Welfare, tribes, hunting, baskets and food.. Yeah, that's the title, deal with it.

There was an analogy between the concept of the welfare state and a tribe on a deserted island, and how an equal outcome framework just doesn't work (= everyone gets the same pay no matter what they have contributed.) So one of the arguments was comparing the hunter and a weaver that weaves baskets, and how the hunter should have more compensation because the hunter's job is more dangerous. My take on that is that the hunter's compensation shouldn't be based solely on the dangerousness of the hunter's job, but more on the energy required to do the job, after all the compensation received is energy, in this case: food, calories.

A hunter that goes out hunting, burns more calories than a weaver that weaves baskets, so the hunter must have a bigger share of the calories brought in than the weaver, otherwise the hunter would slowly wither and die due to the calorie deficiency(the hunter is not fully compensated). And then there wouldn't be any incoming food for anyone. In order to sustain that hunter, the hunter must receive at least as much calories as he/she burned during the hunt.

At this point I must bring up the question: why would the hunter bring food to others anyway? Is there something that the hunter needs from the others? Are they in anyway useful to the hunter, do they make his/her job easier? Why would the hunter carry the weight of the others just to receive back his/her equally shared part from it. In other words: why is he/she paying to give stuff away? How is the hunter compensated for the extra effort? 

The difference between the hunter and the weaver is that the hunter brings in NEW energy, the weaver doesn't, so you can't actually give the weaver any more than he/she burns making those baskets(or rather how much do those baskets help the hunter to save energy when used), unless there is an (illusion of)excess of energy, brought in by the hunter/-s. Although the baskets may help those who bring in new energy to carry more, thus saving the energy from return trips (but then again carrying more stuff, like stuff in the baskets and those baskets themselves, will burn more calories, there's always a payoff) 

Bigger/more quarry = more to carry = more effort/time (in taking it/them down and carrying it back to the village of course). Better weapons/traps can make the hunt easier, but those weapons/traps have to be made, thus taking energy/time. And to clarify: time is in a way a form of energy(waiting/idling burns calories too) Inventing new tools just disperses the load, but the sum of energy load is still the same e.g. making a chainsaw makes cutting down wood easier, but now you'd have to make the gasoline for it, and maintain the saw. The energy saved from chopping down wood with rocks or something, is now spent on making gasoline and the chainsaw in the first place(metal works, mining etc). If you gathered sticks, that would consume more time and you'd have go out more often, since sticks burn much faster than logs. In short: you really can only optimize the energy production/consumption.

Some idealists can't perceive the law of conservation of energy, because the sheer number of people in large cities, the over abundance of stuff and other things that make life easier, obscure the view. They are too used to the idea that that you can just buy things from a store. I double dare anyone to make their house appliances and tools from nothing, I mean from the level of smelting metal ores. Just to see what is the real price of those things, what really goes into them. That gives a certain level of respect to the stuff everyone takes for granted, and a tad of humility, whether you fail at the attempts making the items or not. Just imagine that if there wasn't anyone to make those things for you, if you were stranded on a deserted island or everything would collapse. Could you make ANY of the things you have now? Can you even make clean water? Food? Clothes? Bandages for wounds? Alcohol or something to clean those wounds? Don't lie to yourself, prove it to yourself. 

Anyway, a lazy person, who does nothing and just consumes a portion of what is brought in by everyone one else. e.g. four people bringing in energy, five consuming it = 4/5 = 0.8 times the compensation for those that contributed. Those contributors will eventually burn out and stop contributing. This is the reason why you can't have equal sharing of things. And by definition a person or a thing that only takes and gives nothing in return is an enemy of that tribe, it is in a way attacking that very tribe, making a dent to it, causing damage to it. 

But the law of conservation of energy will balance everything out eventually. The lazy person, will have to work eventually, since everyone else has either died or are just fed up with this person. So what I suggest is that everyone takes care of themselves, and not worry about others, just make sure that you yourself are fully compensated for your effort. Everything else will fall in to place eventually. The others will eventually start working for themselves or die of hunger. The welfare state will eventually collapse on itself, anything that isn't eternal will eventually die. If other people have wasted their time learning useless stuff, then what's coming for them is what they deserve, it's something that they've earned. 

Overprotecting the weak will overwork the strong to become weak.

Being too generous and helpful is actually detrimental to everyone. If you always tie your kid's shoelaces, the kid will be in trouble when you are not around. 

If it wasn't there always, it isn't going to be there always (this applies to relationship partners as well) 

tl;dr: Don't worry about others, worry about yourself. Don't give out anything that you can't afford and take only what you truly need, happiness is the measurement when you have reached a balance in that. Everyone will eventually get what they deserve, the law of conservation of energy will make sure of that. Try to be as self-sufficient as you can possibly be. Learn to make stuff that you need.



EDIT: The point is: even IF the hunter wanted to risk his/her life, even IF he/she wanted to be treated equally and everything would be equal, shared equally, the hunter shouldn't do so, because it would eventually kill everyone. If the hunter REALLY acted for the greater good, the hunter should take the full compensation of the work, as much as the hunter needed, no more, no less. If the hunter burns more calories and the job is harder, the hunter should have more than those who burn less calories. It's not actually the hunter's call, the other lives are depended on the hunter's performance.