[ImprobableTruth]

I think GP is a bit overly harsh, but he's not responding to someone who is poor or being exploited working a shitty job. He even explicitly mentions that it's because the needy have more of a right to be supplied, so I'd wager that he is simply in favor of a means tested solution.

So while I agree with most of your post, you're not really addressing his point. Is it righteous for those in well paying and value generating jobs to stop working just because they'd be more interested in going after more leisurely activities? If their work has no value to others, is that righteous?

>Remember that we serve God and not Mammon. Framing the value of human work only in terms of its economic return is dangerously close to reducing the value of a human to their contribution to GDP.

Sure, but economic value often correlates at least somewhat with non-economic value to others. An indie game developer who makes no money is likely simply producing nothing of value to anyone but themselves.

[jodrellblank]

> Is it righteous for those in well paying and value generating jobs to stop working just because they'd be more interested in going after more leisurely activities?

Is it right to say that developing a video game is "leisurely"? Isn't the game development industry notorius for long hours, stress and endless crunch time? Is it righteous for those in well paying and value generating jobs to avoid going for even more well paying jobs?

> An indie game developer who makes no money is likely simply producing nothing of value to anyone but themselves.

You take the same view with all FOSS software volunteer work, and all non-profit/volunteer/charity work generally?

What about a subsistence farmer who lives to grow food and eat it, are they "simply producing nothing of value to anyone but themselves"? Yes. Is that necessarily a problem?

[ImprobableTruth]

>Is it right to say that developing a video game is "leisurely"? Isn't the game development industry notorius for long hours, stress and endless crunch time?

Game development as an industry job isn't leisurely. But indie game development that you're essentially only doing for yourself? It's like woodworking. Professional carpentering isn't leisurely, creating private pieces that you don't intend to make money with is.

>Is it righteous for those in well paying and value generating jobs to avoid going for even more well paying jobs?

Yes? It's about taking support (thus depleting resources that could be used to e.g. help the needy) when you don't need to.

>You take the same view with all FOSS software volunteer work, and all non-profit/volunteer/charity work generally?

Volunteer work is different insofar as that it absolutely has economic value (people would pay you for it if you weren't doing it for free out of your own volition), you just choose to give it away freely. An indie developer who could make money to sustain themselves but chooses not to would fall under the same category. Someone who wants to be an indie developer but doesn't because they know that they wouldn't make enough money is not in this category.

>What about a subsistence farmer who lives to grow food and eat it, are they "simply producing nothing of value to anyone but themselves"? Yes. Is that necessarily a problem?

Again, the issue is them wanting to be supported by others. Taking, but not providing when you can. If they can completely sustain themselves, that's great.

[jodrellblank]

I think I'm getting annoyed at the way you're framing it that the indie game development would be relaxing. Why assume that the commenter would want as their goal to make a game that nobody wants to play?

Why assume they are saying "I am sure I would make no money", when it could be "I can't be sure that I would make enough money"?

Assume they want to make a game that people like, then it becomes volunteer work that has economic value, in as much as people often pay for games they like.

> "Again, the issue is them wanting to be supported by others. Taking, but not providing when you can. If they can completely sustain themselves, that's great."

Curious if you also take this view about shareholders and land owners and such?