Try to make ends meet; you're a slave to money; then you die.

Great Debates
1

I am a slave to money.

However, out of love for myself, truly, I do not want to be a slave to money.

That doesn’t mean I don’t like what I do. It has it’s moments.

Am I lazy, covetous, and jealous of the fabulously rich? Of course: I’m human. But I don’t think those flaws speak to the heart of why I don’t like my economic slavery.

Basically, my motivation is: I would prefer freedom – and there is nothing wrong with that. If Ed McMahon showed up at my door tomorrow with a check for $11 million dollars, I would cash it. I might not quit my job right away but I’d not have worry about finances ever again I can tell you that.

But as a result of desiring not to be a slave of money myself, I am faced with a moral dillema:

If I love my fellow man as I love myself, I shouldn’t want them to be slaves of money either.

But, intrinsicly, by spending the money I earn I’m encouraging the economic slavery of others. I am endorsing a social contract in which money is required to recieve food, clothing, and shelter. I am also creating jobs by spending money which allow no excuse for those who do not have money for these things not to become economic slaves themselves.

Of course, I live in a relatively free pocket of the global economy, where child labor is rare, where people only need to spend about a third of their waking life working, and where the punishments for deciding not to work are not as severe as in other corners of the globe. However, I can hardly chose to support other, more oppressed laborers, by simply not spending the money I earn on their goods when I know quite well where ever I spend my money it could end up in the hands of someone who is either not as fickle or who simply buys the cheapest commodities available no matter the source. Social Darwinism then comes into play.

Being a slave of money also has certain other consequences which are of concern to me, aside from my inherent participation in the enslavement of others. I also am forced to pay taxes to an empire whose policies I do not agree with. My taxes go to pay for a huge military and enough weapons of mass destruction to wipe out humanity many times over, and the salaries of saber rattling diplomats. About once a year these days my country invades or bombs some other country on what are often flimsy pretenses to show the world how mighty it is. My taxes go to perform abortions, and executions of people who occasionally turn out to be innocent. My taxes go to build prisons which mostly house people who have commited some property crime in violation of the economic slave system I inherently endorse, some of whom, again, are innocent. My taxes also go for things I am told are “good” but which really are just band-aids on the system, such that those too elderly or infirmed are not forced into lives of poverty – that would set a bad example for those of us who are still working if that was shown to be our ultimate reward. Not that it matters for I am told there will not be any money left by the time I am old to keep me out of poverty.

My alternative is to stop working for money. Of course, eventually I will not have enough money to pay my rent and will be evicted. I could couch surf for a while but I don’t think my friends would take too kindly to me eventually. So eventually, I’d end up on the street at the mercy of the elements, but at least I would know in my heart that I had love in my heart for my fellow man and know in my soul that I was free.

Of course, I doubt I’m going to do that. Again. Which means, effectively, I’m immoral and do not love my fellow man.

Fortunately, there does not seem to be any justice in this world, so it does not matter if I love my neighbor or not. I’ll be a good worker until I am too old and then, if I am lucky, stuck in a home somewhere to rot until I pass away.

Thoughts?

2

Are you the devil?

3

Well, I don’t recommend that you trade working for money for hiding from money. The money itself is just counting equipment. Finding out what counts is what you need to do. If you like you job during “its moments” then you should find out what differentiates those moments from the rest of your job. Then spend your efforts making those moments your job.

I have had fifty-seven jobs in my life. I have decided to stay with the fifty-seventh because it is the one that I love. It pays half of what the thirty-sixth did, and has very little in the way of career advancement potential, which other jobs did have. I am currently the owner of more stuff than will fit into a sedan, which is as rich as I have ever been. I don’t have a sedan to put it into, but I did for a while a year ago. When someone stole the sedan, I realized that I didn’t want to replace it. That would have meant really investing interest into money for a car. I was not interested.

You don’t have to join a team, or establish a set of rules to keep money from ruling you. You just have to be willing to find what makes you happy, and be satisfied with some happiness. The happiest people are not the richest, and the richest people are not the happiest. Turns out the happiest people are the people who make other people happy. Try that. It doesn’t have to cost you money to do it, although it might well cost you your whole life. If it makes them and you happy, it could be a life well spent.

Tris

4

Well, I think you’re attaching too much importance to the green little dollar bills, and giving them a signifigance that they don’t have.

Am I saying money isn’t important? Of course not. But money is merely a tool of barter. When I pay $12 for a take-out-dinner, what I’m really saying is that my spending an hour doing my job is worth a pizza being sent to me at home.

Now, consider it this way- you are endorsing a social contract in which you provide a service (whatever you do for a living), and in exchange you are given food, shelter, and clothing.

To take oneself out of this contract is certainly possible; but that means you would need to provide yourself with your own food, shelter, and clothing. Are you a good farmer? How about a good carpenter? Good at building your own plumbing and electrical systems?

Instead, you provide a service you are good at, and in exchange, others provide services they are good at. Seems pretty efficient to me. Of course, those who aren’t good at anything will suffer; but that’s why we have schools where people can better themselves.

To an extent, yes; but adding moral costs to economic choices is a standard part of life- otherwise, why would companies try to advertise on TV as being wholesome and compassionate? I don’t eat Wendy’s fast food because they discriminate against homosexuals in hiring practices; my $5 a week may not hurt them, but when compounded among hundreds of thousands of customers, the cost of continuing the practice may eventually be seen as too high for them to continue and remain competitive.

Have you thought about emigrating?
Have you thought about running for office yourself?
Have you thought about spending some of your spare time working for a candidate who holds the same opinions as yourself?

The system is flexible; if you wish to complain that it does no represent you adequately, the problem is with you not trying to change the system, not with the system not reflexively changing to your standards.

No, your alternative is to start working harder. Follow up on companies you do major business with in order to make sure that you approve of their practices (no Wendy’s in my trash bag; no Nike’s on my feet); find groups of people that generally or specifically share your philosophy(s) and work with them to change the systems in place.

5

No. Money is a tool of a forced labor social contract. Re-read the OP.

Apparently you are missing the point. There are moments where I do not like my job. But the more important thing is that I am forcing others to have jobs they might not like at all.

I really don’t understand you. If you have some sort of system I have not thought of whereby I would no longer be required to work for money, please let me know.

Apparently what makes me “happy” are the creaturely comforts, despite sacrificing the “happiness” of my fellow man in order to achieve them.

“Happiness” really isn’t the issue of the OP. The issue is morality. Sure, being moral may ultimately make me “happy” – but as I lay out in the OP being moral would apparently cost me all my money.

6

We are not slaves to money, we are slaves to scarcity. There is only so much time, labor and “stuff”. This is axiomatic, not some sort of social construct. Any system must find some way to allocate these scarce resoources in some loosely defined fair and efficient way. This means of course, that spending moeny does not promote this “slavery”. If anything it does the opposite, by allowig a system whereby people can spend their time efficiently at things they are relatively good at at so that they can have more time (and money) to have the freedom to do other things.

7

Morality costs money. That is very true; or, at least when viewed through the converse- those who are immoral make more money. As G. Gordon Liddy put it, “Of course crime pays- why do you think there are so many criminals?”

But it doesn’t have to cost all of your money. Certainly, one could be moral by opting out of the system entirely; but generally it’s pretty easy to act morally towards others when you have no human interaction whatsoever. However, there are plenty of companies out there who realize that morality sells, and that there are people willing to pay extra money in order to have moral economic choices (i.e., no slave labor, vegetarian diet, donating profits to the needy, putting extra emphasis in environmentalism, etc.). Just do some research, find companies (and political groups/parties) that seem ‘moral’ to you, and choose them over cheaper alternatives.

For example: I own a Saturn. For much less, I could have bought a Geo or a Kia or any number of other new cars. But because Saturn’s corporate philosophy- in terms of service, worker relations, and environmentalism- I was willing to pay more money in order to buy a Saturn.

Alternatives exist. Find them. Use them. Stop whining.

8

**

Depsite what the OP may say money is not a tool of a forced labor social contract. Since the beginning of human history we’ve all had to dance for our bread. Do you think mother nature gave primitive man food, shelter, and the clothing he needed for survival? Man must make bread by the sweat of his own brow. The only other choice is death.

The only thing forcing people to dance for their meals is reality. Even without money you’d still have to put some effort into survival.

**

How are you forcing anyone to have a job they don’t want? So far as I know slavery ended after the Civil War in this country.

**

You could become a nomad somewhere I suppose. I’m sure there are many people who would trade you goods for certain services or products. But then again they might not because bartering is a pain in the ass.

I don’t understand what’s immoral about money.

Marc

9

Money is part of a forced labor social contract.

Right. I am a slave to money, and in exchange can purchase food clothing and shelter.

I already live off the fat of the land. I’ve never grown food or cotton or otherwise made clothing or built a shelter. You are perhaps correct I’m part of a broken machine from which I can not escape – but failing to attempt to do so does not make me a moral person.

The system seems to be inherently broken. Even if I could change my own local political system, that would not change the functioning of other political systems in other parts of the global economy. At best, I could make my own local system so weak it would be overrun by outside systems – which would ultimately defeat the purpose.

But there doesn’t seem to be any moral high ground here. I would prefer not to be an economic slave, and any spending I do aids the enslavement of others. People who work for “Saturn” as just as much slaves as I am.

I don’t see how you can work inside the system to abolish the system. If alternatives exist, tell me what they are.

10

Jmullaney, I guess I’m just not understanding your ideas at all.

What, in your mind, would be a moral system? One where no one has to work? Where money flows freely and everyone gets whatever they want?

11

**

I’m still waiting for you to explain that “Money is part of a forced labor social contract” line. If the idea of money upsets you so, I’ll give you an address to send all of yours to. You could quit working, so you wouldn’t have any. But as you’ve pointed out then you’d end up on the street, hungry.

So… what? What’s the point? I’m not forcing you to work? Wanna starve and die? Feel free.

I’m not solving your problems for you.

12

True. People always have had to go through some effort to get food. That fork to plate action, for example. Are you saying we’ve made no technological advances since mankind were only hunter and gatherers? Apparently, we are twice as bad off, as we now have to work twice as long as people did back in the down of history. Which seems amazing since farming alone would greatly increase the yield of food you would think.

Nature currently gives man all these things, as best I can tell, as we do have them. If they do not come from nature, from where do they come?

That is obviously not true. I have never grown food or hunted and yet I am not dead. In fact, there are millions just like me.

But apparently a lot less effort than currently.

If people do not have jobs, they do not have money. If they do not have money, they do not have food or shelter. If they do not have food or shelter, they die. Many people on this board have told me this must be the case.

:frowning: I’m not talking about this is all just a matter of everyone getting paid in chickens and that would put the system right.

It’s a system of forced labor, that is what is immoral about it. At least if you are a reasonable person who understands the basics of moral imperatives.

John Corrado – I suppose my idea of a free society is one where people are not forced to work in excess of what is required for their survival, and are otherwise free to work at whatever they please.

Saint Zero wrote:

Saint Zero, it is always refreshing to see that there are always people out there who do not care about morality and loving their fellow man. Thanks for coming out.

13

All quotes are from jmullaney. All nestled quotes are from MGibson.

Except that today’s farmer only has enough time to invest in making such huge yields because he doesn’t have to worry about tending fields of cotton, harvesting the cotton, weaving thread, and creating clothes while at the same time maintaining a large forest, cutting down the occasional tree, and building his shelter out of the logs.

Rather, the farmer- who knows how to farm and is already providing growing food- produces much more food than he can eat, and trades it to the carpenter; the carpenter, in turn, maintains a forest and cuts down trees and builds houses for those who provide him with food.

You seem to be calling this arrangement immoral because the carpenter does not directly grow his food, but rather must barter with the farmer in order to eat. Is that your position? If so, why is it more moral to force the carpenter- who knows nothing about growing wheat or hunting deer- to live off of what he can grow/harvest/catch, at the expense of his time? Time which, if he spent building a house or furniture, he could trade for better and more food from someone who knows how to grow/hunt/create food but doesn’t know how to build?

Other people who know how to produce them. When you pay them money, you reward them for taking the time to learn how to produce them. Unless you think that there’s a magical Levi’s jeans forest which the Gap is mercilessly plundering.

Not true? The sweat of your brow got you the money you used to buy food.

???

You must be insane, jmullaney. Either that, or you truly think that you can build your own house, grow your own food, sew your own clothes, build your own computer, and create your own ISP to log onto the Straight Dope with, and do it all in less than the time it would take you to make the money to purchase those things.

Okay, j, then here’s the reason:

LIFE is a system of forced labor. You must find food to eat. You must find ways of sheltering yourself from extremes of weather. You must find ways of staving off disease. Don’t do that, and you die.

Money is just one way of achieving those things. You can certainly avoid money entirely and go out and do those things on your own. I think you’d never do as good a job with such survival methods as you would in today’s society. And it’s not just a matter of know-how: it’s a matter of economies of scale. It’s easier and less wasteful for someone to make 50 shirts at once than it is for 50 people to each make one shirt. Ergo, a society that involves itself in specialization- where certain people take on specific tasks, such as farming, or herding, or policemen, or teachers- is much more efficient and affords its people more free time than if each person tried to do a small job on their own. Of course, unless the food and such is distributed, everyone except the farmer starves; ergo, you need a method and reason for distribution- enter the barter system (which money is just an advanced version of).

You want different? Go read Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan.

You mean like modern America? Geez, I thought you said this place was immoral.

14

The fact that money brings you the pleasure you desire does not make you a slave of money, though you might choose to be a slave of your own desires. That other share your servitude is not a matter of your doing, it is simply the commonest sort of bondage for human beings.

You can always choose. If you choose to abandon your ethos to your senses that does not make money your master. You are your own master, however you wish to bemoan your state. You can choose to leave your wealth entirely, or use it otherwise, or squirm deeper into the comfort of your hedonism. But the word slave means held against ones will. It is your will that binds you. Be free, or not.

Where you willfully or negligently encourage the exploitation of others you have some guilt in their suffering. But the fact that man exploits man is not your crime. The crime you commit, if any is the act of your own will. You enjoy the fruits of your wealth. If you do so in parsimony, with contempt for the poor, you do your spirit harm, and perhaps do harm to others. But it is not the comfort of your home that is the evil. Choosing to value your own comfort above a responsibility to share this earth with all is evil. Do you feel that you are doing this?

I must admit I do not understand your dilemma. If your goods offend your conscience, give them away, or destroy them. If your happiness is so great that you fear it is selfish, share it with others. If you simply cannot believe that it is possible to be happy without the trappings of wealth, you are indeed in bondage, but not to money. Your chains are forged of your own desire.

Tris

15

Well this is patently untrue. People today enjoy more leisure, longer lives and greater health then at any time in human history.

And I like others remain confused. Like I stated above, scarcity is what creates this dilemma you seem to be in. But that is the way of the world, not some social construct. You might as well feel bad about bad weather, in that case. As others have mentioned, specialization is the key to trying to allocate our resources, especially time as effectively as possible so that we in fact have more free time, not less.

If you are having moral qualms, I suggest you try and imagine a world where people cannot spend time investigating life-saving diseases because they are too busy building shelter and hunting and farmin their own food.

16

If your eye offends you, pluck it out. :wink:

17

Are you claiming that everyone is either a farmer or a carpenter? Your argument sounds sane, but only because it is a massive oversimplification of reality.

Then we are agreed. Slave, money, food.

You are claiming I am insane because you do not see all the wasted efforts involved in maintaining the current system. Which would be clear to you if you stopped and thought about it for a minute.

You’re right. But that requires a great deal less effort that forty hours a week. Even primitve man, without any of the technological benefits we have, spent no more than 20 hours a week on these things. Surely, with all the technology we have, from farming to nail guns, we should have to spend even less, not nearly twice as much, and still have all the other benefits of modern technology.

You just said money is merely a tool of barter. Now you tell me it is going to magically grow my food, build my home, and weave my clothes for me?

There is nothing wrong with economies of scale. Why is slavery required in order to combine efforts?

Surrrre. And that is why so many farmers are multi-millionaires, obviously. :rolleyes:

No, for their survival, not for enough money to purchase their survival from those who keep it locked up. You can’t excuse the whole system and say that it is moral because America is a relatively free country because it’s a global economy.

18

Er . . . can we see a cite for that, please? Do you have some sort of, I don’t know, Cro-Magnon time card you can scan in or something?

19

Well, someone has been spending too much time at the republicrat convention! :smiley:

People are enjoying longer lives and better health due to the technological advances of the past few hundred years.

However, liesure time has in fact descreased over time. We work over twice as many hours a week as “cavemen.”

What scarcity? Can you cite an example of something essential for life which is scarce?

So what you are saying is, the only viable system is one of slavery because without this yoke, man would never be willing to cooperate or specialize in anything. I don’t see any evidence of that. Even in the most primitive hunter gatherer societies, some people hunted, some people gathered. Why would a society where people were not slaves be any different?

20

**

Of course we’ve made progress. Which is why the standard of living is so much higher now then it was 10,000 years ago. Other advantages are better health care, longer life spans, and a more reliable food supply.

**

We’re certainly living better then any other generation that came before. And the percentage of the rural population is very small especially compared to the way it was in the past. We have a lower percentage of people farming yielding more food then they ever did in the past. That leaves more people free to do other things.

**

I can’t just sit on my fat ass and expect nature to provide me with food. I have to go outside and scrounge for berries and other vegetation. If I want meat I gotta figure out a way to kill it since most deer won’t sit still while I take a bite out of them. Nature didn’t provide man with anything man had to go out and get it.

**

Now you’re just being stubborn and taking the statement a bit to literally. I’ve never farmed either but I still earn food by the sweat of my own brow. Nobody gives it to me for free I have to purchase it. In other words I work for it.

**

It isn’t apparant to me. And apparantly it wasn’t apparant to early man when civilization started up. In fact civilization started up because it was better then what they had before. So even if they did have more free time, so what? I rather like what I have now and wouldn’t want to live like my ancestors did.

**

This is the case. But then this was the case before money ever entered the picture.

**

If chickens were what people were paid with that’d be the same as currency. Bartering simply means we trade a good or product for another good or product. Its a bigger pain in the ass then exchanging money.

**

You haven’t demonstrated that it is a system of forced labor. It doesn’t sound like you are a reasonable person with any sense of basic moral imperatives.

Marc