>>4532267Would literally have to define just about every term in there. After that, there cannot exist a society in which people don't oppress one another in a variety of ways, nor is it desirable to create one. Your parents oppressed you every day to not be socially retarded and to follow a set of "arbitrary" guidelines. Your neighbors oppress you when they build a fire you're forced to smell or put an ugly extension on their house that decreases your property value. Your coworkers oppress you by setting a work ethic you must conform to. On and on. The goal of a society is to create boundaries for oppressing others that agreed upon by all parties. So by first order, the very act of loosely defining oppression as to fragment and individualize its interpretation is an act of barbarism and in opposition to all possible attempts at peace between people/peoples. Second, the entire thing relies on essentially a guarantee of a set of minimal living standards and provided "essentials" that not only cannot be guaranteed, but should not be. If you have no fear of losing your job, why continue performing it dutifully? We would all love to work 2 hours a day and go home and pursue our personal agenda/passion, but that doesn't make the world go round. You do what you must because you have to, even people who love their jobs do all kinds of things they don't enjoy. Lastly, it puts the cart before the horse and implies that there isn't some level of oppression necessary to provide everybody with all these things and gives no thought to what degree that might be considered acceptable or to what degree this providence will fall under democratic control, which itself can easily devolve into tyranny of the majority. Not to mention the consolidation of extraordinary power within the hands of this centralized provider and other problems. Its just not as simple as it sounds.
