How do you argue with someone whose worldview is based around the idea that those who do not work do not deserve to...

Ask why work is a good thing in and of itself.

The philosophical argument is: can someone cease to have the right to live? Classical liberalism holds that all humans have that right, along with their right to liberty. The only way to forfeit your right to life is by committing an action which threatens the life of another; thus, a solider can kill an enemy in the line of duty, an office of the law can gun down a criminal, and a home-owner can deal with an armed robber in their home, all without fear of criminal repercussion. In theory.

If a person is dead-set on the idea that a person who refuses to work should simply be taken out and shot, it's unlikely they can be reasoned with. The more likely argument is that if a person is unwilling to work, we, as a collective, hold no obligation to assist them in any regards. Which is true: if a person puts nothing in, what have they done to earn anything back? Each man must do what he needs to survive. If a person does not work, there is no obligation to feed him. If someone wants to take on that extra responsibility, that is their personal choice.

Or perhaps you're instead speaking of people such as shareholders or landlords? What function do they serve? Some. A landlord, in theory, is a person who will take care of the property that they are renting out to you. They'll fix the plumbing, deal with the electric company, and so forth, while providing you a place to stay. The system breaks down when they refuse to take responsibility for their lands. In rural areas, where there is plenty of space, this is not much of a problem, as they must compete to provide the better services. Within cities and other urban areas, where people need whatever space they can get, things get even nastier. Rent control is often proposed as a solution to the problem, and it does in some ways make things affordable. Unfortunately, it makes the landlords even less likely to take care of things as older tenants transform over the years from a profit into a negative cost, and lowers the overall quality of life. Still, they own the land. If you don't want the living space, you need to purchase your own. The third, non-present solution, is government provided housing, which must be maintained with taxes. But good luck getting any government in the history of mankind to actually act as good stewards over the land.

Stockholders are a trickier one. They're most certainly parasites, doing little more than transferring money from one place to another. A particularly well-programmed computer could handle the same job with the some efficiency. I'm not a believer in major taxes, but it is within this domain that I believe a heavy capital gains tax is needed. Heavy national regulations are also important - you don't want people taking that money and letting it bleed out of the country, at the risk of weakening the economy at home.

Truth is, though, most people are parasites. Consider all of the HR jobs and other useless positions in a company today. Everything is inefficient and bloated, and were you to adjust unemployment for the redundant jobs in the world, you'd find it to be closer to 50%. With everything moving towards robotics, everyone is desperately trying to put people into made-up positions to keep them all busy.

It won't be too long until the majority of western civilization is sitting around on its collective asses doing nothing, because all of the jobs are gone or sent off-shores. Assuming everything doesn't just collapse into flame before then.

Then ask him why poor people buying lottery tickets aren't valuable

By telling them that providing basic sustenance to everyone is already possible if only resources were justly allocated and not concentrated in the hands of a few paper-pushers, and only frowned upon because of the capitalist cultural hegemony ideologically inherited from the Protestant work ethic.

Even mild, reformist economist now support universal basic income. The problem is not one of production, but of distribution.

Read Paul Lafargue, Joseph Déjacques and Enrico Arrigoni.

you don't

Stop wasting your time arguing with classcucks. That is time you could have spent radicalizing workers, dummy.

There's not much you can do. I've noticed the fundamental difference between the right and left is how each views work ethic. Conservatives believe that everyone who works hard will be successful, and thus the poor are dismissed as lazy and undeserving of sympathy.

I asked a conservative guy I know if he thought kids born into poverty and broken school systems really had a chance at succeeding in our society, and he insisted they did, citing people like Ben Carson as examples.

Conservatives are so out of touch with reality, it's laughable.

But most workers are classcucks

As "They LIve" touches upon, most are simply ignorant of their position.

...

You can make million chairs, tables, cars, all will look identical, but it's very difficult to produce a picture or a piece of music or a poem.

Poems and music are more important than material like chairs and tables.

You don't. Get the hell away from them.
Also they spooked.

We are doomed to live and everybody deserves to die.

*nod*

Fuck private property; if I need something it is an extension of myself as I require it to function so trying to prevent me from accessing what I need is a direct attack on myself and will be met with resistance.

He's correct, but his definition of work is flawed.

I would probably initially try to introduce them to socialism, and go from there.

The first thing to do is ask them if they believe people are entitled to their labor. Like most capitalists, they'd probably say yes. Then like talk about how wage labor and private property is stealing people's labor.

Once there, you can move them further left if possible.

Should those who do not contribute to society come to get what you call "basic sustenance"?

We ,as a system, have to mantain an equilibrium and the whole thing starts to malfunction when we have take care of those who are not contributing or paying back by will.

Reprocity is therefore broken and so all hopes of fair cooperation.

I'm not telling with this that people that doesn't work deserve to die, but they will have to "sustain" themselves.

I like to assimilate the concept of private with limited. I think it's a pretty fair deal as the creation and base of property is both result of their bounded uniqueness.

Doing so, imagine what would happen if we abolished private property. Would we be in an unlimited world?

If you are being promised free access to anything you could aspire -and function with it (even in a proper way)- you shouldn't be surprised that you'll find resistance as other people/communities may require/want it more. Both have the same right to get it yes, and they will even fight for it.

Mutual cooperation isn't a choice if you want a self-sustained and progressive society. It's law. We are universally bounded to cooperate. Utility potential grows with it.

If that person holds that idea then they are already a leftist.
The only way they cannot be is if by "work" they mean some contrived definition like owning being work.Or maybe they believe in "job-creators".
Much like normalfags often contrive working a shitty job at MCDonalds "Contributing to society".

I am not the person you responded to.

Like any system, we cannot push the founding principles too far. Take private property for instance. In a world where the right to private property was taken to its extreme, the individual would be able to do whatever he wants with his. However, in reality private property is often compromised… for the institution of private property. For example, the government uses eminent domain the build a highway that goes through a few houses. The highway brings money to the town, but the government had to use force to get the owners to vacate. The town is then able to spend more on police forces to safeguard the private property of its citizens. The same applies to the wartime appropriation of factories and able bodied men, or for the prevention of the construction of a (terribly designed) nuclear power plant.

A communist society will also have to make such compromises. If a fatass deliberately eats to the point where he is not able to work would be abusing the principle

The commune will therefore no longer provide to his needs in order to maintain the needs of the others. As to what exactly constitutes abuse, that is something left to the subjective interpretation of the rulers and ruled, as it always has been.

Now, as to whether the principle

can stand on its own instead of regressing back to

that remains to be seen. I cannot have a discussion on this when it is this late, but I can point to some previous examples of such a thing happening.

For instance, in the medieval era, there was a concept of a "just price." The merchants, rather then operating as rational profit seeking entities as they do under capitalism, instead took guidance from the Church as to what they should charge for their goods. Perhaps a firewood merchant can raise his price during a supply shortage, as he would according to the laws of supply and demand. However, this would be abusing the customers, and would therefore not be a just price. That would be one example of a society not organized around capitalist principles.

You're assuming we're still in a primitive relation to production. That's not the case: a significant part of production is already automated, and it makes no sense that its fruits shouldn't be part of the common wealth. That alone should be enough to question the principle that "he who does not work shall not eat."

You also ignore the other social advantages of guaranteeing everyone unconditional sustenance through universal basic income: elimination of absolute poverty, increased opportunities for education, decreased crime, decreased bureaucracy, etc. That and of course a relative independence from the capitalist job market and an actual capacity for life-defining choice, which should be considered end in themselves.

You don't. The attitude that those who are unprofitable under global capitalism should be killed or allowed to die, coupled with the delusion that global capitalism is a fair system for all, are too engrained in the minds of Westerners, particularly Americans. This is especially true for the rich and those who identify as "middle-class," i.e. those who still hold on to some measure of prosperity, regardless of the degree to which their job is unnecessary, or their position is subsidized by public money.

This is why reform is an impossibility in the First World. The next wave of neoliberal financial crises or environmental disasters, and the waves of poverty and migration that follow, will force a conflict between the reactionary haves and the desperate have-nots.

Tell them that what qualifies as work is much more subjective and that they are only talking about wage labor.

No one deserves to live, we just do.

People who think this probably also think that it is possible for anyone to become rich if they would only "work harder." The fact of the matter is that too many people work hard but still struggle to feed themselves and have a decent standard of living. If it were true that anybody could raise their standard of living by working hard, then the modern economy couldn't exist or function, because the economy requires specialization of labor. Thus, most people won't become wealthier because the market requires that workers stick to a specialized career, while the market is also incapable of valuing all types of labor to a high standard. The fact of the matter is that as long we live in an economy where labor is specialized, many people will continue to struggle simply because bosses, businessmen, doctors and CEOs will be paid more than janitors, teachers and fry cooks. Besides, it is unnecessary for many people to work considering that mechanization will take over most jobs. If people care about raising the standard of living and stimulating the economy, we could just create a centralized welfare state that gives everyone a universal basic income so that they could spend money on basic necessities while also stimulating the economy through consumption, without requiring people to work.

The logical end for any such philosophy is to wait for AI and robots to wipe humanity off the planet.

Remind him that work-to-live values are a product of agrarian subsistence societies that have carried over in the spookiest way to modern industrial states without having their actual practicality or value ever questioned. The 21st century developed world isn't fully post-scarcity in every sense, but it is post-fundamental bases of life-scarce and has been for a long time now.

Withholding surplus bases of life is arbitrary artificial scarcity.

...