[m3ta4a]

In no world where there is a "duty" to provide value am I going to be found happily providing value. In this world, in my experience, your statement is simply false. If I happen to provide some form of value it is from my choosing to, not to satisfy the demands of some formless "duty".

[isoskeles]

The "duty" is to satisfy the demands of existing within a community of people, where able-bodied freeloaders are never welcome. But I can understand nitpicking over semantics. Replace the word "duty" with whatever you want.

[m3ta4a]

Nonsense, a different word doesn't suddenly make it universally true. It could be a guiding philosophy, something like "to live a good life provide value to your community". But it is in no practical way a rule.

[groone]

It is a universal rule as if you don't do that, you are part of the problem and are creating a drag on the society, reducing the value for everyone to use and enjoy. Your argument sounds like You want to see the society to fail and collapse.

[solosoyokaze]

It's not universal. I'd rather see someone "freeload" in a system of wild wealth inequality than further enrich those who already have runaway gains via the power law. In fact, I'd say it's quite an ethical position to take.

Put another way, I'll worry about a million people not "adding value" when there ceases to exist individuals who have captured enough wealth to support a million people. The latter is the real problem.

[m3ta4a]

Exactly, thank you. I struggled for the right words but you captured my sentiment perfectly. I think the perspective that we have a "duty to contribute" might be a valid one in a philosophical sense, but I resent being told as by a parent scolding their child that I have some duty or other.

I have no such thing. I am debt free and live the way I want. I live alone. I have no children or spouse to support. I owe nothing to anybody. I don't owe anyone an explanation. Maybe the opposing views come from people who believe they do, but in no way is it universal.

Your point from the perspective of wealth inequality is more elegant. In my case I am wealthy enough to support roughly one person: me.

If I want or need more resources, I have levers I can pull to obtain them. But don't tell me I have a "duty" to add value to the economy.

[groone]

Hate to break it to you but even if you owe nothing to anybody you probably owe taxes every year. Thank you for your forced contribution to society!

[groone]

If you are not creating value that means you are consuming value created by others. The total value created for everyone to enjoy shrinks. Society just cannot sustain itself without people who create more value than they consume.

Who is going to create all the value consumed by rent seekers, financial engineers, thieves, scammers, corrupt or bloated government? People who create and provide more value than they consume.

[m3ta4a]

When capitalism ceases to encourage food expiring in a landfill rather than feed the homeless, I suppose.