You wrote:
...
Today’s landlords would be working instead of living from their tenants’ salaries.
...
wealth would only belong to the person that worked for it.
...
Bequests would also be illegal.
So, these are the sentences of the article that claim "that in order to keep one's wealth, an individual must continually labour for it"? Really?
1st: "Today’s landlords would be working instead of living from their tenants’ salaries."
Where does it say those people would not keep their wealth if they did not work? The only thing claimed is that those people would have to work if they wanted revenue to make for their life expenses.
2nd: "wealth would only belong to the person that worked for it."
Again, where does it say that person would not keep his wealth if he did not work? On the contrary, it reinforces that one has the right to own what he has worked for.
3rd: "Bequests would also be illegal."
Do you really think this simple phrase makes people to lose their wealth if they do not continuously work for it? They are dead at this stage. They have nothing more to lose.
...this "workist" theory... it's simply wrong... the foundation for your theory is faulty. Your theory is not good economics, there is little substance to it... there is no reference to any of the great socio-economic scholars in history and there is no logical progression from any previous philosophies or ideas.
Work is not the basis of wealth creation - it is one factor in the chain of production only. In order to create wealth it is not enough to just labour, we must continually strive to improve productivity ie using the resources of land, labour and capital more effectively and more efficiently, driving down the cost of production of goods for consumers, thus freeing up capital (both $$ and private property), resources and labour which can be put to meeting even more consumer needs.
I never said work is the only factor. I said it is the basis of wealth creation. There's a difference in being the solely almighty factor and being the basis. If that's what's "wrong", "faulty" and "not good economics" about workism, then it's resolved because that's simply not the case.
I know that besides work, there is infrastructure, equipment and other resources that play their role in wealth generation. But work is the only one that comes directly from people. On the one hand, you need to put it at the center if you want an efficient socioeconomic system (there's only high efficiency when you make a good match between the society and the economy). On the other hand, work is the greatest variable of all the resources. Land hardly changes. Equipment too. Work is that intangible factor that can be extremely positive or absolutely worthless. That's why, even through a purely economic view, you need to protect it at all costs - put it at the center of the system.
Workism is not the result of any progression from previous philosophies and ideas because it's something new. Is that bad? I don't think so. I wish there were 10 brand new philosophies every year. We, as a whole, would evolve much faster and quickly discover the best way to manage a society. Instead, we cling to historic scholars and any intellectual development must have 50 references to them. In my opinion, that lack of free thinking is pretty harmful to politics.
