Ethics and compassion don’t extend to parasites, at least in my book. Sorry. How much compassion do you have for the thief who robs you at gunpoint because, hey, it beats working?
Yes, because certainly no other animals build shelters. :::rolls eyes:::
I think he’s suggesting something more along the lines of life isn’t one big long Christmas Day and you don’t just get everything you want for free, and sometimes you have to give up things you want and pay your bills. If nobody wants to buy whatever it is you do, why on earth would you continue doing it? It doesn’t benefit you and it doesn’t benefit them.
Which is more just: I, a perfectly able-bodied rational person, work to feed myself; or you work to feed yourself and me so I can live with my head in the clouds?
You seem to be confused as to the difference between execution and suicide.
Perhaps not, but don’t get this idea that everybody owes you something, either, or that everybody exists to subsidize your career moves, poor or otherwise. Nobody’s denying you the right to do whatever you want, but if you produce a good or commodity nobody wants, why should you be rewarded for it?
Oy veysmir. If you depress prices artifically *and * increase business taxes, you will see a lot of industries fold quickly.
[QUOTE}I should not be denied the capacity to go into those areas because they’re not profitable and I won’t be able to support myself oing them.[/QUOTE]
Should society support me if I decide to make toenail art for a living? If something is not profitable, that means society does not value it. (If they did, they would buy it directly, fund it with tax money or otherwise support it.)
You have the right to do whatever you want. We are not obligated to pay you (with money, food, shelter or clothing) for it.
“Just because nature says something doesn’t mean we have to agree with it, which is why we live in houses…The purpose of a society is to give relief from the indifferent, amoral universe. If we do this, we’re a society of civilized humans.”
I agree with this in the sense that society makes relief from nature possible. That’s because human society is efficient, not because it’s moral or ethical. Houses are a good example: an animal is forced to provide its own shelter or die. (I’m sure someone will now list a bunch of counter-examples here. Hey, I thought of some just now, so I’ll say most animals.) Humans don’t have to, since we can trade our labor, thus each of us doesn’t have to be a house-builder (or farmer) to survive. But in what you propose, if you’re a builder or a farmer, and I’m making luxuries, then I have a claim on your labor, and you don’t have one on mine. It doesn’t matter if you still have enough incentive to continue building or farming, you’ve created inequality, because you now have to face nature and me, while I only need to face nature.
“Should society support me if I decide to make toenail art for a living? If something is not profitable, that means society does not value it.”
Teachers are supposed to be societally valuable, and look what they make compared to football players. I think sometimes what society values is more than a little warped, which is where - drumroll please :)- reform comes in. Though I freely admit, having considered this question from many angles, I don’t know what we’re supposed to do with the person who won’t do anything but pick their nose. You always get SOMEONE who doesn’t contribute ANYTHING of value at all in a let’s-all-pitch-in-according-to-our-talents setting.
Well… the truth is, money talks. As you’ve pointed out, society doesn’t consider an individual teacher as valuable as a football player (though the profession as a whole makes more, so at least education in general is valued over sports).
As it happens, there are millions and millions of people who are willing to teach at the current salaries (whether for love of teaching, desire to be near their children, desire to keep the same schedule as their children, love of summer vacation, whatever). Amidst that surplus, the individual teacher doesn’t count for much.
I’m sure you agree, however, that paying someone to do something useless is not going to improve anything. While there may be a large surplus of people willing to teach for $30K/year, there is an even larger surplus of people willing to twiddle their thumbs for $30K/year.
“I’m sure you agree, however, that paying someone to do something useless is not going
to improve anything…It’s all economics in the end.”
Yes, but what about people who are really much better at something less tangible, like toenail art? Toenail artists were supported by the wealthy patron families of the Renaissance -
:)OK. Maybe not the toenail guys. Do you see what I mean, though? Maybe what society would really benefit from is a few more Mother Theresas - that’s one lady I’d’ve supported, no problem.
Supposing I am an artist. Supposing I create works which, due to my ethical positions and society’s current tastes, are unmarketable except to a small group, to the extent that I am incapable of supporting myself.
Being a Canadian, I have two choices:
cease to paint my unmarketable works and accept mediocrity and societally-approved modes of being, in other words, organized conformity and unwillingness to hear the other side, thereby depriving society of my voice and me of my metier; or
continue to paint my works, go on welfare, and hope I can find food, rent, and materials cheap enough to continue to live from.
I propose extending section 2. Without it, section 2 is changed to section 3: continue to paint, and starve or go insane or both. I’m aware that was the method of choice during the Renaissance, but we’re supposed to have evolved.
If you don’t like artists, think about this. A man called “Pops” haunts the streets of Montreal. He brings food and succour to the homeless and was appointed Angel of the Year in last year’s Montreal Mirror Best Of Montreal Poll. I have no idea how he runs his operation; presumably off of donation. Wouldn’t it be better if he didn’t have to rely on charity while providing it to others? Wouldn’t it be better if he didn’t have to worry about his own welfare whilst worrying about that of others?
Think of any societally-rewarding but ill-paying pursuit you care to and then tell me that the market is always right.
Okay, Matt. I see the light! I want to be an artist too! So does everyone on this board, I bet.
We’ll all sit around painting our wonderful, unique, unmarketable art (which nobody will buy because they don’t understand our genius). Mana will fall from the sky to feed us (good thing too, cause there’s no one left doing anything but painting).
I think you need to re-read the OP. I didn’t infer from it that mattmcl was suggesting paying anyone $30K for thumb-twiddling. I think his suggestions for the “guaranteed basics” sounded pretty spartan: the impression I got was along the lines of a small bare room and shared bath in public housing, price-controlled necessities (bread and cabbage and lentils?) at the grocery store, free minimal health care for serious health problems, cost-free public education same as now, maybe some donated clothing a couple of times a year. Access to the parks and public libraries is still free, of course. No Mazda Miatas, no bus passes even, no furniture, no chewing gum, no tobacco, no radios, no movie tickets, no cash. No art supplies either; mattmcl will have to find enough casual labor or other employment to pay for the raw material of his artwork (unless he restricts the medium to objets trouvés and other freebies). It’s just that while he’s devoting himself to his muse he will be—just barely—not starving, freezing, or dying of pneumonia. And neither will the friendless, kinless old woman in the next room, or the lazy layabout down the hall, or the recovering alcoholic upstairs who’s feeling better now and has started looking for a job.
Do you really think that so many people are going to be attracted by this luxurious lifestyle that we’ll go broke as a few heroic workers struggle to keep the lazy parasites in cabbage and lentils? Do you really believe that such a basic support system would end up costing more than we now spend on caring for the indigent, many of whom get free treatment for long-neglected and hence quite expensive medical problems in emergency rooms, as well as being a burden to law enforcement? Do you really deny that it might occasionally be beneficial in the long run for society to support some creative efforts that nobody is willing to pay for now? Are you so scared that some freeloader somewhere might be getting hold of some of your hard-earned money that you wouldn’t even be interested in seeing a cost-benefit analysis of such a plan?
Yeesh. matt, I wish you the best in your social-work career, but I almost wish you’d go into politics instead. Your input is needed.
Look, don’t you understand the difference between “some people” and “all people”? Some people will want to be artists. Some people DO want to be artists. Some people want to be teachers and nurses. Not everybody wants to do profitable things; if so, we’d all be stockbrokers. (And society would collapse.) I am proposing encouraging this diversity by permitting people more freedom in their choice of lifestyle and career to include ones which are not sufficiently within society’s template to be profitable. To put it crudely, I’m suggesting taking “starving” out of the expression “starving artist” and “starving student” and for that matter, “starving homeless person”. (Also, taking the word “homeless” out of that last one.)
Re-read kimstu’s post. S/he has summed it up neatly.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by matt_mcl:
** Let me put it this way.
Supposing I am an artist. Supposing I create works which, due to my ethical positions and society’s current tastes, are unmarketable except to a small group, to the extent that I am incapable of supporting myself.
Being a Canadian, I have two choices:
Whether or not your art is accepted by the mainstream is irrelevant. And there was a third option I'm surprised you didn't mention. You could always get some sort of job to pay the bills and work on your art during the evenings or weekends.
>>If you don’t like artists, think about this. <<
It isn't about liking or disliking an artist or the art they create. It isn't relevant at all.
>>Wouldn’t it be better if he didn’t have to rely on charity while providing it to others? Wouldn’t it be better if he didn’t have to worry about his own welfare whilst worrying about that of others?<<
Every person has to worry about their own welfare. I read in an old moldy book that "man must make bread by the sweat of his own brow." In short it means life is not a given and we've got to take actions to ensure that it continues. It is not my fault that the nature of reality dictates that you have to make an effort in order to stay alive. If you choose to be a starving artist that is your choice. If I like your art I might donate some money or purchase a painting. If I find it offensive, bad, or otherwise not to my taste I won't purchase it. I love it when invidiuals are free to be responsible for themselves.
>>Not everybody wants to do profitable things; if so, we’d all be stockbrokers. (And society would collapse.)<<
I think that's pretty darn silly all around. Ever sane person wants to be able to support themselves. They may not want huge mansions or the Mazda but they sure want to make sure they provide themselves with the basics at the very least. Since many different occupations have a certain value to many different people it isn't to
hard for someone to be able to work for a living.
So you “want” to do something that won’t profit you. Go ahead. I just don’t see why anyone else should foot the bill.
>> I am proposing encouraging this diversity by permitting <<
Diversity? I thought diversity was suppose to be a good thing. It sounds more like subsidizing a bunch of lazy bums.
>>To put it crudely, I’m suggesting taking “starving” out of the expression “starving artist” and “starving student” and for that matter, “starving homeless person”.<<
What you're suggesting is making need a virtue which entitles an individual to something he or she has not earned. I need food to survive but that does not mean I should get it for free. You want to make productive individuals slaves to the lazy and ill.
The standards for what qualifies as “poor” vary greatly from country to country and region to region. “Poverty” in Mexico is facing the constant threat of starvation. “Poverty” in the U.S. is enduring the heartbreak of not having cable television.
Matt, you’d have done well in the Soviet Union circa 1920, when the Soviet system was being set up and nobody knew that the USSR would fall flat on its ass by the 1990s. Perhaps you’d have done less well when you realized that very few people are motivated enough to work for more when they can stay at home and get enough to live. Look at the American welfare system. There are families who’ve been on welfare for generations, having a ton of kids to get more money from the system, and drinking booze until you could light their blood with a Zippo. Indians on reservations around here do the same thing (perhaps the strongest argument against racism is the fact that all humans seem to behave the same way on welfare), but with cheap cigarettes and legal gambling to aid them in wasting tax money (In Montana, the best-looking businesses are casinos, often with fancy restaurants and/or hotels attached. Every grocery store, from large chains like Albertson’s to small mom-n-pop joints, has a few video gaming machines. All this helps prove my point: People are suckers, and they want something for nothing.) they can get to be truly drunk and wild, living in terrible conditions in trailers and houses best described as shacks. They have every incentive to get a real job except the one that counts: The need to survive. Education isn’t valued. How much brain do you need to get a check and some food stamps? Achievement isn’t valued. Those who succeed have ‘forgotten where they came from’ and are ‘uppity’. I say they must have the best knowledge of anyone as to where they came from, and know that doing better than your father (a big no-no in the American South among the poorer classes) is vital if your daddy was an abusive drunk living like an ape on welfare. (OK, I moved to Montana from Southeast Missouri, so my experience is from a range of cultures. The intersting thing is this: There are no big differences between the poor southerner on welfare and the poor Indian on welfare.) This has been a long-winded rant, so I’ll summarise: People will put up with a lot of shit to avoid work. Don’t count on love of material wealth if you expect everyone to grow up on welfare.
“We can imagine no reason why, with ordinary care, human toes could not be left out of chewing tobacco, and if toes are found . . . it seems to us that somebody has been very careless.” Pillars v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 78 So. 365, 366.
“What’s wrong with communism?”
Other than it’s oppressive, dehumanizing and has utterly failed everywhere it’s been tried, nothing is ‘wrong’ with communism.
-CalifBoomer
Not incapable – unwilling. And probably unaware of the very real value of pragmatism. You can support yourself, but only by learning that everybody doesn’t get everything they want every time. I’ve found time in my life both to work a 40+ hour a week desk job and be a working musician. Life is about choices.
Oh, cry me a river, matt. What, you’ve never heard of after work? Weekends? Holidays? Would you simply come home from work every night, sit in the dark and mourn your mediocre, societally-approved mode of being? While it may be poetic and self-aggrandizing to do so, it’s also more than a little sad.
Nobody’s depriving you of anything. You can paint or sculpt or weld all you want, but if nobody wants to buy it, nobody wants to buy it. And, in any case, art should be created to satisfy the drive of the artist regardless of the market for it (and I know you know that), but if it doesn’t pay the bills, the artist shouldn’t expect to get compensation anyway.
Get a job and and paint in your free time, ya lazy bum. An honest day’s work never killed anyone. Well, those steel mill guys. And maybe some soldiers.
Yeah, it would. It would also be better if money grew on magic bushes and we all shat chocolate. But it doesn’t, and we don’t.
Yes, it’s so unfair that every single living creature evolved in such a way that it must ingest nourishment of some kind to survive and must expend effort to obtain it. Take it up with the Goddess.
Personal to Mr. Z.: Maybe you aren’t as perceptive as you thought you were.
Wrong. I’ll respond to that, much as you chose to pick and choose which of my points to respond to.
The purpose of society is to increase the benefits of human work. If I specialize in growing corn, I will grow it much better than someone who is also trying to raise cows and build their house at the same time. Therefore, I trade corn with the cow guy (or girl) and the house guy (or girl) and more, better corn is grown and I live in a better house.
If I’m really good at growing corn, I will have extra left over to spend on cars, TV’s, or paintbrushes.
All this, and yet I am free. I am not required to sell my corn unless I want to. Nor am I required to give my corn to some irresponsible artist who doesn’t have anything to trade that I want.
You think most people are in jobs because they enjoy the work? No, they’ve reached a level of compromise between enjoyment and the need for money. Sorry to say, you’re going to have to do that, too.
Only a small number of people are truly awake. These people go through life in a state of constant amazement.