Towards the realm of freedom

Towards the realm of freedom
On the connection between the coercion to work and the coercion to “mental” health

The state’s monopoly on the use of force in exchange for the right to be lazy.
Everyone has their own wishes, hopes and ideas. Enforcing these is easy when others share them. It becomes problematic when this is not the case and the others, for their part, also want to get their own way. This leads to conflicts and power struggles, which easily escalate and lead  to injuries etc. Therefore, it is a step forward to limit power struggles between adults by establishing something like a social contract: the individual gives up the exercise of physical violence, agrees to his own defencelessness, and accepts this transfer of power to the collective or the state. He even gives up  his willingness to use violence (self-defence is the exception). Since this contract is not signed, he must legitimise himself intrinsically. The handing over of violence to a state monopoly actually involves a dramatic concession, namely a profound redistribution of power. Therefore, the loss of power of the individual must be compensated, otherwise it would become a completely asymmetrical relationship between the individual and the collective. The non-violent settlement of conflicts through a monopolised allocation of power to the state apparatus, not only pays off in terms of legal peace, but should also be worthwhile for the individual. We think the most appropriate and rewarding compensation for individuals should be the right to be lazy. That is, society organises living together in such a way as to ensure a dignified life from the cradle to the grave.
In exchange for one’s own defencelessness, on the one hand the security of never being left without food is guaranteed. On the other hand the confidence of being able to live without fear is guaranteed.
Only if this also applies when someone does not want to work, e.g. because the conditions offered are not attractive enough, is this contract fulfilled.

The unconditional basic income pacifies society
With the universal basic income (UBI), the right to laziness is redeemed. In this way, society is pacified, because no will to work is broken, no one is forced to work. The best possible goal of a social contract is fulfilled, because this society becomes free of coercion in the essential part of the trade. Work thus becomes intrinsically free. So let’s move on to the realm of freedom and beyond the realm of necessity.

Freedom from violence also for the dissenters
The same logic applies to pedagogy (especially if the motive is a mission), but typically to the medicalised violence of coercive psychiatry.
A learning success or a change in behaviour must be desired by the person concerned. The affected person must at least play along. In fact he or she should even be the driving force. Only then can all this be done without violence and be successful at all. As soon as coercion is even attempted or threatened, the relationship between the helper and the helped is “corrupted”. So should the “MeToo” consent doctrine also be applied to psychiatry? Only if the helper can explain – and even better convincingly explain – what the help looks like and how it should help, can support flourish. Any imposition is counterproductive and causes resistance and rejection. Any use of force makes the ostensible “helper” a threat in an  already asymmetrical relationship between caregiver and patient  and runs the risk of creating a deep and likely lasting mistrust about their intentions.
Again, the ideal solution would be a non-violent relationship. However, as soon as one-sided ideas are imposed on other persons that are considered good, reasonable or beneficial, they   are not only not taken seriously, rather he or she is humiliated, ignored, rendered without will, even incapacitated and possibly even dehumanised to the point of being a piece of moving flesh. All these are the more or less extremely negative results when people are coerced.

Thus, the right to laziness and coercion-free psychiatry are shown to be two sides of the same coin, even though the immediate means of confinement and bodily harm in coercive psychiatry are much more far-reaching and drastic. When claiming the right to laziness (as long as the UBI is not yet enforced), one can at least still keep one’s head above water by begging and free to use food banks and is not threatened by the bodily harm of  forced treatment [anyway, one should protect oneself against forced psychiatry with a Psychiatric Advance Directive (PAD) „PatVerfü“, see].

Non-violence among human beings is enumerated in the UN’s 1948 Universal Declaration ofHuman Rights. However, a paradox arises when non-violence is to be imposed by force because nothing can be changed by mere words, or they have become ineffective. Note that typically and regularly the person using coercion and violence declares himself to be the “victim” in order to justify his attack or assault as “defence”. But projection is really confession. This is also very questionable because when one styles oneself a “victim”, one then asserts one’s own powerlessness.

Fit for employment as a goal of coercion towards “mental” health
The connection between coercion to work and the alleged “help” by psychiatry is also particularly evident in that the “help” is typically provided with the goal of being able to work. This goal is the default of the services provided by the medical apparatus, which is essentially paid for by insurance companies. When therapy is no longer provided for rehabilitation, there is a tendency to only provide custodial care, derogatorily paraphrased as “full and clean” care.
With the realisation of the right to laziness, it is not only reason that is challenged when we argue avoiding the passive voice. Thus, if everyone were lazy, nothing of necessity would be produced. What’s concealed is the assumption that everyone always wants to be lazy is false. It is pretended that there is no intrinsic motivation to be active.

Thus, it was also a mistake of Marxist thinking to conceptualise needs in terms of reason instead of understanding their emotional and downright unpredictable character. Yes, Marx’s focus on interests is good and correct, but applying it to relations of production, which are then to be organised “reasonably”, was tried with the planned economy and failed. This is because it can only take very limited account of the diverse, sometimes even contradictory interests, wishes, hopes and ideas of individuals. These are given to the population by those who rule under socialism, or “projected” onto them in psycho-language. In this way, the specifications for the goals to be achieved in the future are set, instead of these being represented or expressed through exchange in an essentially free market process. The freedom to develop needs, fashions and hypes is negated, or rather these are to be channelled, reasonably predetermined and then executed.

While the conclusion of contracts with free pricing serves the satisfaction of the contracting parties, in a planned economy everything becomes a dictate of reason. The Marxist terminology of “class struggle” completely undercuts another conflict of interests, namely that between people who may not even want to work and the “industrious” who believe it is absolutely necessary to work.

As soon as all the “reasonable” aspects of production are given up, the scope expands in such a way that transfer payments can be made more easily to those who do not want to take part in the work cycle, i.e. the lazy who only want to enjoy their right to be lazy, even if this may be associated with certain restrictions compared to the incomes of the industrious. There is no longer any need to give a rationalising “reason” for this, as is typically the case with a declaration of illness. One no longer has to be unable to work, it is sufficient that one does not want to work (at least not under the conditions offered).
Thus the right to laziness (which Karl Marx’s son-in-law, Paul Lafargue, was the first to formulate so clearly) translates into a transformer towards work for pleasure and for “satisfaction”, away from frustrating activity. Sometimes even work is paid just for the sake of work, as is the case with job creation measures. The right to laziness opens up the perspective that work becomes a pleasure (explained here:

The insurance model for the right to laziness   
An example where the connection between UBI and the declaration of illness becomes obvious: dejection, medically dressed up as “depression”. It is regularly associated with anxiety and hopelessness. The best way to combat these is to give people a binding right not to want to work. This would not be begging in disguise or dependence on transfer benefit donors if the right to laziness was designed as an insurance benefit. The insurance benefit is the “reward” for not wanting to work, which means that one would probably have to be prepared to pay increased social security contributions if one worked. This leads to the proposal of how the UBI should be realised without increasing the dependence of the individual on the state. For this, the right to be lazy should be guaranteed by wage earners directly among themselves, e.g. through the sole administration of social benefits, especially pensions and unemployment benefits. The assessment of these is part of the collective bargaining disputes over wages and salaries. The state should merely act as a “notary” to ensure that they are handled correctly. In this way, a new insurance against unpleasant activities would be realised.

A fallacy that with the right to laziness all problems would be solved and that a paradise on earth would be realised, so to speak, must be opposed. Only the social circumstances would have changed in such a way that the will of the people would no longer be manipulated by coercion or that people would no longer be threatened existentially. However, this is without prejudice to the often existing inner contradictions or ambivalences, which are vehemently defended. For example, the Protestant work ethic includes an inner compulsion to work, according to which one should feel obliged to work. However, such subjective circumstances can only be overcome subjectively, i.e. individually in each case.
In this sense, exactly the opposite of work and employment “therapy” should be strived for: To joyfully “endure” not working with joy. Yes, this is even to be called for, so that this insurance is not thwarted by undeclared clandestine work, thus depriving the solidarity community of solidarity of funds.