Help with the manual translation, thank you 10

A hundred years ago, economists put forward a hypothesis that according to the laws of social development, it is necessary to have a large number of poor and unemployed people to ensure the continuous operation of the economy, and this hypothesis has been scientifically "confirmed". Now, almost no one dares to express such an opinion. It is generally accepted that Western industrial countries should not exclude anyone from the wealth of society.

Therefore, as the minimum living guarantee for people's unemployment, illness and old-age pension, the insurance system came into being. Taking it a step further, everyone has the right to live even if these conditions do not exist, in other words, a person can receive this minimum guarantee without any reason. But I think that in order to avoid any abnormal mentality of shirking social obligations, such a system can only be implemented for a specific period of time, let's say two years.

The idea sounds unrealistic, but I think that if it had been so, the insurance system would have appeared a hundred years ago. The main reason I don't support this system is that if everyone is eligible for the minimum security payment, they won't want to work. This assumption is based on people's innate inertia.

In fact, with the exception of those who are unusually lazy, very few people are willing to spend all day doing nothing and living on that little minimum guarantee.

However, from the point of view of those who use the funds in their hands for the sole purpose of forcing others to accept the working conditions they offer, doubts about the minimum security system are not unfounded. The poor have to take on certain jobs in order to earn a living, and if there are no such people, then all the work must be interesting enough to be done in order to attract people. Freedom of contract is only possible if both parties voluntarily agree; This is no longer the case in the current capitalist system.

But such a system not only marks the beginning of true freedom of contract between employer and employee, its greatest advantage is the improvement of freedom of human relations in all spheres of daily life.

A hundred years ago it was believed and scientifically "proven" economists that the laws of society necessary to have a large army of poor and unemployed people in order to maintain the economy. Today, almost no one dares to speak out about this principle. It is widely believed that no one should be excluded from the wealth of the industrialized countries of the West, and the insurance system has implemented a minimum subsistence guarantee for everyone (subsistence expenses) who is afraid of unemployment, disease and old age.

I went one step further and argued that if these conditions did not exist, everyone had the right to the means to subsistence, in other words, he claimed that this minimum subsistence would not be justified at all". I propose, however, that it must be limited to a certain period of time, let's say two years, in order to avoid encouraging an abnormal attitude and refusing any form of social obligation. This may sound like a ridiculous suggestion, but, I think, our insurance system will sound like people a hundred years ago.

The main objection to such a scenario is that people would not work if everyone had the right to a minimum level of support. This assumption is based on the fallacy of the inherently lazy man, in fact, almost no one, except for the particularly lazy person, wants not to want to earn more than the minimum, who would like to do something instead of working. However, suspicion and institutional guarantees of a minimum subsistence are not groundless, based on the ownership of assets for those who want to use them, forcing others to accept the working conditions they offer.

If no one is forced to accept work in order not to starve, there is enough fun and attractive to induce one to accept it. Freedom of contract is possible only for both parties to accept and reject it freely; This is not the case in the current capitalist system. But this system not only began a real freedom of contract between employers and employees, its main advantage was the improvement of freedom in interpersonal relations in all areas of everyday life.