So, with tongue only slightly in cheek, can I sum this up by saying that it is Bad to require the creative person to give something back in exchange for some kind of sustenance but it is Good to require that other people support the person who is creative?
More seriously, societal structures really do exist separate from economic distribution theories. Each member of a society should contribute something to that society in exchange for society providing some form of support/benefit to the individual. How these contributions are requested/required/coerced/taken is really the only difference between economic systems - the basic fact remains that a community only survives based on the contributions of its members. A community may choose to support certain members whose contributions are more intangible (for instance, support of the disabled may either lead to the disabled making societal contributions where none were possible before OR (where such contributions really are not possible) it may only lead to a society being able to think of itself as enlightened or compassionate), but reality limits the amount of this support that is viable. Again, the difference in economic systems often is where the line will be drawn, but the line exists at some point whatever economic system you prefer.
The attitude that I classify as "s/he thinks the world owes her/him a living" is not a state of being unemployed, it is a state of mind where the individual wants all the benefits of solitarianism ("I decide for Myself what is valuable and what is not and no one can tell Me otherwise") as well as the benefits of societal membership ("The community must ensure My needs are met") without the responsibilities of solitarianism ("I take care of all of My own needs") or the responsibilities of societal membership ("I contribute to society what society agrees is needed").
I know many people who have determined that what society requires isn't right. They have created alternative forms of living as individuals or as small groups who agree on similar values, and have varying degrees of success depending on how well their priorities match the needs of human life in the real world (in other words, it makes little sense to set up an independent and isolated artist commune where everyone paints and no one raises food, because all the artists will be dead outside a month).
Basically, if one believes society's values are screwed up, one must be prepared to eschew any benefits of such society as well as those responsibilities one feels are improper. Otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a charge of cynically manipulating society for one's own ends ("the world owes Me a living") is an invalid perspective.
And, just for the record, I don't release from responsibility that percentage of people who are at the high end of the Western economic system ladder and refuse to give back in proportion to what they have - I'd probably phrase it "S/he doesn't think s/he owes the world anything" in just as disparaging a manner.
no subject
More seriously, societal structures really do exist separate from economic distribution theories. Each member of a society should contribute something to that society in exchange for society providing some form of support/benefit to the individual. How these contributions are requested/required/coerced/taken is really the only difference between economic systems - the basic fact remains that a community only survives based on the contributions of its members. A community may choose to support certain members whose contributions are more intangible (for instance, support of the disabled may either lead to the disabled making societal contributions where none were possible before OR (where such contributions really are not possible) it may only lead to a society being able to think of itself as enlightened or compassionate), but reality limits the amount of this support that is viable. Again, the difference in economic systems often is where the line will be drawn, but the line exists at some point whatever economic system you prefer.
The attitude that I classify as "s/he thinks the world owes her/him a living" is not a state of being unemployed, it is a state of mind where the individual wants all the benefits of solitarianism ("I decide for Myself what is valuable and what is not and no one can tell Me otherwise") as well as the benefits of societal membership ("The community must ensure My needs are met") without the responsibilities of solitarianism ("I take care of all of My own needs") or the responsibilities of societal membership ("I contribute to society what society agrees is needed").
I know many people who have determined that what society requires isn't right. They have created alternative forms of living as individuals or as small groups who agree on similar values, and have varying degrees of success depending on how well their priorities match the needs of human life in the real world (in other words, it makes little sense to set up an independent and isolated artist commune where everyone paints and no one raises food, because all the artists will be dead outside a month).
Basically, if one believes society's values are screwed up, one must be prepared to eschew any benefits of such society as well as those responsibilities one feels are improper. Otherwise, it is difficult to believe that a charge of cynically manipulating society for one's own ends ("the world owes Me a living") is an invalid perspective.
And, just for the record, I don't release from responsibility that percentage of people who are at the high end of the Western economic system ladder and refuse to give back in proportion to what they have - I'd probably phrase it "S/he doesn't think s/he owes the world anything" in just as disparaging a manner.