5 ms·

I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. If everyone did this we'd all live in a far worse world. This is basically the

by kypro 5y ago

I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. If everyone did this we'd all live in a far worse world. This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. I relate to him in that I value money very little as a medium to facilitate my own happiness, but I still want to make a lot of it so I can give more. He seems sweet though. I think I would get on with him were we to ever meet.

theonlybutlet 5y ago
Agreed don't think this guy really deserves much praise, if he were adding value to society and bartering for his needs that would be different.
yboris 5y ago
I wonder if you've heard of Effective Altruism - it's, broadly speaking, about using evidence and our resources to help others the most. It's a great community where I think you'd fit in: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
brnt 5y ago
You assume all objects, experiences and behaviours are priced accurately. Something I would certainly not assume.
- Proven 5y ago
  > behaviours are priced accurately. Something I would certainly not assume. He didn't guess how you value or should value that kind of a lifestyle, he merely commented on the morality of it. If you value parasitism, that fine, you're free to do that. But it's still immoral. > Go back further in time and he'd have been ostracized from his hunter-gatherer community for not contributing, and would've lived a short life as a hermit. Because productivity was low, its wasn't much of a choice - there was little to give. Today he can make it because the moral desire to create more than one takes - contrary to what he promotes - has prevailed. You wouldn't need to go back in time a single second to see how long would his life be in a society that consisted of only useless eaters such as himself. He wouldn't last past next winter.
CydeWeys 5y ago
Not to put too fine a point on it, but he's a leech on society. He has two children he could not support (and has no contact with), he's constantly mooching off others for his basic needs, and there's not a word in the article about him ever doing a single thing productive for society. And unlike many other homeless people who legitimately are unable to contribute productively, this is all his choice. He's lucky he's in modern society where we at least take some care of people like him. Go back further in time and he'd have been ostracized from his hunter-gatherer community for not contributing, and would've lived a short life as a hermit.
- kangnkodos 5y ago
  He is advocating for the homeless in order to help them not freeze in the winter. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.
  - samatman 5y ago
    A bit less noble when it's in his direct interest, wouldn't you say? Which isn't to say that self-advocacy is in some way dirty, we should all stand up for our self-interest insofar as it is otherwise ethical.
- bellyfullofbac 5y ago
  Funny, he'd fit more in a hunter-gatherer society because guess what they also don't have... (to spell it out: money). I mostly agree with what you write, but "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type. I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange for some "gifted" groceries and a room. Obviously the city doesn't want to enter into customized barters with all its employees.
  - CydeWeys 5y ago
    > Funny, he'd fit more in a hunter-gatherer society because guess what they also don't have... (to spell it out: money). His refusal to use money is really a lampshade on a refusal to do anything useful period. Plenty of people don't interact with money yet still manage to provide useful goods and services in exchange for necessities. He's not doing any of that either. > "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type. You've got me pegged all wrong. This transcends affront to capitalism to affront to all forms of societal organization; guy is a mooch, pure and simple, unwilling to do anything to help others but perfectly willing to accept all help from others for his own benefit. No society would put up with him, capitalistic or otherwise. He's a deadbeat father who wouldn't even do anything to support his own kids. > I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange [...] Based on what I read in the article it doesn't seem like he's willing to do any work at all. No mentions of performing any work or services in exchange for essentials; it's all freely given to him by charitable people and organizations.
kangnkodos 5y ago
I agree. His heart is in the right place. And he's fighting the good fight. There is something wrong with a system which won't allow a spot somewhere in the city to put up tents. He's right about that. But I don't think everyone has to go as far as you, and give more than they take. I think we can find win-win situations where we both benefit. I cut your your hair and you paint me a picture. We both win. But it's hard to find good one to one barter like this. Money is the way to find more win-win situations. In a system with no money, you're back to only one to one, so there are less win-win exchanges, and everyone is poorer.
djrobstep 5y ago
> I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. If everyone did this we'd all live in a far worse world. We have a large upper class that does exactly this and not only do many people seem not to mind, they find membership of this class aspirational. It’s how capital income works and what capitalism is built on.
totony 5y ago
>This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal? Although this might be applicable if you live in a wealthy circle and there are poor circles.
- imtringued 5y ago
  >This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal? It's obviously impossible but it is better than the inverse which is also impossible. The difference is that if you are below the potential that is actually possible you will approach the maximum potential of your society. You're failing, but you are failing upwards. "taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral." is effectively trying to approach the minimum potential of your society i.e. zero.
- jamincan 5y ago
  The Golden Rule is a much weaker version of the OPs rule, and this guy fails it spectacularly as well.
- samatman 5y ago
  It well and truly is not. The Sun provides the Earth with enormous amounts of syntropy (this is the inverse of entropy), and we can capture this through productive labor before it inevitably dissipates off into space. As a toy example, it is certainly mathematically possible for everyone to grow more calories than they consume. We wouldn't want this, for the obvious reason that we don't need more calories than we consume, and this would be labor-intensive enough to leave many useful tasks unfilled. But it proves you wrong: there's nothing preventing "give more than you receive" from being a categorical imperative. Certainly nothing "mathematical".
  - totony 5y ago
    It's not about production though. Give/receive is interpersonal, one has to receive whatever you give, which makes that person have to give more than they got from you, to whom? It's a fruitful way to live but not something you must expect of others because it's an unattainable goal.
imtringued 5y ago
>This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. Noo! You can't do this. If everyone did this everyone would be better off!
mikem170 5y ago
> I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. Taking? It seemed pretty clear that he doesn't ask anyone for anything. People give him things of their own free will. > This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. Give more money than you receive? There are other things that can be given, like time, companionship, love, etc. The guy from the article is striving to make the world better for those who can't afford a home in Canada (Vancouver being ridiculously expensive, a separate conversation), and prompting an interesting conversation about how focused we are on money. I think those are valuable contributions to society. Or should society force everyone onto the same page, and moralize against those who can't or don't want to keep up? (These are questions that I think of, just throwing them out there...)

by kypro 5y ago

theonlybutlet 5y ago

Agreed don't think this guy really deserves much praise, if he were adding value to society and bartering for his needs that would be different.

yboris 5y ago

I wonder if you've heard of Effective Altruism - it's, broadly speaking, about using evidence and our resources to help others the most. It's a great community where I think you'd fit in: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/ https://www.effectivealtruism.org/

brnt 5y ago

You assume all objects, experiences and behaviours are priced accurately. Something I would certainly not assume.

Proven 5y ago
> behaviours are priced accurately. Something I would certainly not assume. He didn't guess how you value or should value that kind of a lifestyle, he merely commented on the morality of it. If you value parasitism, that fine, you're free to do that. But it's still immoral. > Go back further in time and he'd have been ostracized from his hunter-gatherer community for not contributing, and would've lived a short life as a hermit. Because productivity was low, its wasn't much of a choice - there was little to give. Today he can make it because the moral desire to create more than one takes - contrary to what he promotes - has prevailed. You wouldn't need to go back in time a single second to see how long would his life be in a society that consisted of only useless eaters such as himself. He wouldn't last past next winter.

CydeWeys 5y ago

Not to put too fine a point on it, but he's a leech on society. He has two children he could not support (and has no contact with), he's constantly mooching off others for his basic needs, and there's not a word in the article about him ever doing a single thing productive for society. And unlike many other homeless people who legitimately are unable to contribute productively, this is all his choice. He's lucky he's in modern society where we at least take some care of people like him. Go back further in time and he'd have been ostracized from his hunter-gatherer community for not contributing, and would've lived a short life as a hermit.

kangnkodos 5y ago
He is advocating for the homeless in order to help them not freeze in the winter. So he's got that going for him, which is nice.
- samatman 5y ago
  A bit less noble when it's in his direct interest, wouldn't you say? Which isn't to say that self-advocacy is in some way dirty, we should all stand up for our self-interest insofar as it is otherwise ethical.
bellyfullofbac 5y ago
Funny, he'd fit more in a hunter-gatherer society because guess what they also don't have... (to spell it out: money). I mostly agree with what you write, but "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type. I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange for some "gifted" groceries and a room. Obviously the city doesn't want to enter into customized barters with all its employees.
- CydeWeys 5y ago
  > Funny, he'd fit more in a hunter-gatherer society because guess what they also don't have... (to spell it out: money). His refusal to use money is really a lampshade on a refusal to do anything useful period. Plenty of people don't interact with money yet still manage to provide useful goods and services in exchange for necessities. He's not doing any of that either. > "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type. You've got me pegged all wrong. This transcends affront to capitalism to affront to all forms of societal organization; guy is a mooch, pure and simple, unwilling to do anything to help others but perfectly willing to accept all help from others for his own benefit. No society would put up with him, capitalistic or otherwise. He's a deadbeat father who wouldn't even do anything to support his own kids. > I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange [...] Based on what I read in the article it doesn't seem like he's willing to do any work at all. No mentions of performing any work or services in exchange for essentials; it's all freely given to him by charitable people and organizations.

kangnkodos 5y ago

I agree. His heart is in the right place. And he's fighting the good fight. There is something wrong with a system which won't allow a spot somewhere in the city to put up tents. He's right about that. But I don't think everyone has to go as far as you, and give more than they take. I think we can find win-win situations where we both benefit. I cut your your hair and you paint me a picture. We both win. But it's hard to find good one to one barter like this. Money is the way to find more win-win situations. In a system with no money, you're back to only one to one, so there are less win-win exchanges, and everyone is poorer.

djrobstep 5y ago

> I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. If everyone did this we'd all live in a far worse world. We have a large upper class that does exactly this and not only do many people seem not to mind, they find membership of this class aspirational. It’s how capital income works and what capitalism is built on.

totony 5y ago

>This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal? Although this might be applicable if you live in a wealthy circle and there are poor circles.

imtringued 5y ago
>This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal? It's obviously impossible but it is better than the inverse which is also impossible. The difference is that if you are below the potential that is actually possible you will approach the maximum potential of your society. You're failing, but you are failing upwards. "taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral." is effectively trying to approach the minimum potential of your society i.e. zero.
jamincan 5y ago
The Golden Rule is a much weaker version of the OPs rule, and this guy fails it spectacularly as well.
samatman 5y ago
It well and truly is not. The Sun provides the Earth with enormous amounts of syntropy (this is the inverse of entropy), and we can capture this through productive labor before it inevitably dissipates off into space. As a toy example, it is certainly mathematically possible for everyone to grow more calories than they consume. We wouldn't want this, for the obvious reason that we don't need more calories than we consume, and this would be labor-intensive enough to leave many useful tasks unfilled. But it proves you wrong: there's nothing preventing "give more than you receive" from being a categorical imperative. Certainly nothing "mathematical".
- totony 5y ago
  It's not about production though. Give/receive is interpersonal, one has to receive whatever you give, which makes that person have to give more than they got from you, to whom? It's a fruitful way to live but not something you must expect of others because it's an unattainable goal.

imtringued 5y ago

>This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. Noo! You can't do this. If everyone did this everyone would be better off!

mikem170 5y ago

> I don't see how taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral. Taking? It seemed pretty clear that he doesn't ask anyone for anything. People give him things of their own free will. > This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. Give more money than you receive? There are other things that can be given, like time, companionship, love, etc. The guy from the article is striving to make the world better for those who can't afford a home in Canada (Vancouver being ridiculously expensive, a separate conversation), and prompting an interesting conversation about how focused we are on money. I think those are valuable contributions to society. Or should society force everyone onto the same page, and moralize against those who can't or don't want to keep up? (These are questions that I think of, just throwing them out there...)