@Atkins Yes. This is why Capitalism works. People who do work, specialize in needed fields, or take smart risks can and should earn more than others.

So only the producers earning more is justified? What about being able to wield some form of coercive power over non-producers?

Anyone who does any sort of work in exchange for money is a producer.

Yes.

But this *hypothetical* society has 5% who do nothing.

Parasitic free-riders.

I'd say it depends on what forms of coercion you're suggesting.

Gulags are out.

But one might say that the refusal of certain services due to a lack of money would be coercion alone.

I believe rock bottom should be survivable, but uncomfortable.

Also, depending on what portion of this 5% are invalid,

those who legitimately CANNOT work, especially those in that situation due to things beyond their control, should be given a bit more comfort.

Without getting into the specifics of precisely what type of coercive force or who comprises the 5%, you're still comfortable saying that the situation could be moral?

Like there exist some specific cases where it IS, even if there are some specific cases where it ISN'T

Absolutely. In the same way that I'm okay with people who perform higher in their job obtaining managerial positions as opposed to people who just show up for their shift.

OK, let me switch it up a little:

In a society of 5% producers and 95% parasitic free-riders, is it morally justified for the producers to wield a level of coercive force over the free-riders?

Absolutely.

The success of this society is dependent on the producers.

Remember: the 95% do absolutely zilch. Nada.

Exactly.

Beating off and eating cheetos.

mmhmm?

What are the producers working for, otherwise.

Who gets to vote?

As a producer in this society, I would like to leave.

I got a feeling of where that was going.

What, exactly, prevents a person from just becoming a non-producer, anyway?

I dunno. I've been thinking about this sort of thing for a while. Been reading books on AI and UBI.

what is UBI

Universal Basic Income.

I have a feeling that as more and more complex tasks become automated, that more and more people will find themselves unemployable, or else will find that their labor is worth less than the cost of living.

But conversely, those few highly intelligent and skilled individuals will find their labor in extremely high demand and will see their wages skyrocket.

I mean, the concept of a universal basic income only applies so long as there ARE producers. So long as there are things that people want.

And the owners of the automation technology will reap the majority of the economic surplus.

See, this is why I never liked Automation systems in Tekkit.

I think there will be producers, but we may find ourselves in a situation where producers are no longer the majority, which depending on your point of view may make universal suffrage untenable.

At a certain point the question becomes, "Why even play?"

you made me choke on my own spit

the leap from UBI to modded Minecraft

lol