Help! My Heart is Full of Pony! - A Dialogue · 4:43pm Dec 9th, 2019
One of the things I love about this fandom is how seriously a lot of us take it. Subject matter that's supposed to be whimsical gets analyzed from a thousand different angles, and you end up having some pretty weird conversations. Here's a philosophical dialogue I had with a stranger on Facebook yesterday:
Me:
I am currently writing an essay on cutie marks, so it's only natural that I find myself spelunking through old books in search of relevant passages by mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Liebniz (1646-1716), and rereading Matthew Fox's analysis of symbolism in the works of Hildegard of Bingen [composer, philosopher, theologian, scientist, mystic, environmentalist] (1098-1179).
I mean, how else could I do the subject matter justice? 
Sharif S:
I mean, what aspect are you approaching Cutie Marks? There's a lot of philosophically curious aspects in regards to the nature of fate, but also there's probably a Marxist critique of how something fundamentally linked to adulthood is also linked to one's role in a capitalistic world. The reaching of adulthood is linked to one's vocation and one's vocation being dictated by the circumstances of one's birth the way a zip code might dictate one's prospects at success.
There's another aspect of having one's identity and (literal) branding be based upon one's vocation. One's worth to a society is not an intrinsic Kantian value of ponies being a means unto themselves but rather a means to an end.
Me:
But cutie marks do not always pertain to occupation. Rarity, for example, is not a jeweler. Pinkie Pie bakes cakes for a living, but her cutie mark is for party planning - a service she performs gratis. Then there's Fluttershy. She contributes to society plenty through her special talent of caring for animals, but it's not her occupation. Her work is not the slightest bit profitable.
Think about it. What does she even do for money? Nothing. Yet she always has what she needs. Her very existence proves that in Equestria, ponies contribute according to their talents, and are provided for according to their needs - a Marxist ideal.
Equestria is not a Marxist nation, and it's not a classless society, but it lacks the cruelty and cold utilitarianism of a purely capitalist one, so I disagree with your Kantian interpretation of cutie magic.
Sharif S
Equestria has basic income. Confirmed. LOL
* * *
I love this so much. I love everything about it. I love the thought and insight and pure insanity that Equestria inspires!
-Sprocket
Please support me on Patreon. That is, if you want to. No pressure of course, but I ask because I do have mouths to feed. You can also follow Heart Full of Pony on Tumblr
Would now be a bad time to mention that I view Fluttershy's caretaking duties as her job?
After all, given how animal life is apparently as pony-regulated as the weather, she's providing an essential service.
That said, there are still plenty of examples of ponies who appear to be on that basic income. Sunburst before he became Flurry's crystaller, as an example.
5166687
Caring for animals is her job, but no currency is generated from it. Yet she always has whatever bits she needs.
Is she living off of a government grant? Or is it UBI?
5166687
It also seems like she serves as the local adoption center/shelter, given how quickly she moved to a singing sales pitch for Rainbow.
It is indeed glorious, is it not? :D
Thanks for your part in it. :)
(Reminds me of how, waaaay back when, I took that line about Spike using up all the hot water in Ponyville and ended up extrapolating it to Ponyville having a wood-gas-fired district heating system...)
5166694
It seems to me that you're assuming your premise here. What evidence do you have that Fluttershy doesn't get paid? And how do you explain her explicitly saying that the bunny census is her job?