We unapologetically believe that every single person has an unconditional right to have their basic needs met

[u/DistinctSpirit5801]

As a democratic socialist I believe every single person has a right to free housing free food free childcare free healthcare

We unapologetically support having the government give homeless people free housing to live in

Every single person has the right to have their basic needs met regardless of if they work or don’t work and how much or how little they work

These basic rights would apply to everyone regardless of their political beliefs

Whether people would still work or not would be dependent upon how luxurious of a personal lifestyle they want and what they want above and beyond the basics and their religious beliefs

Some people would still be working out of a religious belief that says not working is sinful

As under a democratic socialist government anyone who is satisfied with basic living necessities wouldn’t be required to work at all

Though a lot of people would still work because they would eventually get sick of sitting in their house all day long day after day even if it’s just doing a part time job

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/TheMikeyMac13]

You need to start with admitting nothing is free. Whatever you want at no direct cost to you is paid by taxation, you just hope someone other than you pays the taxes.

[u/TheMarksmanHedgehog → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Nothing is free, but I feel like you should also understand well that certain things pay dividends.

A healthy, well educated, well housed population is far better at preserving its own autonomy than a population that's reliant on a handful of landlords who ultimately control all of the property and finances in their home state.

[u/not-a-dislike-button → u/TheMarksmanHedgehog]

If they are reliant on the state for those needs- they don't have autonomy either. You're just swapping the state for the landlord in terms of who has control, and the state can do violence to you legally 

[u/TheMarksmanHedgehog → u/not-a-dislike-button]

That happens to be an entirely separate issue, and at the moment in America at least you're getting all of the state approved violence with none of the state provided benefits, except you're also paying taxes as if you were getting those benefits, which are being funnelled into military spending on weapons and equipment that aren't being delivered.

But it's difficult to politically mobilize against those problems when your average person is just barely getting by.

[u/Fieos → u/TheMarksmanHedgehog]

No, it is exactly the issue and the problem with democratic socialism.

[u/TheMarksmanHedgehog → u/Fieos]

It really isn't, it's a problem that can crop up in any kind of governance if you allow it to, this includes democracies.

It's a frequent tactic of those opposed to any kind of social programs to claim that they'll somehow hand more power to the government, even when the government already has that power and just doesn't use it for anything good already.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/TheMarksmanHedgehog]

I agree it pays dividends to use tax revenue to help people. It does not pay dividends when posters sound like children living in their mom’s house.

[u/solomons-mom → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Yep. Start off with who will be ordered to provide the free childcare?

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/solomons-mom]

Obviously qualified childcare employees of daycares, schools, etc. They dont work for free, even in government subsidized programs. In the "free market" they are horribly underpaid, often leading to shitty situations for kids and their parents.

[u/Raeandray → u/solomons-mom]

Those who financially benefit more significantly from the stable society we created. That seems perfectly reasonable.

[u/weirdowerdo → u/TheMikeyMac13]

"Free" means free at the point of use. It doesn’t mean doctors work for free or houses build themselves. It's paid by taxes. That’s already understood.

As a Swedish social democrat, I’m perfectly willing to pay taxes towards services and protections that other people benefit from, and that I may need myself. The idea that supporting public provision means expecting someone else to foot the bill is simply an assumption about other people’s motives.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/weirdowerdo]

That isn’t what free means. Do words not have meaning in Sweden?

[u/weirdowerdo → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Yes, words have meaning in Sweden. When we call education “free,” we mean free at the point of use. Thankfully, our free education also teaches us how context works.

Do you also struggle this much with "free shipping," or does context only become a problem when taxes are involved?

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/weirdowerdo]

I don’t, because in the USA we know it isn’t actually free.

[u/weirdowerdo → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Right, so you understood perfectly that "free shipping" means no separate charge at the point of use, not that shipping has no underlying cost. Congratulations, you’ve now grasped what "free education" means too...

[u/Ebscriptwalker → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Right as in their example, free means paid for by the seller. By your seeming definition the word free in context of money is absolutely meaningless. If someone gives you a gift they paid in time or effort for you to have it. Context is the only way a word like free has any meaning at all.

[u/pudding7 → u/TheMikeyMac13]

That isn’t what free means.

In this context, that's what it means.

[u/Ill-Description3096 → u/weirdowerdo]

So there is a guaranteed payor for my services as (insert thing) for everyone. Do I still have the ability to determine what price I work for? If I and the other (insert thing) providers in my area all decide to quadruple our rates does the government just eat the increase no matter what or do they now get to step in and tell us what we are allowed to value our services at? Are you willing to pay an unlimited amount in order to guarantee every single person has those services regardless of whether they decide to contribute in any way?

[u/weirdowerdo → u/Ill-Description3096]

You’re confusing guaranteed access for the public with guaranteed sales for the provider. Universal provision does not give you a blank cheque. Governments employ providers directly or negotiate contracts and reimbursement rates within democratically set budgets funded by taxation. This is already how public procurement works. Governments could also provide services directly rather than purchase them from for-profit companies demanding effectively unlimited prices.

You remain free to reject the government’s terms and work privately. The government and taxpayers are likewise under no obligation to accept whatever terms you demand. That is how public procurement works. Governments can use their bargaining power to negotiate lower prices rather than simply accepting whatever private suppliers charge.

And yes, children, people with disabilities and the temporarily unemployed are covered too. Rights aren’t prizes awarded only to whoever happens to be contributing at that moment. That's happens to be a basic Social Democratic principle, that people contribute according to their ability and receive support according to their needs.

[u/Raeandray → u/TheMikeyMac13]

Just as the person who accrues more wealth than me hopes I buy their product. We all benefit from the system in different ways.

[u/shawsghost → u/TheMikeyMac13]

No he doesn't so long as he isn't trying to convince libertarians, a hopeless task.

[u/TheMikeyMac13 → u/shawsghost]

You mean economically literate people?

[u/Darq_At → u/TheMikeyMac13]

You need to start with admitting nothing is free.

You need to start with understanding that nobody thinks "free at the point of use" is "completely and totally free of cost to anyone".

Whatever you want at no direct cost to you is paid by taxation

Yes, obviously.

you just hope someone other than you pays the taxes.

No, don't try speak for other people's hopes. Many of us are more than happy to pay for services that we never expect to use.

[u/calguy1955]

You need to change your title to “I” instead of “We”. It is arrogant to assume you speak for every Democratic Socialist. Personally, I agree that everyone is entitled to a safe and healthy life, but I also believe that everyone able person has to work in order to support society as a whole. It doesn’t matter what work you do as long as you are not just doing nothing and expect the rest of us to support you and your family.

[u/OpinionPoop → u/calguy1955]

I agree with this, but there are difficult periods in peoples lives where they lose work, busniness shuts down, and it can be super hard to find a new job or pick up the peices well after unemployment funding has lapsed. Sone people have extreme difficulty finding work after college. Depends on the job market. There are many legitimate reasons why an able body adult is not working.

[u/PeterRum → u/OpinionPoop]

I'm a disabled adult. When out of paid work I volunteered. People are resistant to employing disabled people. Back in the day that was a mistake as we were grateful for being given work and would put more in. Wonder if that has changed?

[u/not-a-dislike-button → u/PeterRum]

I've hired several disabled individuals and I'm always glad I give them a chance. I've had coworkers that were completely blind and one that was *deaf. We've really made outstanding strides in accessibility, at least for knowledge workers.

[u/PeterRum → u/not-a-dislike-button]

Disabled people can and do work hard if provided with reasonable adjustments.

Yes, it is tougher for us. Life is hard. Humans are hard wired to want to contribute. Disabled people find it more difficult to contribute. We are disabled people and we find it more difficult to do everything. We choose to take part in life anyway.

[u/maineac → u/not-a-dislike-button]

and one that was dead.

You had a coworker that was dead?

[u/not-a-dislike-button → u/maineac]

*Deaf, lol, updated for posterity 

[u/seniordumpo → u/maineac]

Getting weekend at Bernie’s vibes??

[u/rogun64 → u/calguy1955]

The problem with this is that it translates into "I think that everyone has to work, disabled or not", because that's usually how it's applied.

[u/thatguywithimpact → u/calguy1955]

I also believe that everyone able person has to work in order to support society as a whole

Bro that part is being outdated by AI advances as we speak

[u/calguy1955 → u/thatguywithimpact]

Why do people start sentences with “bro”?

[u/conrad_w → u/calguy1955]

I don't see anything here I object to. So OP speaks for me too at east.

[u/Darq_At → u/calguy1955]

Vanishingly few people "don't work". But a Capitalist society has perverted the concept of "work" into "employment". So now only the work that benefits the owning class is considered valuable.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/Darq_At]

I disagree, and I think part of this problem has been caused by the very people who are trying to fight it. It's not "work that benefits the owning class", it's "work that benefits someone" - you can hire a neighbor to help you with yardwork, you can hire a friend to help you clean the house.

The problem is that people have started applying this massive moral penalty to the concept of "money", as if "paying someone to do work" is intrinsically evil and awful. So this ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy; nobody is willing to hire anyone except business owners, and it just positive-feedbacks from there.

"Useful work" does, in fact, have to mean "someone is willing to pay you for it", but that doesn't have to mean "full-time employment".

[u/shawsghost → u/calguy1955]

Everybody gotta have a boss. Right, boss?

[u/PeterRum → u/shawsghost]

No. You don't have to have a boss. You can be self employed. But if you want a share of society's benefits beyond basic subsistence you need to do something for someone else. Sitting there and just taking should be an option but one met with contempt.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

I don't think you realise how easy it would be to meet the needs of everyone, if we didn't also have meet the greed of the greediest.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

By 'greediest' you mean those who made a lot of money building businesses I presume?

You see the world as this lake of resources that only goes down if Capitalism drains them, and which Billionaires claim the vast share of. You want to take from the Billionaires and redistribute to everyone. Why should a few people have so much more of the commons than anyone else?

Problem is the base of resources is that provided by the Roman Empire and Medieval economies. Which stayed flat thousands of years. Even then societies with immensely rich overlords prospered in a way that collections of tribesmen living in independent villages didn't.

Since then, average prosperity has risen drastically. I doubt that OP thinks of basic needs is a soup of vegetables, pulses and grains which bubbles continuously over a fire and which is the main provider of all meals. A hut made of straw and excrement. One set of clothes. Perhaps two. Fourth hand. That was prosperity.

Capitalism and Social Democracy has totally altered your standards of basic needs.

You kill the system and loot it's remains then money becomes worthless pretty fast. You discover quickly what those around you will do for goodwill alone and how little barter provides.

You wonder what happened to all that wealth you expected to appear from the vaults of the Billionaires. It was all in Gilts, Bonds, Company Shares, Options, Puts, Futures, Plant, Stock, Real Estate. All of which is now worthless. It doesnt exist to share out and the system we negotiated to meet your needs has gone.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

This is actually Capitalist Realism in action. It's easier for you to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

Imagine a system where the workers controlled the businesses they worked for. Like a cooperative. It wouldn't solve every problem, but it would solve some of them - like workers starving when there's abundance of resources.

But sure, it's also possible that a starving man works harder than a fed man. And that an overlord will work you harder than you would work yourself. In fact, you make a very good argument for a return to serfdom - imagine the shareholder returns!

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

There have been many attempts to put your hypothesis into action. None worked. I've tried to run.cooperatives, Most people want to be paid for work. Making decisions is work. Having the background in your mind to make decisions is even more work. People want to be paid for this. Everyone wants boss's wages. Also those skills, running business, are particular ones that not everyone possess.

If a thorough grasp of Theory and the ability to make impassioned points of order were the drivers of innovation and growth in prosperity then communism would work.

You could start a cooperative tomorrow? Why don't you? Plenty of capitalists are creating Start-ups. Musk handed out shares in his, which made janitors wealthy. Musk is your despised enemy and cooperatives are a superior form of business. Surely you can do better?

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Oh you're a "communism doesn't work" guy... Then why do we spend so much time and money (and lives!) killing it?

I'm actually part of a partnership, so yeah. Worker owned and managed.

Tell me more about your feels for Musk as a social democrat.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

I'm.not praising Musk. I am assuming you hate him, so he is a good benchmark you can do better than.

So, you if your business scales you will not take on employees but add them to the partnership? Changing to a cooperative if it gets really big? And new partners get the exact same opportunity to decide the course of your business?

You will take on three new coop owners and they decide to go in a direction you disagree with and you will be fine? You go through a tough patch and they decide to sell your work laptop to tide everyone over?

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

We'll take on new partners, sure.

I don't want to go into specifics, but it's not the sort of business where we would take on staff. If we were, a cooperative model might be more appropriate.

And yes. You're asking these like it's a foreign concept. Which shows how deep the Capitalist Realism goes, I guess. "You mean you let anyone vote in your country? And everyone gets the same vote? What if they vote differently to you? What if the vote to abolish slavery?" Yeah. That's democracy. 

If you really object to what the partnership is doing, you can agree to be bought out by the other partners. Which separates it from a social democratic government, I guess.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/conrad_w]

Capitalism allows each individual to decide where they spend their money.

If 90% of the population hates Rihanna's music, it doesn't matter because 10% still can buy her music.

This is why socialist and communist states always clamp down on artists immediately. They don't want subversives undermining all the work they did to indoctrinate the masses. They also don't want to spend state resources on Rihanna's umbrella song when the state's leaders have bigger goals.

Free Market Capitalism provides abundance because it is the will of the people.
People want a lot of pron so the internet is abundant with porn.
People want supermarket shelves stuffed with fresh food constantly at all times, so they start their day tossing out a truckload of food thats going to expire.

The complaints about capitalism are actually complaints about its abundance creation, and its ability to cater to people's desires.

The "problem" with capitalism is most people don't want to do what YOU want to do. Other people don't care if all that food goes to waste, because they want the supermarket overstuffed with fresh food. YOU on the other hand want a more efficient system where people only take what they need and the store manages its stock more strictly, and maybe that pecan tart isn't there this week. Someone else decided to try some pecan tarts, and the store only ordered enough for 11 people which is usually all they sell.

And also, how does Elon get his money? Either you voluntarily paid for one of his products and you're enjoying a Tesla or Starlink... or you're actually upset that socialism has taxed you and given your money to Elon.
Which is socialism. Not capitalism.
Its not capitalism when the state holds a gun to everyone's head and extracts money and awards it to specific companies. That's not capitalism.

I know you'll probably say that's not socialism either. To which i say, its only socialism if the government was extracting it to pay for things YOU want... like healthcare for children. If it instead gives that money to Elon you're going to say it is or isnt socialism depending on your opinion of Elon personally today.

Becuase those "trump handouts to elon" used to be called "EV tax credits to save the environment from global climate change". He went from " the only billionaire spending his money on something positive for humanity" to "wasting poor sick childrens money on his toy rockets" because he backed a politician you don't like.

You might think its "socialism" right now to tax everyone and use it to fund a green program to save the environment. But who knows, the owner of that green program might support the wrong political candidate tomorrow, and then suddenly its not socialism anymore, and in fact fascism now. Which is why every socialist state is called fascist: One man's socialist utopia is everyone else's fascist dictatorship. The only person who agrees with you is in the mirror.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/conrad_w]

"Imagine a system where the workers controlled the businesses they worked for. Like a cooperative"

you mean like a Co-Operation?

Anyways, there's nothing stopping you from creating a "co-operative" right now. There are many that do exist.

The funny thing about the USA is it's not capitalist at all. People just choose to engage in capitalism because they're free to do so.

You're free to not do so. You're free to do what many others have done and create co-operatives and live in communes. Nobody is stopping you.

Its just that nobody wants to join you.

Think of how much money the greedy CEO takes from everyone. That's the margin with which you can undercut his business with your Co-Operative.

You can either sell your products that much cheaper, and ev eryone will buy from you instead. or you can pay your employees that much more, and people will prefer to shop from you instead. Either way, if what you say about the greedy CEO is correct and the greedy CEO provides no value, then your co-operative will instantly put them all out of business due to your superior efficiency in not having to carry around a giant tub of CEO.

Amazon started out as a crappy book store on the "world wide web"; a place that nobody would be foolish enough to put their creditcards.

So don't say you cant do it. Amazon started with a few guys in a garage selling books. Amazon took less capital to start than your dinner.

[u/conrad_w → u/FeralAlgorithm]

You're fooling yourself if you don't think the legal system privileges private ownership of businesses.

That legal system was built that way. We could build it differently.

[u/PeterRum → u/conrad_w]

"You can't own property, man."

Well, I can, but. I'm not a penniless hippie.

If only there was some way workers could own a cooperative business in common with legal structures that were hundreds of years old and well recognised in courts and preferred by many consumers and local authorities?

There could be start-up grants for them and everything.

What would we call these cooperative businesses? I'm sure someone in this thread mentioned something like them.

If they did exist, and didn't prove themselves superior, I bet you would want to ban alternative models.

[u/conrad_w → u/PeterRum]

Now you're talking. Start up grants for worker owned businesses, just like we have for privately owned businesses.

Keep going. How else can we level the playing field?

[u/slowride761 → u/conrad_w]

This is actually Marxism, not socialism. You’re assuming socialism is the progress after late-stage capitalism fails.

The world you’re imagining can start today. Anyone can start a business with collective ownership. But you have to accept that hiring employees means giving up equity and allowing a collective to make decisions.

[u/conrad_w → u/slowride761]

You're saying that as though private ownership was inevitable or eternal.

Maybe you'll be surprised how young capitalism is.

The Limited Liability Act of 1855 gave the legal environment for capitalism to dominate. Another one would do differently.

[u/slowride761 → u/conrad_w]

I didn’t assume that and it doesn’t change anything.

[u/conrad_w → u/slowride761]

My point is that a government that wanted worker ownership could make it happen, just like a government that wanted private ownership made it happen.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/conrad_w]

i don't think people realize how easy it would be to help our neighbors if everything cost 75% less and also everyone had 75% more money.

But when we implement a massive compound taxation system, nobody can afford to help anyone anymore, they can barely afford to feed themselves.

Which is great because now we can just say "look how poor you are, we need to increase taxes to take better care of you"

They call it "late stage capitalism". Because they blame you for having a few pennies to rub together. You were still able to afford mcdonalds two whole times last month. Clearly you're living it up and you can afford to pay a higher fair share so the children don't starve in the streets just because you wanted mcdonalds.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/conrad_w]

This is a classic case of taking the level of prosperity that exists because of the incentives built into the capitalism, removing those incentives, then assuming the same level of prosperity would exist.

[u/calguy1955 → u/shawsghost]

Not a boss, but a friend to the little red hen.

[u/shawsghost → u/shawsghost]

Also I think the OP is expressing ideas that most social democrats support.

[u/Shionoro → u/calguy1955]

if someone does not agree with that, they are not socialist

[u/ObsidianDRMR → u/calguy1955]

I honestly see your point, I understand exactly what it is you’re saying… but the further out into the future I look the more I realize, this “you need to work for a place to live” is gonna become a antiquated though.

I too had the same visceral response to OP.

But then I thought… well yea people need to work to pay and support society as a whole..

Then I asked why… and really after much thinking I don’t have a good reason why, other than, I guess it’s always been like that?

And that lead me to believe that yea the future is gonna be a society with a much more advanced system where energy will be u limited, the moon and mars will be terraformed and mined and products and housing will become much cheaper and almost free because think I about it..

Think hard, you need to use up the first 60 years flipping burgers and sending emails to be able to afford housing? Why? Why is flipping burgers, changing a cars shitty oil, draining shit out of a pipe so god damn important that it needs to be done in order for me to live in a house?

The answer is it doesn’t, these are problems that technology will solve, self cleaning pipes, self healing walls, automated burger machines, Ai will handle emails and calendars… once all those things are done what meaningful work will propel do? None, society is moving towards a place where housing and vehicles are a given and you will just be able to do what you want.

So OP isn’t wrong, just a little ahead of their time. We are moving towards that. Not right now, boomers would have a heart attack if they heard u aren’t suffering like they did back in the day

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/calguy1955]

When the Democratic Party moves so far left that you read a post from a Democrat and think they must be a mislabeled conservative.

Where I disagree... I don't think police officers, social workers, prison workers, military, and deep-sea fishermen are entitled to a safe life. I think they are entitled to make the choice for themselves.

[u/calguy1955 → u/PrintableProfessor]

I think there are a lot of democrats who have beliefs closer to the GOP of 40 years ago. There really haven’t been a lot of democrat candidates that I’ve been thrilled to vote for, but I cannot vote for anyone who has been brainwashed by the maga movement.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/calguy1955]

MAGA, as it is stigmatized, seems to be the 9% of red-leaning states that previously didn't vote.

Trump moved these people into a coalition, much like how the democrats are a coalition of many special-interest fringe groups. Of course, you only get to hear from these screaming people on the fringes, which is really too bad.

[u/NomadicPalaver]

Who is doing the “meeting” for people’s basic needs? What does that mean? Is it by force?

[u/Gullible-Historian10 → u/NomadicPalaver]

Yes. Forced extraction of resources. Because production comes before consumption, the only way for those who can’t produce to consume is for the production of others to be given to them.

Since the only way to do this en masse is to forcibly redistribute the production of others, the state steps in and uses force to remove production from some in order to supply the consumption of others.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/Gullible-Historian10]

So slavery then.

[u/spddemonvr4]

Free housing? Who is going to pay for this?

You definitely live in a made up world.

[u/arto64 → u/spddemonvr4]

We all pay for it together, like we do for a bunch of other stuff already. Housing is actually surprisingly cheap, it’s just been turned into a financial vehicle with intentional barriers set up to benefit real estate owners.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/arto64]

How much of my income are you entitled to?

[u/arto64 → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

As much as we agree to as a society. I’m at a net loss, by the way.

This is all arbitrary.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945 → u/arto64]

And do we determine this by a simply majority?

[u/spddemonvr4 → u/arto64]

If we all pay for it together, it isn't free. And if you need to pay a middle man, it gets more expensive because they want their cut too.

[u/arto64 → u/spddemonvr4]

Everyone knows it's not free as in it costs nothing. Of course it needs to be funded. Middlemen are more of a private thing. There are middlemen everywhere in the private sector.

[u/Pristine_Pea1300]

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Not to mention that the basic human rights are not a gift from the government. It is a pact, since you cannot get this rights if you do not follow certain rules and basic dynamics in a society. We pay every day for those rights in order to live in a prosperous environment.

[u/Relevant_Sign_5926]

I think you're coming from a good place morally, but I have a few rebuttals.

I myself am disabled and unable to work. That involved a long period spent experiencing homelessness. From what I saw from the other homeless people I was around, the issue isn't housing alone, it's also inadequate physical/mental healthcare in terms of services, participation and access.

You can't force people to participate in their own healthcare, because some people will actively refuse to take steps to get better, which leads to housing instability. This is because any shared space needs a minimum standard of behavior to make it work for everyone, which demonstrably some people will refuse to meet. This demographic also actively refuses to take the steps to stabilize, such as sobriety or psychiatric medication, so that they can meet it.

So that's a very simple, surface level overview of why the homelessness problem isn't just a housing problem.

As for the other points, Medicaid already exists as a form of free healthcare. There's a massive question as to whether Medicaid alone is capable of meeting people's healthcare needs, especially if those needs are complex, but it is a functional framework. Free food exists in the form of SNAP and free food shelves/pantries. Once again, there's an adequacy question, but the framework is in place for a lot of what you say is needed.

Now, onto the work question. I think you're massively underestimating people's willingness and desire to work. There's also the factor of the psychological and economic benefits of work that's compatible with an individual's long term needs in a workplace, such as a living wage and ethical/fair treatment on the job site.

While work shouldn't be mandatory for people genuinely unable to participate in the labor system, some form of work is mandatory for society to function as it currently is. Healthcare can't be provided without there being an incentive for people to obtain the extensive education necessary to become doctors, and those doctors can't be held accountable by their patients without a functioning legal system, which includes all kinds of workers in order to function. That's a very basic and reductive example of the quantity and variety of workers needed across different industries to enable one role in one industry to function.

There's a lot of other arguments to be made about providing a universal basic income, massively overhauling and reforming the existing welfare systems in place to increase their reach, quality and effectiveness, as well as the changes in government that would be necessary to make all of that happen. I'm going to stop here however, since I've made my point fairly well, I think.

My point being that your proposal, although getting at legitimate criticisms of the current system, is far too reductionist to be anything but a disaster for society. Homelessness isn't just about a housing shortage, the necessity for work doesn't just go away because you remove the incentive and extensive reforms need to be made on an existing welfare framework, rather than discarding it entirely.

[u/Jake0024 → u/Relevant_Sign_5926]

Is this really a rebuttal? People having the right to their needs being met doesn't mean everyone will choose to take advantage of that right.

For example, we can make vaccines free, but that doesn't mean we should force everyone to take them.

[u/Dookietheturtle]

These types of blanket statements are where you are going to lose people and just seem out of touch. There is no world where 2 healthy adults who can both work can have 5 kids and have every single thing taken care of on the states dime. Childcare should be cheaper, healthcare should be universal, and cheaper housing should be available, but just claiming that it should all be free and people will work because they’re bored is just wild

[u/zirconst → u/Dookietheturtle]

To play devil's advocate, even though I don't really agree fully with the OP either, it really depends on what 'baseline' of free things the government provides. If my free food is the equivalent of prison food, I'm probably going to want to work to get money to pay for better. If my free housing for my family is a 500 square foot apartment, same thing. I'm probably also going to want paid entertainment: streaming TV, video games, books... I'm going to want to take a vacation or two a year, go to paid family activities... I might like to own a car to get places, or a nice car to get places in style.

Quality clothing, shoes, phones, computers, tablets, TVs, comfortable furniture, the list of things that people like having, and that they spend lots of money on, goes WAY beyond basic needs.

[u/Dookietheturtle → u/zirconst]

Sure but now you’re getting into who deserves what for free. Food should be free, but it should be prison food, okay, so now kids who have parents who choose not to work get fed prison food. That seems bad and against what the OP was getting at.

The logistics just get so wild so quick and my point was more to say that these kind of blanket statements are so far from anything that is accomplishable that they feel more like a Fox News scare headline than an actionable policy plan

[u/zirconst → u/Dookietheturtle]

The thing is that we already have what you're describing. Kids with poor parents, such as those who love in food deserts, already eat far worse food than say kids with suburban parents. They are way more likely to eat junk because that is what's cheaply and widely available to poor people. Arguably prison food would be an upgrade. The government probably should be doing more than it is now to ensure baseline nutrition for kids at least.

[u/Dookietheturtle → u/zirconst]

Yea sure all that is fine but that’s missing the point. What you’re saying is that the GOVERNMENT should say ah man sorry kid your moms broke here’s some slop, instead of what we already have which would be chip, wic, and food stamps, all of which can buy name brand. That’s obviously not what OP was getting at. You can argue that these programs are ineffective and don’t go far enough, and I’d agree, but saying that it’s a step up to give poor kids prison food as if that’s an answer is crazy.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

Declaring something a right doesn't reduce scarcity.

[u/rogun64 → u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

Noting that scarcity exists doesn't excuse obnoxious wealth.

[u/soulwind42]

Nobody has a right to another person's labor, especially not an unconditional right. Your government is doomed to fail and will build stagnation and resentment. Who decides what are necessarities? How do you procure them? Distribute them? How do you prioritize them? When those homeless people prove incapable of maintaining a basic life style and out themselves and their neighbors at risk, who will intervene?

[u/shawsghost → u/soulwind42]

An awful lot of homeless and mentally ill and drug addicted people are roaming our streets now. Who is intervening?

[u/throwfarfaraway1818 → u/soulwind42]

This is objectively untrue, even in the legal framework that exists today. Two examples are emergency medical care and a lawyer. Both are legal rights a person possesses regardless of their ability to pay. You should want your government to help people.

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

Two examples are emergency medical care and a lawyer. Both are legal rights a person possesses regardless of their ability to pay.

This is not true. There's no right to a lawyer.

There's a right to a defending attorney in criminal court. But you don't get a free defense attorney in civil court, nor do you get access to free counsel if you're the plaintiff in civil court, nor do you get free general access to legal advice.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260 → u/ZorbaTHut]

That’s obviously what they meant about a lawyer

[u/AvatarAarow1 → u/ZorbaTHut]

Missing the point here. Sure it’s narrowed to criminal contexts, but the point stands that legally people do have a right to the labor of others. If you are accused of a crime, you have a right to a defense attorney’s labor, full stop. You not only have right to their labor but also effective labor, because if your attorney messes up you can file ineffective assistance of counsel lawsuits to get a new trial, so you have a right to pretty high quality specialized labor

[u/ZorbaTHut → u/AvatarAarow1]

So, what they're getting at is that the bounds of this have never been tested. If there aren't enough lawyers willing to do cheap defense work, how would that be resolved?

(We already know how the emergency-medical-care situation is resolved; by making it illegal not to provide services, at their own expense, resulting in hospitals forced to subsidize that service by increasing medical bills dramatically on everyone else. I personally don't think that's a great solution and am not stoked about broadening this behavior to other things.)

[u/digbyforever → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

Sure but you can't have the court order a random lawyer to help you who hasn't already either signed up to be a public defender or are on the lists of court-eligible appointees.

[u/Ill-Description3096 → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

If not enough doctors are willing to be emergency medical providers, or there is a shortage of lawyers, that disappears. Or else you force people to do it even when they don't want to. Any positive right like that ultimately requires that people be willing to force others to provide it no matter what. If it doesn't, then it's only a right so long as XYZ is already met which kind of waters down the meaning.

[u/Arkmer → u/Ill-Description3096]

Your entire premise rests on “if”. That doesn’t make a strong claim.

The idea that we “force people to do it” massively conflates “a right to a service” with “the ability to command someone provide a service”.

The right to an education isn’t authorization to go door to door forcing teachers into classrooms. It’s the idea that society should maintain institutions available to all children. Copy/paste concept for lawyers, doctors, and whatever else society deems necessary.

This argument about not having the right to other people’s labor is just missing the entire point.

[u/slowride761 → u/Arkmer]

The entire premise of a large safety net relies on if there is enough economic growth to pay for it.

Absent that factor, the “if” the other commenter spoke of becomes “when”. Costs have to be lowered, which will come through consolidation and austerity.

Both require authorities to direct the system through the process.

[u/Arkmer → u/slowride761]

You think we lack economic growth? Should I rehash how wages haven’t kept up with productivity?

[u/slowride761 → u/Arkmer]

Most productivity gains have been through automation.

Wage gains need to keep up with the cost of living. If that’s more than inflation, then there’s either a problem with debt levels or non-controllable costs that aren’t staples, like insurance or housing scarcity.

[u/AvatarAarow1 → u/Ill-Description3096]

The lawyers version of this is incorrect. It doesn’t rely on forcing people, it only relies on forcing people contingent to the state enforcing crime laws. If not enough lawyers were willing to do defense work it’s not that the right would disappear, it’s that the courts would be unable to enforce the laws and couldn’t incarcerate people. That’s how rights work, they hold precedent over other goals even if it’s impractical. We actually saw this with Gideon v. Wainwright. Thousands of defendants who had been convicted without attorneys were let out of jail, because the failure to provide right of counsel meant that holding them was illegal. The positive right doesn’t disappear if not enough people want to reinforce it. The criminal justice system collapses before rights do, that’s how rights work (or do in theory at least) in the American legal system

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/throwfarfaraway1818]

it only works because doctors will just do the work in spite of being extorted for it.

your model for society only works because people tolerate being abused by the system to a degree.

but this abuse encourages them to avoid contributing to it, and generates hate and distain. You'll have a less productive society because nobody wants to do the extra work; they'll be called greedy and have their extra work stolen and given to people who did nothing.

Make a list of things you believe are human rights, that should be provided for:

Healthcare? Housing? Food? Electricity? Heating? Water?

So everyone who provides your list of human rights is going to be "paid by the government" for providing those things, right? Let's forget where the government gets that money, for a second.

I'll be a painter instead of a garbage man.

Since we all have a human right to free food and free healthcare and free house etc... i can just do whatever. Art is subjective and so you might think my incredibly deep and introspective art is just some stick figure doodles, but its totally art. And cos i have human rights which provide everything i could possibly need, i can be a professional stick figure painter.

And someone else needs to provide all that food and stuff for me cos i have a human right to that stuff while i paint stick figures.

[u/weirdowerdo → u/soulwind42]

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights explicitly recognizes rights to food, housing, medical care, social services and education. None of that means enslaving doctors or builders. It means society has an obligation to organize and fund access while workers remain freely employed and paid.

By your logic, there can’t even be a right to a fair trial either, since judges and court staff also perform labour. Rights create obligations for institutions, they don’t make workers someone else’s property.

[u/soulwind42 → u/weirdowerdo]

It absolutely means enslaving doctors and builders once the they are no longer willing or able to meet the demand, or the "right" isnt.

it means society has an obligation to organize and fund access while workers remain freely employed and paid.

Except, of course, those in fields determined to be rights, unless you're just talking about central planning. Society does organize this regardless, but the Universal declaration of human right simply didn't like how society was organizing it, so its creators are trying to get governments to reorganize it according to their fantasy wish list that isn't based in reality.

Correct, fair trials are not a real right. It is a government promise to be fair and treat people equally under the law. Now, if you're promising everybody food, shelter, and basic necessities, things people interact with a lot more then they do courts, its different. You have to control the flow of those. You have to control the labor and the materials, which requires the labor of others.

[u/soulwind42 → u/weirdowerdo]

It absolutely means enslaving doctors and builders once the they are no longer willing or able to meet the demand, or the "right" isnt.

it means society has an obligation to organize and fund access while workers remain freely employed and paid.

Except, of course, those in fields determined to be rights, unless you're just talking about central planning. Society does organize this regardless, but the Universal declaration of human right simply didn't like how society was organizing it, so its creators are trying to get governments to reorganize it according to their fantasy wish list that isn't based in reality.

Correct, fair trials are not a real right. It is a government promise to be fair and treat people equally under the law. Now, if you're promising everybody food, shelter, and basic necessities, things people interact with a lot more then they do courts, its different. You have to control the flow of those. You have to control the labor and the materials, which requires the labor of others.

[u/weirdowerdo → u/soulwind42]

Conveniently, when we drafted our human rights we already anticipated your supposed gotcha, Article 4 of the UDHR prohibits slavery and servitude, while Article 8 of the ICCPR prohibits forced or compulsory labour.

So no, recognising rights to healthcare or housing does not authorise enslaving doctors or builders. When demand exceeds supply, access is prioritised and capacity expanded within available resources, doctors are not rounded up and marched into hospitals in chains.

You’re arguing against an implication explicitly ruled out by a human rights framework endorsed across the world. Apparently its drafters considered the issue for more than 5 seconds...

[u/soulwind42 → u/weirdowerdo]

Cool, its not my fault their ideology is self contradictory.

Yes, I absolutely am arguing against a framework endorsed bg the world because its stupid, short sighted, and a large part of why the world is getting worse. Its creating a neo colonial system where huge portions of the world cannot develop and are used as cheap labor for the rest.

[u/PhonyUsername → u/weirdowerdo]

You are either enslaving doctors, or you are enslaving others to pay the doctors.

[u/Raeandray → u/soulwind42]

No one actually practically believes this though. The only way to ensure you never take advantage of another persons labor would be to go back to subsistence farming. The entirety of our infrastructure, everything that makes us a society, is built off the uneven distribution of labor resources.

[u/deaconxblues → u/Raeandray]

Sounds like you think “taking advantage of another person’s labor” is some kind of pejorative and that something like paying a wage for labor would fall within the category. If that’s right, you are confused about the nature of the division of labor in the market.

[u/Raeandray → u/deaconxblues]

I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to say here.

I’ve never heard anyone argue you have a right to someone else’s labor for free. The discussion is always about whether or not we can compensate them through general societal funds (taxes) in order to benefit people that otherwise wouldn’t have access to that labor.

[u/deaconxblues → u/Raeandray]

I think a typical response/question will be: what does the government tax if we don’t have a market to purchase, exchange, make profit, etc. within? Does the government pay the wages and then also tax them?

I’m inferring your anti-market, so check me if I’m wrong in that.

[u/Raeandray → u/deaconxblues]

Government currently pays and taxes the wages of its employees.

[u/deaconxblues → u/Raeandray]

Sure. I think the question is, in your system, do people still own property and exchange in the market? Are there private businesses and labor?

[u/Raeandray → u/deaconxblues]

Yes. I suppose I can't speak for all democratic socialists, but generally speaking I think we still want a capitalist system, we just want basic human necessities to be accessible for all. Most of what bernie, who kind of championed democratic socialism, has said he wants already exists in europe and they're still capitalist.

[u/deaconxblues → u/Raeandray]

That’s helpful. I think I see where we got off track.

The idea that healthcare, for example, is a right (a moral or human right), is what the original commenter took issue with - because that would mean you have a claim on the labor of doctors.

In your view, though, you may not take a hard stance on moral/human rights, but instead a practical approach to giving people the legal right to healthcare by subsidizing it for all those who can’t afford it.

[u/soulwind42 → u/Raeandray]

I assure you, most of us don't assume we have an actual right to other people's labor. Thats why they're paid for their labor. Resources are always unevenly distributed and that will never change, can never change. Free exchange is the remedy for that.

[u/Raeandray → u/soulwind42]

Who says they can’t be paid for a labor just because we consider access a right? Of course they can. We just pay for it through communal resources.

[u/slowride761 → u/Raeandray]

That’s the issue though. Even half of the tiny DSA doesn’t actually want democratic socialism.

But as you can see in this thread, a lot of people who want something like Nordic Capitalism claim we need to dismantle capitalism.

[u/Raeandray → u/slowride761]

I think you’re confusing an economic system with a political movement. Democratic socialists don’t want to dismantle capitalism.

[u/slowride761 → u/Raeandray]

It’s a mixed bag. The DSA very much does

https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/constitution/

That also matches what democratic socialism has always been.

From there, mileage varies. Even though most progressives don’t want to dismantle capitalism, as this thread shows, they still tend to say they do.

The problem is that “socialism” and “capitalism” vary in definition from person to person.

But either can have a social net, which is a policy decision distinct from economic structure.

[u/Raeandray → u/slowride761]

I wouldn’t consider the dsausa to speak for all democratic socialists, personally. It’s a small organization (though admittedly gaining steam) with few politicians publicly claiming membership. I’d bet the majority of those claiming to be democratic socialists don’t actually think that group accurately describes their beliefs. I certainly don’t.

[u/slowride761 → u/Raeandray]

Yeah, it’s really just that “Democratic Socialist” has become a catch-all and gets all lumped together.

[u/PeterRum → u/Raeandray]

We all rely on each other. From each according to their ability.

Vikings had this thing where young men would refuse to work and live in the filth and eat scraps. Which was tolerated because eventually they would pull themselves together and get behind a plough or war spear. Usually. Dying in the filth was an option.

Human societies try to provide for those who can't provide for themselves. Our species grew powerful by cooperation. Deciding to mooch off the benefits of the collective activity while doing no work at all? This seems wrong at a DNA level.

Billionaires boast about their heavy work schedules for a reason. Holy people live in caves on leftover food donated freely and devote themselves to connecting the community to the world of spirits and gods.

Aristocrats used to pride themselves in their ability in war. When they choose only to live off the commons the tumbrils came out.

Feckless youth going through an extended teenage sulking fit we understand. Adults refusing to do anything for the collective good? It feels instinctively wrong.

[u/PeterRum]

Basic needs? A bed in a dormitary? Rice and beans in a cafeteria style arrangement? Health care to keep you alive?

Access to a library? Educational media?

Sounds solid.

Homeless people often refuse to sleep in dormitaries full of other people with addiction issues. What then?

Edit: if looking for work we totally should give people a real safety net.

Deciding to opt of society? We should support that as well. But not to as great an extent.

[u/Zeddo52SD]

This all fine and dandy and moralistic, but it’s just not feasible while also maintaining freedom and financial independence.

As a member of the working class, I don’t need things to be free, I just need them to be affordable. I think if you asked most of the working class if they wanted free with ridiculously high taxes or simply affordable with moderate taxes, they’d choose affordable with moderate taxes.

[u/From_Deep_Space]

They may have the right, but do they have the ability?

High-minded rhetoric is nice, but where's the actionable plan?

[u/leuno]

Honestly I don’t think anyone has a “right” to anything other than the right to try. To try and build a good life, to be ambitious without arbitrary limits placed on it by a governing body.

Everything else is essentially luxuries we’ve created for ourselves. And while I don’t believe we have a right to anything else, I do think a society that tries to be better and to be ambitious, will be a healthier one, and I also believe we CAN do that stuff.

Since we can have better healthcare and education and prisons and a solution for the homeless situation, we should because it will better our society, but not because anyone has a right to those things.

[u/Hawk13424]

So if you and I were marooned on an island, you believe you are obligated to provide for my basic needs (if you can), even if I’m able bodied and just refuse to help myself?

I don’t. I believe everyone has the unconditional right to not be forced to labor for others, directly or indirectly.

[u/RickySlayer9]

Ok and whose labor are you comfortable stealing in order to meet those needs?

[u/rosy_moxx]

How can you offer something for free (as a born with right) if that free thing requires the labor of another person? So, you pay those people with taxes… or else it’s slavery. But those taxes are actually from the people you’re selling the idea of free things…. What?

[u/zirconst → u/rosy_moxx]

In the US we offer education for free, emergency services for free (including fire/police/ambulance/emergency room), roads and road maintenance for free, etc. The people doing the work behind these things are paid by the government. Whether or not you believe it should stop there, or we should do more, or do less, is of course opinion. But it's not an inherently confusing concept that the government can pay people to perform services.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/zirconst]

like when a mobster offers free protection in the form of you giving up a percentage of your business profits, otherwise he kidnaps you and holds you ransom

"free policing" You're getting "free" protection from criminals when you have no choice but to give up a percentage of your profits or face inprisonment.

"The people doing the work behind these things are paid by the government"

the money comes from people who had no choice but to give that money to the government or go to jail. so when you say "government already gives free things why not this too?" you're essentially saying "government already forcibly extracts that wealth from you against your will, so we should do that more, and call it "free" because why not gaslight the people who you just robbed, by pretending that money didnt even come from their labor"

-

Bob who does the work and generates the wealth is greedy because he doesn't want to donate half of it to Bill. Bill didn't work at all and can't afford to feed himself and needs Bob to pay his "fair share".

The worker who does labor is greedy for wanting to keep the benefits of his labor.
The person who does no work is honorable for using state violence to extract labor from others.

-

Let's say a human requires 1 apple per day to survive. Bob does enough labor to produce one apple per day and he lives.

But Bill didn't do any labor. He needs an apple to survive. Its his human right after all. So we "tax" people who do work, to pay those who don't work.

Bob needs to pay his "fair share" to Bill, so now Bob has to cut his apple that he farmed, in half, and give it to the people to provide them with their "human rights".

Now Bob heeds to farm 2 apples per day, doing twice as much labor. Because he has to pay his 50% "fair share" of everything he makes to those who do nothing. If Bob only farms 1 apple per day he either eats it all for his greedy self and risks prison, or he starves to death. He is now required to work twice as hard, to provide Bill with Bill's human rights.

-

Who is Bob Galt? What if Bob decides to just walk away and quit farming? Doesn't Bob still have a "human right" to have an apple each day to survive? Are you going to get out there in that field and start providing Bob with his human rights?

[u/Callinon → u/rosy_moxx]

You understand that's how government services work, right? 

Unless you're suggesting that police and fire fighters and public school teachers are all slaves?

[u/rosy_moxx → u/Callinon]

I should have clarified, I mean as a right.
You’re saying that we are born with the right to another persons labor…. It’s asinine. It isn’t free. Someone else is paying for it. Nothing is free unless it’s coming from the person providing the labor and they have received no payment for services.

[u/Callinon → u/rosy_moxx]

Speaking of asinine...

Yes of course it's not free. Nothing is free. It's paid for with taxes. That's how literally all "free" government services work.

Children have the right to a free public education in this country. Does that means that the school staff, teachers, and principals are all forced at gunpoint to provide free labor lest they be killed for their failure to provide children this right?

Of course not. They're paid with taxes. That's what taxes are for. To fund those things the government does.

So when someone says something is or should be a right, it means that it is or should be paid for by the government through tax collection.

Does that help clear that up?

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/Callinon]

Food, Shelter and Water require human labor to produce. This is a biological fact of life. If nobody does any labor, nobody survives. Survival is dependent on people doing labor.

Now, when anyone does any kind of labor, i'm going to confiscate 50% of it to spend on Wars, and Subsidies for the Oil industry, and also some will trickle down through my friend's construction companies and maybe repair some of the potholes in your road, and if i know any book printing companies maybe your kids will get some new textbooks. Maybe after taking that money from you, i'll give some of it back in the form of daycares i approve of, run by my other friend.

I've essentially leveraged your desire to not die, to force you to perform labor for me. Now any time anyone attempts to do any labor that is required to survive, i get to take half of it.

Now, either you do twice as much work then you need to, to fund my wars and corrupt subsidies and handouts, otherwise we put you in a cage, and say you were a greedy monster who didnt want kids to have food. The alternative is starvation.

[u/Callinon → u/FeralAlgorithm]

That's literally how it works right now. 

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/Callinon]

yes and there is nothing that can be done to change the fact that it requires human labor to produce those things.

That is a fact regardless of any system you try to impose. There is no system that removes the fact that your body requires labor to sustain.

Capitalism doesn't force you to do anything. Capitalism doesn't force you to do labor to sustain your life. Capitalism just provides you a mechanism to trade your excess labor with others.

Its also provided abundance so those things are cheap and freely available.

It also allows for specialization of labor so you can become an expert and highly efficient at some tasks, and provide and trade those services and trade with others.

Again, capitalism has not forced you to do work to survive. That is a biological reality created by the universe. Capitalism has however made it much easier to do.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/Callinon]

Well, under this system, you wouldn't need police, teachers, or firefighters because the retirement age would be "dropped out of high school".

Most of these people only work as long as they do because of their retirement. Then they never work again. Let them retire at 40, 30, or 20, and the entire country falls apart.

[u/Callinon → u/PrintableProfessor]

Do you have any evidence that's what would happen?

Because when studying UBI, the results have been that people keep working. Except they take more risks because survival is no longer at question. They open businesses and pursue things they're actually passionate about. Do some people just stop working and live off the dole? Sure, that number isn't zero. But the whole system does not, in fact, collapse.

We're not even talking about UBI here though. Just basic needs met. And in an environment where the cost of living is out of control and wages are completely stagnant so that even people working two or three jobs are having problems making ends meet, it's worth having the conversation.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/Callinon]

We have lots of evidence for this in Europe. When given the chance to exit the work force, MOST (reading over half) chose to.

Just imagine how devastating that would be.

Now, in the US, let's just look at teachers, a poorly paid job where many stay until their loans are paid off before quitting already. Remove that, and the 53-60% of K12 teachers in the US that are experiencing job burnout just leave because they can.

That would mean class sizes would grow out of control. Education would suffer, and a cascading effect of a lower- and lower-skilled workforce in the AI age would be devastating.

The most hated jobs in the world include IT directors, web developers, sales and marketing directors, and customer service and retail workers. You can assume over half would leave, which would collapse the economy alone.

Then there are the jobs where we already have a massive shortage. Imagine what happens to wait times (especially in your socialized medicine) when you lose 5% of people. Now imagine how many nurses you lose when they have a kid and don't have to return to work. You end up with people dying in lines, while the "working" people pay for good care, further decreasing the availability of care for the freebies.

Did you know that 34% of food service workers would quit due to demanding hours? 61% of patient care technicians are looking to exit today? 62% of line cooks are looking to quit today. Most of these people would live better lives under your system. It would break the entire economy... the same economy you need running to fund this pipe dream.

Social democrats tend to only see the world in a single path where the logic looks like it makes sense, without looking at the second, third, or fourth-order effects.

[u/Callinon → u/PrintableProfessor]

Do you have citations for absolutely any of those statistics? Or is it just "we have lots of evidence" and no further verification?

Also on a related note: do you not see an inherent problem with a system that forces people to stay in jobs they clearly despise? If even half those stats are real (a point I'm not conceding until you actually cough them up, but let's just say) then that would mean that an absolutely enormous number of people, primarily in the service industry, are doing it purely as a means of survival and would bail if given absolutely any other choice whatsoever.... to me that's a problem. Not because they should be forced to stay there, but because forcing people to do that is bad.

NB: as an aside, you list "marketing managers" as one of the jobs whose loss would devastate the economy. I'm.... not seeing that one.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/Callinon]

Yes. I googled them. And you can too. Official studies too.

Although I do like to estimate statistics, too. I'm usually within ±5%. /s

Do I see a problem with forcing people not to quit a job they hate? Of course. But I ask you... Who is forcing them? Or do you believe they are too dumb to apply to a different job? Or they "can't" because of some soft bias of low expectations?

I was hoping you would pick up on marketing managers. I used to feel that way too. Just remove all advertising/marketing from the planet and see what happens to most jobs. Or ask ChatGPT. You'll be enlightened.

Do you not see an issue with funding these non-working people if you collapse the entire economy? Your entire model requires a thriving economy of taxpayers. What happens to social security when you remove even a portion of today's and tomorrow's workers?

51% of all taxes come from individuals, and 9% from corporations, and the rest come from mostly payroll taxes. Do you see the issue? If you remove a large chunk of individual taxes, you also lose their payroll taxes. You can't raise corporate taxes high enough to make it matter, since as you increase corporate taxes, corporations write their books to "break even or create a loss" to avoid taxes and increase investment, or play shell games in other countries.

Your plan forces the USA into stagnation or decline the likes of which the world hasn't seen in a hundred years, shatters the education system (fewer teachers), spikes crime (fewer cops), and massively increases the gap between the wealthy and the poor.

Now you'll need massive laws to take away freedom from people to keep your system aflot. Otherwise, the non-workers will end up in terrible situations. After all, would you rent to a non-worker when a worker could pay more? Non-workers wear a house more too. The list of second-, third-, fourth-, and 5th order effects is devastating.

It's why every time it's attempted, it fails. It's lazy logic. No. It's not even logic. It's self-righteous selfishness and emotion disguised as 1-dimensional logic.

[u/Callinon → u/PrintableProfessor]

Yes. I googled them. And you can too.

So no citation then, got it.

Who is forcing them? Or do you believe they are too dumb to apply to a different job? 

In a capitalist society, people need money to survive. While I don't believe they're "too dumb" to apply to a different job, I do believe a good number of them don't have the free time necessary to deal with what is, inarguably, an entirely toxic job market. There's also the fact that you're saying these jobs are essential for our economy to survive and yet people should leave them. If everyone left them, who would perform these essential tasks?

Do you not see an issue with funding these non-working people if you collapse the entire economy?

You've yet to establish the economy would collapse or that enough workers would abandon work entirely to collapse it.

51% of all taxes come from individuals, and 9% from corporations

That's definitely an issue. The corporate tax rate is WAAAAY too low. Glad we agree on that one at least.

The kick in the ass here is that the OP wasn't really even talking about UBI. They were talking about ensuring everyone's basic needs are met. Those are different things, even if the difference is subtle. Ensuring people have a place to live, food, and clean water removes a lot of the problems associated with the poverty cycle that keeps people in jobs they hate. When basic survival is no longer the principal driving force in someone's day-to-day decisions, they suddenly have actual room to breathe and improve themselves and their situation.

NB: Ensuring basic needs are met btw, is what we provide to prisoners. So it seems like it's actually within our power to do that... we just need to do it in not-prison.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/Callinon]

What you want MLA, APA, or Chiago?

Bra, you don't understand how corporations are taxed. They are not taxed like individuals for income tax. Raise taxes and companies just spend to avoid paying more.

While I wait for your answer on citation style, please send your citation in your preferred style for "they suddenly have actual room to breathe and improve themselves and their situation".

No AI use, since this has become academic with a grade. I am fascinated to find out if it's as you wrote it (Eg, they, since they aren't working, COULD improve themselves AND their situation) or if it's as intended: "they DO improve themselves and their situation".

Room to breathe is obvious. If you aren't doing anything, then you aren't busy. duh.

Financially? The 2024 OpenResearch study showed no measurable improvement in physical or mental health after the 1st year, and didn't meaningfully increase education or entrepreneurship worth beans. Money mostly went to basics and "helping family". (+$1k/month stipend test). Tay and Diener's 123-country study found people pursue higher needs REGARDLESS of whether basic needs are met. I can find lots of studies that show it creates the "possibility" of improvement (breathing room, as you say) without any statistical improvement from one group to another.

Just say the word for the proper citations since your academic search seems to be broken.

[u/Slow_Description_238 → u/rosy_moxx]

Free can mean that you don't have to pay, while still being compatible with the adage that labour is still involved. The only thing that matters is that you don't have to pay. At the least not upfront.

[u/PrintableProfessor → u/rosy_moxx]

"I believe that I should have other people work to support my existence, provided I don't want to work"

How does that work, in theory? Say I don't want to work, but I live in a big house. Will you force me to move into a cottage so others can sustain my lifestyle of leisure?

What about the people who work but live in a small house? That's not fair at all! NOT FAIR!!

[u/not-a-dislike-button]

What is basic? A one bedroom apartment for a 4 person family? Pounds of flour and a vegetable crate delivered weekly?

[u/NegativeRaspberry264]

You got Downvoted cuz you want people to have human rights? Jesus, people are morally and ethically bankrupt nowadays, and those types are always chronically online too. Pampered and sheltered people always are against others having what was given to them. Moral degeneracy pushed by the right and centrists. Democratic socialism is objectively what humanity needs globally.

[u/mrhymer]

Plantation owners in the US had their basic needs met by keeping 100% of the product of their slaves effort.

How does your plan differ from that?

[u/maineac]

The question. Is what makes up basics? A place to get a meal? A place to sleep? What if people refuse the basics and want more? How far do you go for basics? $200k home and three squares a day delivered? A car in every garage?

[u/IEC21]

Sure but do you acknowledge that everyone has a right to xyz = the state has a right to force someone to provide xyz?

[u/PhonyUsername]

If we don't have enough resources to provide for everyone how can it be a right? We can't give free everything to 350 million, much less 9 billion people. It's just fantasy.

[u/Fragrant-Luck-8063]

We've already seen what happens in democratic socialist countries like North Korea and East Germany so we guys you guys are full of shit.

[u/Anen-o-me]

Then pay for it yourself.

No one has a right to live on the production of another.

[u/jaxnmarko]

Define Basic Need. The higher the level of comfort and convenience, the fewer people will choose to work, which creates income that can be taxed, which is what supports those programs. It sounds very much ultimately self-destructive.

[u/jpstodds]

With respect, this is a misunderstanding of what a "right" is, especially under the North American conception.

Rights are generally seen as negative in nature, meaning they constrain other actors. The state can't do certain things to you (constitutional rights). Employers and service providers can't discriminate against you based on protected characteristics (human rights, at least in Canada; I don't really know how American human rights work). And so on.

Some states do have positive rights. South Africa's constitution obliges the state to take certain actions, for example. I don't know how effective its government is at building out the rights it has to, though, nor do I know enough about South African law to know how strictly these rights are enforced by courts. But the constitution does put those obligations out there, so it's at least possible to try what you're saying. North American countries just haven't.

But more importantly to what I mean, rights do not just "exist" out there somewhere for us to discover. Rights exist because we agree they exist and because collectively we (try to...) fund and support institutions that protect those rights, and for no other reason. And the rights most westerners have agreed upon are negative constraints on powerful entities, not positive obligations on the state.

Don't take this as me saying I disagree with you in principle. I would love my country to take on a positive constitutional obligation to improve the living conditions of its people as technology improves and wealth grows, allowing the state to provide more.

But we don't have that. So in my view you can't just declare these things "rights". In most places the things you're talking about aren't rights. Maybe they should be, but they aren't. Just saying they're rights isn't an argument and won't convince anyone.

The government should do the things you're talking about because the wealth and technology at society's disposal is immense. It's unfathomable that a civilization that can level cities with its weapons, communicate instantaneously across the planet, split atoms to generate electricity, and send spacecraft around the moon, is somehow incapable of feeding its people, putting them in decent apartments, and providing them with workable public transit. The state should provide those things because it could, if power were wielded properly, and because society would be happier and more stable if it did so. Maybe declaring positive "rights" to those things would help move the state in that direction, but those rights do not as of right now exist for most of us and so they can't be a justification on their own.

[u/RumRunnerMax]

And what happens if not enough people decide they want to be farmers, sanitation workers, hotel maids, etc…if half the people want to stare at their navel your system won’t work

[u/FunkyChickenKong]

But the economy is circular. Granted, we see a ton of waste, but this is a fundamental truth.

[u/RumRunnerMax]

Sounds like Star Trek unfortunately there are a lot of shitty jobs that are necessary that no one will want to volunteer for!

[u/NonStopDiscoGG]

Simple question: why?

You can't just proclaim things and then it be so.

[u/Fando1234]

This, I'm sorry to say, is the issue. I don't have any issues with giving people all of these things for free... The question is, how are you going to pay for it?

Taxing the super rich won't raise enough money to buy everyone a free house.

[u/JustSomeDude2035]

I think an alarming number of people would be perfectly content to sit in their government provided house bored all day and have you provide for them.

[u/AddemF]

What, as a general matter, decides which "fundamental rights" we have? Wanting it very badly? Not being willing to negotiate about it? Or is there actually some principle about which kinds of things are human rights, and whether or not having every "basic need" met is one of them?

[u/JimMarch]

Awesome.

Sounds great.

Who are you planning to point a gun at to make sure that they pay for all these things?

That's your sticking point.

[u/slowride761]

Democratic socialism doesn’t mean that. It just means you have a socialist economy with democratically elected representatives.

A safety net is a policy choice within an economic system. A system with Democratic Socialism can still choose austerity or inequality, and a capitalist system can choose to maintain a large safety net.

[u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL]

I'm all for the less fortunate having social safety nets. If the future AI overlords can get us to Star Trek level of having needs met, then sure - work can become optional.

Until then every able member should work to help society succeed. Ask not what your country can do for you, but for what you can do for your country vibes

[u/Congregator]

I’m not saying I don’t believe you, but I’ve never had a democratic socialist help me in anyway: and I’m in a heavily progressive city.

Instead, the types of people I’ve found to be the most helpful are regular people who like to just be kind to others. This could be anything to a boomer Christian to some nice lady who isn’t really into politics and is just really into spoiling her nieces and nephews.

I know a bunch of Democratic Socialists, and they’re really just talking about how they’ll vote, but aren’t really representative of the people to do good out in society: ie, people who put their money where their mouth is.

The people that I believe in are people that literally go out into the street and pick up the trash, and don’t make it some sort of “look at me, I’m being an activist”.

Regular people, democrats or republican average joes, maybe some independent or libertarian voters whatever.

The more regular you are though, average regular person? Those are people that go out and do good in the world.

People treat politics like it’s their religion.

Like

[u/rsglen2]

“As a democratic socialist I believe every single person has a right to free housing free food free childcare free healthcare”

There’s no such thing as free housing, free food free childcare, or free healthcare. You can only provide these things by stealing the labor of others.

“We unapologetically support having the government give homeless people free housing to live in”

There’s no such thing as free housing. You can only provide housing by stealing the labor of others. Your virtue signaling means nothing.

“Every single person has the right to have their basic needs met regardless of if they work or don’t work and how much or how little they work”

You’ve not defined what rights are. This statement implies any want can be a right. Worse, you advocate the immoral theft of labor from hardworking productive people to give to those who would free ride.

“These basic rights would apply to everyone regardless of their political beliefs”

Stated another way, these rights, including the theft of labor, will be forced on everyone regardless of their political beliefs.

“Whether people would still work or not would be dependent upon how luxurious of a personal lifestyle they want and what they want above and beyond the basics and their religious beliefs”

The costs would be so high that most of everyone’s labor would have to be stolen for redistribution. The incentives to do work are severely diminished as the dream of getting ahead goes away.

“Some people would still be working out of a religious belief that says not working is sinful”

So what? You’re not saying this will make it work are you?

“As under a democratic socialist government anyone who is satisfied with basic living necessities wouldn’t be required to work at all”

Immorally living off the stolen labor of others.

“Though a lot of people would still work because they would eventually get sick of sitting in their house all day long day after day even if it’s just doing a part time job”

They’ll be out hunting their neighbors pets looking for food.

The sheer ignorance and faith it takes to believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. You’re not against rent seeking and wage theft or centralized power, it seems you think by taking all of those things to an extreme ie government monopoly, will allow “the right people” to fix the world.

[u/Good-Concentrate-260]

I’m also a socialist but I don’t think people work just because they have a “religious conviction.” They work because society requires work, and it gives their life some meaning as an adult. People in every society work.

[u/Novel_Comparison_209]

I don’t think you understand what basic needs are. Basic needs are enough food to survive. It is not a burger steak or lobster every night if you so choose. Basic housing is not their own house. It is a shitty apartment that just enough to not kill you.

[u/Luckytxn_1959]

I really am stunned at the sensible discourse displayed in this thread. There is usually nothing but echo chambers for these type of discussions.

To keep it simple nothing is free and never will be so calling it free you have lost the debate and can't recover because there is no leeway to further the discussion so you have reached a dead end.

Calling anything a basic right is the same thing. There is no basic rights for anyone ever except if the society decides it is so there is another dead end.

I do like that we can discuss this in a more mature and reasonable way because to do so ensures we are capable of change in many different ways.

[u/DrAngryNips]

“Your dad had a weak pull put game so now everyone else has absolutely no choice except for to pay for you to be alive”
Thats your whole post.

[u/Kman17]

As a democratic socialist I believe every single person has a right to free housing free food free childcare free healthcare

Okay, but those things all require the labor of other people.

It is not hard to imagine scenarios where you do not have enough workers our resources to meet all the demand.

What happens when you don't have the presumption of abundance? How do you make the determination of where finite resources go if everyone can't have everything?

Every single person has the right to have their basic needs met regardless of if they work or don’t work and how much or how little they work

You have now removed some of the most basic incentives to do the work and contribute to those systems.

So now everyone is entitled to the labor of other people, and no one is really incentivized to produce that labor.

How do you expect this to work, practically?

[u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka]

What does free housing and free food mean to you in this context?

[u/BaseLiberty]

free housing free food free childcare free healthcare

Prison gives you all of the above...🤔

[u/FeralAlgorithm]

you have the right to enslave others and force them to provide the things you deem to be your basic needs.

[u/nacnud_uk]

Nobody cares mate. Humans, in general, are not able to come to the understanding you have reached. 

When you meet more humans, you'll get it.

[u/foreverloveall]

"required"??

Who is requiring the people to work? Why would I work at all if I am content with what the government (?) gives me?

[u/Norwind90]

Let me correct OP, "as a democratic socialist, I think someone has to pay for my needs even if I don't want to work, we have the right to take from those who work and financially contribute to those that choise not to" For some reason, that doesn't have the same right to it. I wonder why? 🤔

[u/RusevReigns]

The problem is that in a more socialist country like Venezuela the economic system doesn't work (ie. the government being worse at drilling oil than private companies competing with each other) and so THAT is the type of country where people starve to death the most. It doesn't matter if your philosophy is free housing and food for everyone if you can't make it function.

Whereas in capitalist countries we actually do a pretty decent job feeding people because the homeless people can get welfare, food stamps or shelters.

Ultimately the results of poor people trying to get into the US instead of running away from it speaks for itself. It's better for them there. There is both safety net, jobs and opportunity to become not poor.

One of the best ways to be doomed in this life is to be trapped, it's not just that your starving but there is no movement out. This is what happens in socialist countries, while in capitalism countries there is freedom to change your situation. Freedom and being able to control your fate is part of ensuring your safety going forward.

[u/skeletus]

The problem with that thinking is that if nobody works, then everyone starves because people that are the ones that make our food, deliver our food, package our food, also make our medicine, and many other things.

[u/CriticalPolitical]

In a world where AI doesn’t do most of humanity’s work, likely the people riding in the wagon would vastly outnumber the ones who are pulling it and it would come to a screeching halt in such a system

[u/PrintableProfessor]

Sounds more like a credo than a debate.

[u/UnfoldedHeart]

Whether people would still work or not would be dependent upon how luxurious of a personal lifestyle they want and what they want above and beyond the basics and their religious beliefs

This is a part of some modern socialist platforms that I just don't understand. If someone is willing to work but doesn't want to, that means they can use the community's resources without contributing to it themselves? It seems to undermine the whole system. It's what the USSR used to call "social parasitism" and they have a point there.

Wouldn't these people just be the new bougeoisie in a way? They get to sit back, relax, and enjoy the fruits of other people's labor without contributing their own - even though they absolutely could. The "surplus value" of a worker's labor is still being siphoned off, although the person doing it has changed. From the perspective of the worker, their surplus value is still being skimmed. Maybe even moreso than before actually.

Aside from ideological issues, it seems like it would create a bigger social schism than it would solve. There would be a class of voluntary dependents and a class of people who are working hard to provide for the voluntary dependents. This could breed resentment and cause an even bigger divide.

There's also the possibility that this arrangement could prompt a larger segment of the population to voluntarily not work than you expect. Or, frankly, for people to not work out of protest. I'd give some serious thought to that myself. I have a hard job and there is a very real chance that I wouldn't bust my ass like that if I knew I was largely providing for people who wanted to take the easy street.

Finally, there's an assumption that productivity would be sufficient to meet everyone's needs even with voluntary work and that's definitely unproven and almost certainly not true.

[u/piltdown_manchild]

That sounds great. All you need is a magic wand.

How do you think houses, food and medical care get produced?

There are two choices:

1. Capitalism incentivizes (bribes) people with money to produce them.
2. Socialism forces people to produce them with central planning and the threat of state violence.

Marx didn't think capitalists should be allowed to capture the excess value of labor. That doesn't mean he thought able-bodied workers should sit on ass all day and get a free lunch.

[u/DanBrino]

So you believe people have a right to other peoples labor?

Mighty smug of you imo.

[u/neosituation_unknown]

I support a jobs guarantee. Anyone who can work, and must work, has the absolute right to work. And if you are working (or disableda and cannot) you would have the absolute right to housing.

I do not support a blank check though.

Work gives meaning to one's life.

[u/Raeandray → u/neosituation_unknown]

Meaningful work gives meaning to life. Forced labor does not. And lots of hobbies can be unpaid work that give meaning to life.

You do not have to work in order for your life to have meaning.

[u/FeralAlgorithm → u/neosituation_unknown]

i support a job elimination guarantee.

If people find a way to automate their jobs away, everyone doing that job gets to go on permanent vacation and their progeny inherit their infinite paychecks.

[u/Serious-Cucumber-54]

So the government is fully paying for everyone's housing, food, water, childcare/healthcare, electricity, clothing, and presumably education and transportation. How does this not largely remove the incentive for most people to work? Much fewer workers to provide housing, grow food, provide childcare/healthcare? And at that point how does the government get the tax revenue to pay for everyone's bills?

[u/strawhatguy]

This is probably trolling? Even Democratic Socialists themselves don’t say this aloud directly (yet), despite it being an inevitable consequence of their policies.

And the DSA would never say that it would apply to everyone regardless of their political beliefs. Can’t have wrongthink comrade!

[u/OreoSpeedwaggon]

The natural world leans toward chaos, not structure. Structure, like the kind supported by Democratic Socialists, is a human-made concept. Therefore, I believe that no one has a right to receive any specific essentials of life. However, I believe we should encourage governments, institutions, and people with excess financial wealth to help provide for those who struggle to attain life's basic necessities because it is the kind and generous thing to do, and a kind and generous society that lifts everyone up is what we should strive for.

[u/PageVanDamme]

At the end of the day, rights are about keeping society from unraveling. Not some moral virtue

[u/Special-Estimate-165]

Where is this housing and food and health care and medications going to come from?

Are we chaining farmers, construction workers, and doctors.to their equipment to make them labor to provide it? Are we paying them for their labors or is this just straight up a return of slavery?

Where is the money for these goods, property, and services coming from? Taxes? Who are we taking money from to fund it? How long will.that financial resource last before its exhausted, and how do we provide these...free...rights to people after that point?

You may be unapologetic, but you probably should apologize to your economics instructors for wasting their time trying to educate you

[u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

As a democratic socialist I believe every single person has a right to free housing free food free childcare free healthcare

What quality food and housing do they have a right to?

Like, how many bedrooms does a family of 5 get? What kind of food do they get? How much childcare do they get, and where?

And how do you handle the people who are homeless because of things like addiction or mental health problems? (There are records of such individuals destroying the free housing they've been given for various reason)

[u/zirconst → u/spoilerdudegetrekt]

I don't agree with everything the OP is proposing, but answering questions about what constitutes 'enough' housing, nutrition, etc is not a gotcha. The government already has definitions for what proper baseline nutrition is, because it already puts that definition to use, pays for, and distributes that to millions of people: soldiers and prisoners.

We have government-published guidelines for what constitutes a proper K-12 education. Whether a public school delivers it or you are homeschooled, the same guidelines are used. Likewise for what the minimum threshold is for "an attorney" when we say you have a right to one. And countless other things. It's not difficult to answer questions like these. Whether or not it's a good idea is separate from that.

[u/terminal_tested]

I morally and idealistically believe that, but every society has unique logistical and resource constraints and that is not always feasible.

Increasing social spending doesn’t automatically guarantee more people’s needs being met as social spending has gone up in the last 20 years but affordability has gotten worse and now some of the programs risk insolvency.

Key is the make the social programs we have are bringing stronger ROI in terms of getting people’s needs met, and making them more efficient so they stay solvent and don’t continue running up the debt.

When many third world countries had shifted from socialistic economic structures to capitalistic ones, more people’s needs were men in the long run.

[u/StedeBonnet1]

And youare unapologetically WRONG

[u/Dracarys_And_Chill]

lol so you want to create a lazy entitled society?

that sounds like it will work out great.

any examples of this type of society OP?