are themselves pretty hand-wavey garbage, like how "money is a commodity".
Capitalism leaves people unemployed and requires people to work to live.
No, you're thinking of capitalism, which accrues the benefits of technological progress to the owners of the factory, mill, etc. and the machinery inside and not the workers who operate that machinery.
How do you know what I believe? We can make an honest discussion.
The way we organize our economy is why certain jobs changing due to a more productive machine or process coming into fashion also causes some people to be fired rather than, for example, more leisure time for workers.
The job is entirely obsolete. Does that mean that this person would then go on to spend all of their time on leisure?
There are countless ways to deal with the impact of technology, so yes, no, and both yes and no: there's no reason to pick just one answer when there is a universe of particulars. We may examine one case:
Are you responsible for people starving because you didn't donate to charity?
I apologize, the post you replied to was incomplete.
And neither socialists nor communists advocate doing such.
Unemployment is certainly a social ill as it manifests under capitalism. Under capitalism, unemployment causes bankruptcy, homelessness, and often exacerbates other conditions. Capitalism is the disease, however: the way it treats unemployment is merely a symptom.
Do you see why I occasionally doubt your sincerity?
There is a pretty clear difference between the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is a description of the history of life on earth and how it came to be so varied and Social Darwinism, which is a prescription to let people die out of some nebulous idea that the remaining people living will be in some way superior.
Social Darwinism is in fact Darwinism itself, if it were removed some millennia from the current year. Why did the Neanderthals die out? Was it social darwinism, or natural darwinism?
