For some perspective, it was you who said that:
So, this suggests that people can somehow be universally conditioned to know a way to live without thinking much about it. The use of money tends to be that of a game, in the systems sense of the word. So, if even people with nothing can learn to hustle for it (even though IMO they really shouldn’t bother), why should we suppose that they could not just as readily learn some other less-destructive game?
No. I was responding to your insistence that the process of education requires money. If you want to move goalposts, we can instead suppose that security and social stability needed for a learning environment must be obtained through money also, but I don’t believe this either.
You are outlining a backwards plan towards subsistence. Where people naturally grow up “middle class” (ugh), go through university, and are then trained enough to get a job so they are then qualified farmers, or can otherwise pay somebody else for food. Are subsistence farmers usually the academic elite of any given region? Do people solve the money problem firstly, then solve hunger, and then finally have a life conducive to learning? It does not seem to work this way in much of the world. Or anywhere, that I am aware of. Farmers are often hardly educated at all! Yet, they can work towards growing food.
It’s not that people “aren’t trying hard enough”, it’s that they are trying at the wrong things. If you really need to learn how to survive, then apply some - ANY - effort towards stuff such as food, clothing, healthcare and shelter. You know, actual survival problems. And this does not apply only to people in the ghetto, that’s where you decided to direct the discussion. I think it applies to most people. Why should anybody get paid if nobody is willing to take it upon themselves to produce anything? Looking for compensation first is completely backwards.
Based upon my opinions? That’s not fair. I have had people refuse me benefits and refuse to hear me on social issues because I could not “prove” that I am homeless, or completely without money. But I am “educated” enough to know that proving a negative is, again, a rigged game. Dismissing my experiences rather than refuting my views seems rather crass and cynical to me, but I am unfortunately used to it.
