How?
You're equating the concept of monetary value with general value. That those two things are inherently the same is a core belief of liberal/bourgeois ideology and IMHO: false.
A guest invited to a home for food does not believe that food is inherently free.
What if the food was scavenged?
What is a guest in reference to a society?
Let's say a traveler who is not from here and isn't part of the society I live in.
I'm not even sure if it should be "free". Something that is inherently free implies a lack of value, it's belittling to the workers who produce that food.
That's the bourgeois ideology talking. If I invite friends to dinner, they receive the food for free, but they sure don't think it's worthless.
I think a better way to phrase it is that society should work together to provide the basic needs to those who participate in said society.
So guests should go hungry?
but you can't claim food is free.
You're right. It should be free, though. (As in free beer)
Take a guess!
Let's abolish the former.
A lot of food actually is free. The commons supported a lot of people in the middle ages with nuts, berries and orchards.
The point was that private property is what creates the drudge.
Yes, food takes a lot of work. But we're a lot of people with very advanced technology. If we got rid of a few bullshit and counter-productive jobs, the work each and everyone of us would have to do would vanish in comparison to today's hustle culture.
Also, money is literally power and no one handles power well. It corrupts and the more money the more it ruins people. It really is the root of all that's bad.
Anarchist spotted. ❤️🖤
Big "Yet you participate in society" vibes on this one.
Tell me: How does agriculture require private property?
I'm sorry... what? O.o
I'd argue that this framework was meant by the original post. "Food is free until someone built a fence around it" imho means: you didn't pay until the fence came.
The post acknowledges that work is necessary in the second post. The original post was purely about the "free as in beer" concept. No one who reads "free beer" thinks that the beer just materialized.
That wasn't the point. The point was: will my guests in this scenario where I cook (scavenged) food for them think the food is worthless because they didn't pay for it (i.e. it was free)?
It's not about "refusing". It's about not being part of the society until they arrived and needed food for their travels.
Since when am I arguing against socialism? Food not being gatekept by exchange of monetary value is something that should be the case in socialism, imho.
Ah, you're bringing up Lenin quotes all of a sudden. That explains the weird arguments you made. Let's just say I don't agree with Lenin's view of how "parasitic" humanity behaves. I don't think you need compulsion to make the vast majority of people chip in (once they don't see themselves as rivals in a capitalist ecosystem, that is).