Posts by ruggedraven36

Alexander Thompson said:Wait, hold on—where's the fairness in that? Don't you ever clean your own toilet?

Screw that kind of utopia, we've already got plenty of that 🤷

I'm messing with you because your question is just plain stupid.

gentlerider7 said:I don't even think job rotation is some kind of necessity—that was some other group's idea anyway—but if we're talking about doing things by choice, then yeah, that's entirely up to the individual. There's that famous quote from Marx:

"In a communist society, where no one has a single exclusive sphere of activity, but every one can carry out any activity he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus still permits me to do one thing in the morning, another in the afternoon, and a third in the evening; to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, and tend cattle in the evening; to criticize after dinner, precisely what I please, without ever becoming a hunter, a fisherman, a herdsman, or a critic."

Bravo. Killer quote. 👍

Alexander Thompson said:Look, we’re talking about professional sanitation here, not some debate over who scrubs their own bathroom at home.

Wait, you're claiming to speak for neurosurgeons now?

So, I guess you know how to perform brain surgery *and* clean toilets. Poor Peter, though—he only knows how to clean toilets. How on earth would you two split the workload fairly?

👍

Basically, Peter handles my bathroom, and I'll handle his brain surgery.

Alexander Thompson said:Look, we’re talking about professional sanitation here, not some debate over who scrubs their own bathroom at home.

Wait, you're claiming to speak for neurosurgeons now?

So, I guess you know how to perform brain surgery *and* clean toilets. Poor Peter, though—he only knows how to clean toilets. How on earth would you two split the workload fairly?

👍

No—more like someone standing up for what’s actually fair.

steeleagle77 said:No job is undesirable if the pay is high enough. Someone with limited skills might be happy sweeping streets for $50, while someone else would be miserable even at $150.

But we should still force that second person into work they hate... because forcing anyone into unwanted labor is inherently unjust.🤣

Only if you're strictly chasing the bag—otherwise, no. A "dream job" is something you'd actually want to do even if you were sitting on a mountain of cash..

Harold Doyle3 said:Oh, sure!
So, a neurosurgeon spent years sweating over Latin textbooks and memorizing every obscure detail of brain anatomy while some other guy was busy chilling out and selling nothing but hot air—and now you think it’s "fair" for them both to be out there shoveling manure in a pigpen? Give me a break.

Would you actually walk up to a surgeon while he's cleaning out a barn and say, "Hey, look, my neighbor really needs your help, so I'll take your shift instead," you absolute hypocrite?

It’s fair because it follows the basic principle that no one should be stuck doing jobs they hate forever. From where I'm sitting, NOBODY has actually offered a single decent argument against the rotation principle proposed by the roadworker. All we get are pathetic anecdotes like yours. Anecdotes aren't arguments. They aren't even typical cases—they're just extreme outliers pulled from current reality, whereas we're talking about how a future society *should* function. We need to speak in terms of PRINCIPLES, at an Abstract level, especially when discussing a society that doesn't even exist yet. Besides, any principle can have exceptions if it serves the greater good—it’s just stupid to debate those specifics now, since we aren't anywhere near building that kind of society and we can't possibly see every tiny detail right this second.

Andrew Booth29 said:Maybe I should try typing slower—perhaps then you'll follow along. If a doctor is spending 10% of their day juggling side hustles instead of actually practicing medicine, you get less medical care. Period. We could have just had that second doctor working full-time instead. Two doctors at 100% capacity is objectively better than two doctors at 90%—it’s basic math, really. It’s almost trivial to prove this holds true in any general scenario.
If even a high schooler can't grasp that... well, clearly my expectations are far too high.
Unfortunately, there isn't a vaccine for cognitive dissonance. One minute, people are waxing philosophical about individual liberty and the evils of predatory capitalism, and the next, they're advocating for forcing people into labor jobs—all just to satisfy their own egos. 😁

I never advocated for forcing people into jobs. Seriously—how exactly do you build a free and fair society through coercion? You're talking nonsense. Not only that, but you're intentionally twisting my words and putting things in my mouth that I never said or even thought.

Andrew Booth29 said:But look—that doctor could have saved a life on the very day he was out there cleaning up trash. We are talking about someone who spends twelve years in K-12 and then another twenty years in medical school; to suggest they should be performing manual labor is more than just absurd—it’s immoral. It carries a real cost. Have you ever actually heard the term "opportunity cost"? I suspect not.

Some other doctor will step up and save him.

Alexander Thompson said:The whole idea of some utopia where neurosurgeons are scrubbing toilets... well, maybe that sounds good to someone who can't see themselves rising above cleaning toilets in the real world.

So, yeah—go ahead and dream of a utopia where it’s never actually you doing the dirty work.

It appeals to anyone who actually gives a damn about fairness—including the surgeons themselves.

So he's just dreaming of a world where he isn't the one holding the plunger.

Not just him—nobody.

steeleagle77 said:It isn't explicitly stated anywhere, other than the suggestion that everyone—barring those physically unable to—should perform public service...

Where does it even mention "leisure time"? It doesn't.

It’s about the rotation principle. No one’s going to drop dead because they spent one day a month sweeping streets—not even the high-and-mighty surgeons. If that’s a dystopia, then life itself is a dystopia.

steeleagle77 said:I agree. I don't see any issue here either...

.
.
.
You can see it for yourself—it isn't. Where does it say doctors (or anyone else, for that matter) are supposed to be out sweeping the streets on their off hours? It doesn't. Nowhere.

steeleagle77 said:Of course we aren't discussing some dystopian nightmare.
We are simply noting that doctors spend their downtime sweeping the streets, or else...

No—nobody was talking about that.

steeleagle77 said:Yes, most reasonable people would agree...

Sure, but who was even bringing up some Orwellian dystopia in the first place? That's not what we're talking about here.

Donna White50 said:In a total Utopia, every single need gets met—I mean, let's be real, nobody actually wants to deal with someone else's mess... so if you think about it, a true Utopia just can't exist as long as there's still garbage to clean up...
Look, let's be real for a second—life basically boils down to eating and... well, doing our business just to stay alive. If we're talking about doing that stuff out in the woods instead of using a bathroom, then I guess a true Utopia wouldn't even have toilets in it... maybe...

I honestly feel like cleaning the toilet is just a fundamental part of the whole bathroom process—like, you can't separate them. It’s only fair that we clean up our own messes, or at least pay someone else to handle it for us, so we can get back to being paid to deal with everyone else's bullshit and nonsense...

That’s an anti-utopia, plain and simple. A society with zero momentum—no future left to build. Just the end of the line.

bluemason3 said:That's a bit different from the people who'd want to swap out surgeons for garbage collectors, or somehow turn someone without an education into a pilot. Specialization, trade, and the monetization of labor have been the backbone of human progress since the Stone Age—starting with simple barter, obviously. There’s nothing utopian about being foolish.

That isn't the key to progress. Real progress comes from evolving our consciousness regarding freedom.

Amanda Flores88 said:But honestly, the question shouldn't even be about *who* does the work—it's all about how society views the job itself, you know? Like, how much respect are we actually giving it?

If you aren't going to pay someone well, you've got to make the role feel meaningful and actually desirable, rather than treating it like some kind of punishment.

At the end of the day, a job is only as attractive as the value we put on it. It's that simple. Jobs aren't "unattractive" just because they're complex, tough, or dangerous; they're unattractive because they're undervalued and underpaid. Money and status—that's the real driver.

We already live in a society driven by greed and ego—it’s not exactly a blueprint for progress. What you're describing is some kind of utopia. People who are purely motivated by their bank accounts or social standing? They aren't the ones building a better world. They're just maintaining the status quo.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:Personally, I just don't think the concept of a utopia and the idea of labor can ever truly exist in the same sentence, 😁but
that's just my take!

Look, work has to happen—you can't have a functioning society without it. But you *can* have a society where work isn't soul-crushing alienation.

"In this sphere, freedom can only consist in this: that the subjugated man, the united producers, rationally organize their exchange with nature, subject it to their common control, instead of being mastered by it as an alien force; that they exercise it with the least expenditure of force and under conditions most suitable to their essential human nature. But this always remains within the realm of necessity. On the other side of it begins the freeing of human powers, which is an end in itself, the real realm of freedom, which can only blossom on that basis of the realm of necessity. The reduction of the working day is the fundamental condition."

So, in some theoretical utopian setup—communism, if you will—even that necessary labor during business hours isn't "alienated" if things are distributed fairly—especially if the person actually enjoys what they do. But since organizing essential tasks based on who "feels like" working is basically impossible, the real ticket to freedom is simply shortening the workday.

Kenneth Cruz67 said:To me, "dirty jobs" are quite literally dirty. I mean, you can't exactly show up to work as a chimney sweep in a crisp white button-down and expect that shirt to stay spotless by the end of the shift, right? That's what I mean when I say dirty.

That’s not what we’re talking about here—and definitely not in the literal sense. We aren't talking about specific industries or grime under your fingernails. It's about the grunt work—the stuff left over after everyone picks the easy, high-profile tasks. It’s not just about how "dirty" the work is, it's about the sheer volume of it. Sure, some of those roles might be okay, but they don't cover the actual workload required.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Then you'd basically have to turn people into ants or bees... just to handle the sheer scale of how many folks would need to band together.

Total nonsense. Look, if we can manage to follow basic traffic laws across the entire country, why can't we handle a simple rotation rule at the national level? It’s straightforward stuff—easy to grasp, easy to accept. Of course, that’s assuming anyone actually gives a damn about fairness. If they don't, then this whole debate is just a waste of breath. You can't force someone to be decent—that should go without saying.

gentlerider7 said:Sure, that sounds great in theory if you're just hanging out in a group of friends where everyone knows everyone else's business, but how do you actually pull that off on a national level across the whole US?

Easy. The whole idea of rotation is built on fairness—and fairness isn't some niche concept that only matters when you're grabbing drinks with friends. It's a universal principle.