Just slightly poisoning the well there with your language, aren’t you? The venture capitalist has a useful role by investing the money they manage in businesses. They hope to make a profit with which they then invest in further business.
I think of having to buy gas as being the price I have to pay not to have to ride a horse to work. Yet somehow people still complain about the price of gas.
This sounds kind of like the sermon on the mount, but, in reverse…
Walking Dead has a few ideas on what to do with the weak. Thinking of the fear and anarchy that people are subjected to on that show because of the lack of trust and a functioning society has made me slightly less averse to paying taxes.
To wonder what someone’s existence is costing me seems vulgar, and I don’t care to think this way ever. Also it’s not morally permissible IMHO to think this way about the poor or disabled.
It seems to me that it may be more evolved to choose to be useful, and to strive to make a positive contribution.
What concerns me somewhat is being valued for what I contribute, as judged by someone other than myself ( aside from pulling my own weight financially). For example what if others judge my contributions based on what they see as positive, but perhaps I don’t. If I consider my own actions useful is that value enough?
Sorry for a long post!
TLDR: Utility is subjective, people are different. I judge people by other standards than on how fat their pockets are and I strongly dislike current societies increasing fixations on money and aquisition of currency romanticized as if some sort of noble goal.
I would frame the question a bit differently: Why is utility, or usefullness of a citizen, mostly valued in economic or financial terms? Why does a society have to be valued by utility? Why is wellfare-benefits, work-benefits, health-care, immigration, education, child-care and welfare for the elderly and at-risk minority demographics more commonly being held as less important issues for society, by elected democratic governments today, than finance, banking, real-estate, debt-speculation, oil and sports? Why do employment in a governmental sector usally loosely follow the guidelines set by corporate employment in the private sector, instead of initiating employment of as many as they can based on better standards, where people are actually being held accountable for what they do in a professional and official capacity?
For me this is a pretty important topic: I’m a millennial. I’ve chosen to devote my studies, my time, money - my life - pursuing something that have so far, in the seven + years I’ve been active and productive, only cost me money. I say this as a working artist, with a CV going on seven years of exhibitions, initiatives, concerts and other cultural activities in several countries in Europe. I’ve been giving away what I’ve made or done, mostly for free and that is actually how I want it to be. I don’t want to sell, and I don’t want what I do to be dictated or shaped by money any more than is necessary to get it made. I don’t actually like money… Now I actually have a bit of it, but I was initially at a loss with what to do with that responsibility, as that is what possesing money should be – A responsibility.
So the situation for much of my life has been: I have to get money from somewhere, and I have to buy things to be able to both live and operate - I’m a part of society by voting, I pay taxes and I buy products. I began paying taxes at 15, and I began working seasonally at age 13, as a cleaner, cleaning living spaces and toilets at a campground. When my time there ended I cleaned, did maintenance, tought other emplyees, did paperwork and some accounting, lived on-ground in cases of emergency and worked from I got up until I went to bed. I did my own hours and had to readdjust my hours down, so as not to be too well paid compared to the other workers, as their hours where written in each day for everyone to see.
So I’m at a loss if/when someone say I have little utilitarian value for society. But I’m sure most would think that when looking at my paperwork. My normal-job CV is spotty, since I’ve been a full-time foreign student for four years over a five year period, I am in debt with the government, via student loans, that I will most likely spend the rest of my life paying back, and I’ve made some undeniably poor decisions, from a financial viewpoint, in my life for various reasons. But that does not mean I’m of no utility; I have skills, learned through working jobs no one else wants. I have knowledge of people, by leading a pretty weird life, socially, and not steering away from people that might not be considerd sociable by most. I have general knowledge, via self-study and a long, wildly diverse and inconsistent study-trajectory that is first now beginning to form into a shape I’m happy and content with. I am and have always been a proponent of DIY and self-study, and I’ve always tried to encourage others to do that for themselves too, by being available and help out if I can.
But I can’t get work, apparently. As with most other applicants, my CV gets put in a big stack and thrown, unread. To get work you need «to know someone», to «network and sell youself». It should come as no surprise that I find the idea of «selling myself»,to the very core of my being, disgusting and ignorant. The notion that I should sopmehow «sell myself» and think of myself «as a salesman», when getting ahead in life, is a moronic, irresponsible idea promoted by greed.
I’m also uneligible for social security or work benefits in Norway, where I come from. Norway, one of the richest countries of the world, tried to make me poorer first, by attempting to force me to expend any potential source of income, savings, future pay, benefits from work, family, firends, good will - To burn any bridge, before they would seriously consider my case. They want people to live off them, and hopefully for them to stay dependent of them instead of helping people get back into the workforce, or into school. What I consider my «profession», what looks more like a hobby to NAV and the Norwegian government it would seem, I’ll continue to do for free, no matter how expensive my government wants to make it. The things I create, the happenings I initiate have to be available for anyone who wants to experience it, as art should be valued in terms completely separated from money, or any other arbitrary construct we «agree» upon as a society, unless those arbitrary values are an intrinsic part of the work itself.
Some people are useless, but most people eventually find some trajectory in life “worth” pursuing, even if it isn’t guaranteed to bring in an income, or benefit anyone else in any way. I actually don’t mind useless people, unless their uselessness actively intereferes with anyones enjoyment of their lives. I also realise what I find useless might very well be seen as very useful to someone else. I think society should be built on other ideals than capitalist ones; Accountability, responsibility, honesty, co-operation and habitation, progress of science and technology, with minimal harm to the environment – Those are ideas and ideals, that I would place much higher on scale of importance for human society than money. A currency should(IMO) be a neutral tool for transactions between people. I see no reason behind romanticization of the aquisition of such a commodity, especially considering all the issues the world have faced and is continuing to face today, because of it.
I’m sure there’s a bunch of grammatical errors and typo’s in that wall, but I tried my best and my eyes are sore! Sorry for any butchering that might have occurred.
Written by someone who has never had to make tough choices in times of scarcity. Your worldview is shaped by living in a time and place of vast productivity. If the situation were different your concepts of what is morally permissible would be different.
Hell, even in highly productive and advanced societies those decisions are made everyday with regards to end of life care.
And how you view your worthy is sort of irrelevant to the topic which is how others judge it.
If currency is so vulgar then barter. If you can’t get what you want by barter perhaps your utility is not as valuable as you think. You will find that bartering for currency is more efficient in the long run if YOU value the utility of currency accurately. Thinking people owe you their time for your wants merely because you exist is very entitled.
I support the concept, but the metric I tend to use is contributions to STEM fields and medicine, that or making the world a better place via philanthropy, social progress, fighting poverty, etc. I see nothing immoral about utilitarianism.
Oh, I barter a lot. I also recycle, mostly buy used closed, I pass things on if I find I have no need for it. I don’t find the idea of currency vulgar, I find the fetishisation of currency vulgar. Society is for people, not money.
Oh, by the way, I am entitled, as a norwegian citizen, to a lot of things, like free healthcare, Norwegian student loans, insurance via a union, free travel in the eurozone, social security in Norway etc… I don’t know where you got the impression that I didn’t know that already. I think I know more about my situation than you will ever do.
Bolding my part: It isn’t, but in my opinion it should be.
Everybody hates free riders, but the sad fact is that throughout history, all attempts to eliminate them have resulted in horror, evil and ghastly injustices. Human beings are innately incapable of judging one another’s ‘worth’ without applying their own prejudices and biases, and without sliding down the slippery slope to begin thinking that pretty much everyone who isn’t one of ‘us’ is unworthy.
Throughout much of human history, most ideas and inventions that led to improvements to society were either made by the rich, or by those lucky or charming enough to be sponsored by the rich, or by a smattering of smart, perseverant and lucky bastards who managed to do it despite being born poor. Some people will point to these last few as examples of their ‘bootstrap’ philosophy and think that anyone of ‘worth’ born in dire poverty will of course rise up and overcome, but I believe millions upon millions of people who could have given us art, music, cures to disease, or who knows what advances, must have died in ignorance and squalor, never having a chance. With the increase in worldwide education and medicine, we are advancing at an incredible rate, from travel by horse and buggy to the moon in a single long lifespan.
To my way of thinking, we benefit more from giving more people opportunities to be useful by ensuring they have health and education. Maybe some people have value in teaching us empathy, compassion, patience, or in a few cases, repugnance for bad behavior.
Poor people may contribute little to the well being of the whole, but Trust Fund Punks contribute nothing.
Rather, “Have you truly earned what you have.”
No one starts out having earned what they have. All of us start with nothing - but what our parents and society provide us. During our lifetimes, we generally start supporting ourselves, then pay it back - and pay it forward, then finally become once again a drag on others if we are unlucky enough that our medical expenses outstrip our savings in the final years of our life (which they often do).
Some of us get luckier than others - what we are given to start out with is easier to work with - well off parents, intelligence, good looks, white skin, a penis - but those things aren’t earned, those are given. The more you were given, the more you start with a head start on the “I’ve earned what I have” game. My parents paid for my college education, so I came out of college with no debt. I owned a home at 21 (well, the bank owned it, but I was building equity already) - that is a huge head start over friends who didn’t get a college education or who got one but came out with a load of debt. But I could only do that because I didn’t have to pay for my own college and had been able to save for a downpayment while still in college. I was lucky there as well, I had a college job that paid twice minimum wage - and that job came to me through luck.
My task in providing more utility to society than I took was pretty much to hold steady to the class to which I was born using tools that were handed to me and which I had been trained to use. I had no uphill battle. I did not have to find my own tools or learn how to use them. That wasn’t hard.
To me, there is a price for being fortunate…and that is understanding how much we just handed to me.
Sounds parasitical. Why whine for more of other people’s stuff? Someone pays for those things you are “entitled” to. What happens when they choose not to? You want what society produces? Play the game.
A distinction should be made between people who want to work, but can’t find it, and people who simply do not want to work (e.g. they prefer their parents’ basement, or living on the street, etc. over getting a job). The problem is how do you assess that inner desire? Perhaps we could do that if there were an “employer of last resort” option where people without any other job received a guaranteed job offer to dig ditches, push paper, repaint fire hydrants, or do whatever for the government for 40 hours a week in exchange for minimum wage and health insurance. Then, those who still adamantly prefer their parents’ basement or homeless life and consequently refuse a guaranteed job can be separated from those who jump at the opportunity to finally have a job.
But is that still a value of worth? I was also lucky enough to spend years doing a job I enjoyed. It was no sacrifice to give 40 hours a week to it. My last few jobs have been less enjoyable.
And is it ok if you provide only enough “economic utility” to care for yourself? I have a friend who is an artist with few material needs. She does odd jobs, spends months living in her van, and makes and sells her art. She is self supporting, but I doubt she makes enough to pay taxes - she simply makes enough to be able to feed herself, pay insurance and gas for the van, and the other stuff she consumes. It isn’t that she is lazy - she just has a different set of values than most people - she works very hard at what she does. Does she have less value than a corporate CEO who makes a lot of money, pays a lot in taxes, but consumes a lot as well?
And when we separate them out, what then? What is it that you are advocating?
Seeing as how such people aren’t eligible for disability or welfare, they are generally only a burden for their parents. Who, ironically, would be the first to say they are valuable human beings.