Should you pay for Thanksgiving dinner?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a straight answer, thanks! So, you don't give a rat's ass about strangers. But I guess you gladly give away things to friends and family, help them if you can - am I correct? And of course you don't ask money for it, right?

a reply to: MountainLaurel

Indeed, you're right: Thanksgiving is just once a year. Am I correct in assuming that you feel that it is allright to incidentally give away something, to share etc. - but not on a daily basis?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: burdman30ott6

That's a straight answer, thanks! So, you don't give a rat's ass about strangers. But I guess you gladly give away things to friends and family, help them if you can - am I correct? And of course you don't ask money for it, right?

Obviously, if I care about someone, I give them my time and resources.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
I do not need to turn a profit on holiday meals since I am gainfully employed elsewhere

Say you'd win a prize: they would simply pay you 3000 bucks each month for the rest of your life (and correct for inflation). Would that make a difference - would you spend more time on voluntary work? Or would you simply keep working for money to enlarge your amount of wealth?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6Obviously, if I care about someone, I give them my time and resources.

So, say you - in general - care about human beings. Would you consider it true that people that - in general - care about human beings would also - in general - give them their time and resources? So, actually, your willingness to help depends on how well you know a person, right?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ForteanOrgwhy in the hell be even remotely altruistic when it merely represents a double dip drag on you?

If you are left with plenty and they are left with plenty - why not?

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
Say you'd win a prize: they would simply pay you 3000 bucks each month...

That barely covers my property taxes, homeowner's insurance and utilities.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Okay, so - $ 3000,- a month - that's not sufficient to live than, is it?

What amount is sufficient to live a decent live (according to your personal standard)?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Not where I am in New Jersey.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: ForteanOrg

Not where I am in New Jersey.

Sorry, we X-posted. What amount would be sufficient in New Jersey?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

You want to know what I need to pay all my bills? Is that what you are asking?

I honestly think that is not your concern.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No, i merely wanted to know what amount would be sufficient to live in New Jersey. But let's cut to the chase: say you were provided a sufficient income to live in New Jersey - would you then continue to work for money, or would you start doing voluntary work (unpaid, e.g. to assist people you like, or to support a Good Cause)?

ETA: I will not reply for a while, but I will tomorrow.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I already do volunteer work at the local soup kitchens since they need someone with my kitchen talents.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

See, I'm a merit based individual. Nobody deserves anything from this world simply because they "exist." If you want to work your ass off and become a millionaire, I SALUTE YOU! Job well done, it is no business of mine or anyone else's how you utilize those funds. Similarly, if someone decides not to work, or works a job insufficient to provide the life they want, THAT'S ON THEM! None of my business, your life, your choice, but I don't believe there should be any system in place that rewards those choices on a government level. If somebody wants to donate their money or time to reward it, again, it is no business of mine or anyone else's what they do with their money or time.

The thing is, it isn't a "right" to life if it takes away from someone else.

Everyone may have a "right" to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. . .

But that's an individual right.

Your right to a house/apt/auto/food does not mean that my right to my money is infringed upon.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
So, you need money. I was assuming you needed goods and services. Money in itself is worthless, after all. But say you had a basic, steady income, that was given to you, no strings attached. Would that make a difference - e.g. would you then do voluntary work, or would you simply try to obtain more money for yourself?

Here's the problem. I value my time and effort.

You may think my time and effort aren't worth anything, but I do.

Most of the time, I am going to demand compensation for them, especially from strangers. And when I decide to give my time and effort to something gratis, it is because I choose to and for no other reason. There are all kinds of reason I may or may not choose to give of my time and effort and I'm not going to list them all, but suffice it to say, I would not become a professional volunteer. That simply isn't my calling in life like it is for others. I may volunteer on occasion, but I wouldn't just drop everything and become Mother Theresa either.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: ForteanOrg

See, I'm a merit based individual. Nobody deserves anything from this world simply because they "exist."

More specific: nobody deserves anything from YOU because they exist. I, for example, don't mind at all I have to pay taxes and premiums to help people. I also do a lot of voluntary work. My reward is not "money" (I have sufficient means to live a good life at the moment) - my reward is "being recognized by my peers". This is exactly the same motive almost all original Open Source workers have (and many still).

If you want to work your ass off and become a millionaire, I SALUTE YOU!

You can't become a milliionaire by working hard. You can have a good life when you work hard, but if you want to be a millionaire you better learn to steal from others - or hope you win a lottery.

it is no business of mine or anyone else's how you utilize those funds.

Oh, but it is. You can not earn a dime if there aren't others around.

Similarly, if someone decides not to work, or works a job insufficient to provide the life they want, THAT'S ON THEM! None of my business, your life, your choice

So, should we simply kill the deformed, the mentally ill, the very old, the sick, the lame, the blind? I mean, they are in fact merely a surplus of the population, aren't they?

In my opinion you grossly overestimate what a single person can achieve. You are nothing without others, in fact: most of what you have is made by others. You are part of society and a social being. As a consequence, the only way for you to live is to connect to others and take care of others. They in turn will take care of you.

I believe my model is flawless and decent. You might disagree - if so, can you give me good arguments why my model is flawed?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The thing is, it isn't a "right" to life if it takes away from someone else.

Even if you worked like a donkey all of your life, you would not be able to achieve anything on your own. You are part of a group and in general of humanity, and the combined creativeness and labour of other people,both alive and those who came before us, gives you a chance to live as you do. The goal therefore should be to help the others. You might disagree, if so, why?

Everyone may have a "right" to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. . .

That is a watered down and incorrect interpretation of "Liberté, égalité, fraternité". Please note the third word.

If you are born without options we should take care of you.
If you are born with options you should take care of others.
Give what you can, take just what you need.

Your right to a house/apt/auto/food does not mean that my right to my money is infringed upon.

Actually, we all should ensure that you have a decent house, a care and food. Even if you aren't able to provide that yourself. Your motivation to work should not be "to make money" - it should be "to help others".

Of course, it's not always entirey altruistic. For example: if you participate in an Open Source project without being payed your reward is quite literally "recognition by your peers". This is such a strong motivation that it created the leading operating system on mobile devices.

originally posted by: ketsukoHere's the problem. I value my time and effort.

Yes, that indeed may well be your problem. I believe that it are OTHERS that should value your time and effort.

You may think my time and effort aren't worth anything, but I do.

Well, I believe that in every case a human being is important and should be taken care of. If they value what I do, my time and effort are well spent.

Most of the time, I am going to demand compensation for them, especially from strangers. And when I decide to give my time and effort to something gratis, it is because I choose to and for no other reason.

You already had a lot of compensation even before you were able to do anything of economical value. I hope you had decent parents, if not, a good home with caring people that took care of you when you where young. You probably had a bed, a house, perhaps were taken out, were fed, they played with you. We took great care to take great care of you. So, isn't it - even in your quite harsh model in which you DEMAND stuff etc. - quite normal then to repay society for being such a great thing to live in?

There are all kinds of reason I may or may not choose to give of my time and effort and I'm not going to list them all, but suffice it to say, I would not become a professional volunteer. That simply isn't my calling in life like it is for others. I may volunteer on occasion, but I wouldn't just drop everything and become Mother Theresa either.

We are born into a system and I had - in as far as I can recall - no choice in the matter. But I can (and do) disagree with a society in which the means became the goal. Money is merely a signal of distrust in others and the more you have of it - the less trust you have in others and the more you stole from them.

Again: give all you can, take just what you need.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

Its not the well being of others. Not directly.

Its selfishness. Always, its selfishness. Selfishness drives human behavior almost every single time (we are humans afterall....and prone to irrational behaviors that have no obvious consistent drivers from time to time).

Love? Selfish. Purely selfish. I love my wife. Why? Because of what it gives back to me. I certainly would not love her if I got nothing out of the deal. For example, if i treated her with tender kindness, and got nothing but cold and hard treatment in return? I'd likely have never come to love her. I came to love her for purely selfish reasons.

If someone were to bring harm to her, Id give redress. Why? Because of what she means to me. Its purely selfish. It makes me feel good to love her, so I do (on a neurochemical level). If it didn't, i would not.

Giving $10 to a homeless man? Again, selfish behavior. Especially from the person who does it, then immediately looks around to see who is watching him. But even the person who wants to do it anonymously...its a selfish act. If you didn't "feel good" helping homeless, you wouldn't do it.

In fact, there is an entire website set up for people who want to give sympathy to strangers and cry about the terrible trials that others face. Its called Facebook. You can go and read about all the terrible things that people go through, share the story and ridicule people who don't share in your dismay. Its really Depression Porn, and it circulates en masse among the banality that is Facebook.

In your Thanksgiving story, the mother in law was driven by her support of her own ego in the role of mother, nurturer, and provider. If you don't believe it, then spend 1 Thanksgiving with no one even thanking her for the meal, and criticising every dish....then see if she puts out the effort the next year. Its all about selfishness.