/lit/ - Literature

>>17551112
The only rights that exist are rights that you take.

>>17551112
Laziness is not a right, it's a practice. I'm a world-class practitioner.

>>17551112
no
the whole concept of codified rights made society turn the corner
from "everything is ok except when explicitly prohibited" to "EVERYTHING IS FUVKING FORBIDDEN UNLESS I THE STATE YOUR LORD AND GOD ALLOW YOU TO DO IT IN MY INFINITE MERCY"

>>17551112
women hate lazy men, which means laziness is based

the idea that only the expenditure of energy has moral value, and not the replenishment or conservation of energy, is a stupid protestant idea that has to die.

>>17551149
My father is an insane workaholic and control freak. Killed any desire I ever had to work.

>>17551138

>>17551149
>expenditure
>protestant

>>17551112
>the right to be lazy
>Published by The Socialist Party
You cant make this shit up.

>>17551112

No because nobody needs a "right" to be lazy
All creatures are lazy all matter in the universe is lazy
Humans are the stupidest things in the whole universe because they love to waste their energy
And if a human wastes its energy it's only so that another can be lazy

>>17551126
fpbp based and redpilled

>>17551728
antiwork is a part of leftist ideology dumbfuck

>>17551602
i feel that

>>17551112
The title was a joke in reference to "The Right to Work". Instead Lafargue argues for a reduced workweek.

I don't know if there is a "right" to be lazy or not. I know that laziness is one of the worst character traits a man can have, however. It's not even as if the lazy person is "missing out" on what the productive person has due to his lack of knowledge. No. The lazy person KNOWS he is missing out and feels like a worthless piece of shit in his laziness.

>>17551149
Moral has nothing to do with OP's question, but since you brought it up, there can be nothing moral about the expenditure or replenishment of energy, if moral is to mean anything at all. Moral cannot be based on individual actions or even so-called virtues because then there would be as many morals as there are people and that is neither what we are looking for or talking about when mentioning moral.

>>17551138
Very clever, I like it

>>17552670
>Moral has nothing to do with the conception of rights

>>17552686
I don't disagree with you, but you abstracted "rights" and "right to be lazy" which are completely different things. And I also never mentioned rights. Atrocious reading comprehension is a /lit/ classic, I guess.

Fat suburbanites and government employees seem to think so.

>>17552708
>Atrocious reading comprehension is a /lit/ classic, I guess.

Odd. I've come to expect far more from people who save and post pepe images.

>>17551781

No, I feel great.

>>17551112
No and Marx was right to shit on Lafargue.

>>17551126
This

>>17551112
>mfw I see /lit/'s slow decline into plebbit-tier leftism with threads like these

>>17554872
>get back to work goy keep makin me shekels you fillthy union commies

>>17552670
>Moral has nothing to do with OP's question
you are so retarded.

>>17551112
Sure, but others don't have to support your lazy ass.

>>17554906
You will never be a real woman.

>>17555039
But if they do that is not my problem

t. 25 year old neet who has never held a job for longer than 6 months and gets paid a square monthly rate by the government.

>>17551112
A right implies a corresponding obligation. If someone has a right, that means someone else--either an indidividual, a group, or society as a whole--has an obligation to act or to refrain from acting with regard to some aspect of that person's life or property. In this case, the right for an individual to be lazy implies that everyone else has an obligation to refrain from forcing the individual to not be lazy.

It is impossible to force another individual to not be lazy. Either they are lazy or they are not, and you cannot forcibly change it. Forcing them to work is not the same thing. A slave who is forced to work hard is not necessarily un-lazy. In other words, it would be a obligation to refrain from doing the impossible.

Therefore the question is meaningless.

>>17551112
Does someone have a pdf of this? Im too lazy too look it up

>>17551149
Based
>>17551112
Yes, if surplus value is removed, for example through the abolition of the bloated managerial states, one can easily reduce labor hours to near zero.

>>17554701
That wasn't what he shit on them for, Marx was very much anti-labor himself.

The idea of human rights is ridiculous. Most American citizens do not enjoy most of these supposed "human rights". Saying it's a right will not make it happen. That being said, the ambition to laziness is an admirable one indeed.

>>17552708
>posts nonsense
>if you don't agree with me it's because your reading comprehension sucks!
What's next, strawmen?