Paying to Live

[Twitchy]

Has anyone else notice that every basic thing that a human needs to live usually costs money.

[Rapax]

Air costs money?

[CrackerMonkey]

Nah, there's plenty of lifestyles that won't cost a lot of money. It's all about just how much you want. If you're content with just living, it won't cost you much.

[Rowan11088]

Um....so? Money is an exchange for labor, so instead of the old days where you had to grow/catch your own food, now you can exchange work you do at a job instead, getting a much, much larger amount of goods for your effort than in any pre-modern era. Plus, if you have absolutely no money, you CAN go to a soup kitchen/homeless shelter and someone will take care of you for at least a little while. But it's not like people can expect to live their whole lives without working.

[Sanguine]

But it's not like people can expect to live their whole lives without working.

What about spoilt rich kids or the redundant monarchy of the UK.

[Rowan11088]

What about spoilt rich kids?

Uh....what's your point? I'm trying to say that it's silly to expect that everyone can have their basic needs taken care of without working, not that everyone necessarily does work for a living. Besides, "rich kids" got their money from a hard-working parent or grandparent somewhere along the line.

[Sanguine]

Uh....what's your point? I'm trying to say that it's silly to expect that everyone can have their basic needs taken care of without working, not that everyone necessarily does work for a living. Besides, "rich kids" got their money from a hard-working parent or grandparent somewhere along the line.

Or just get from being 'devinely chosen by God'
As soon as I have to pa tax I'm going to live in hermitude.
OK, there pretty much wasn't a point to that I'll shut up now

[1{H][NA]

it dosent cost me anything to pick my nose

[CrackerMonkey]

I protest agaist public toilets entrance fee! XD

[Kanaric]

Protest by pissing on the wall, lol.

[CrackerMonkey]

Isn't there a law against that kind of thing?
It ought to be.
*running off to suggest the passing of a new law*

[Tom Paine]

Well, yes, there is a charge for everything a man needs to live. And I'm going to go off in a political rant about that, if this moves to the mudpit, otherwise I'll remain silent. And yes, I recommend it goes to the mudpit.

[Rowan11088]

Well, yes, there is a charge for everything a man needs to live. And I'm going to go off in a political rant about that, if this moves to the mudpit, otherwise I'll remain silent. And yes, I recommend it goes to the mudpit.

Well not to set you off prematurely, but I can't understand that kind of a viewpoint. Even if I accepted socialism in its entirety, there's no tenet saying that people deserve something for nothing. 'From each according to his ability', is just as important as the "to each according to his need' part. Charging money for basic needs is another of way of saying, someone else is doing your dirty work for you, and you're exchanging your work for his/hers. You don't want to grow your own crops, raise cattle, and slaughter 'em yourself? You should pay the person who does it for you. You don't want to spend thousands going to medical school to learn how to diagnose and treat yourself and your family? You shold pay the guy who does when he helps you. Don't feel like collecting rainwater? Shell out a small amount of money to the person whose job it is to collect water from a spring and bring it to you. I don't see what's wrong with all this.

[Tom Paine]

No man can really live alone, and we are all reliant on others. Turning that into a seemingly transient reliance through monetary transactions is surely denial of a basc truth that we all need some services we ourselves cannot provide but can also commit to other services they cannot provide, as a set of favours to be bargained, repayed, or redistributed as a base of conscience, that is giving a favour of your services to one in need of them, and the one you aid then helps, thanks to you, another in need of his services, and so on, in that each gives and receives, just not simultaneously and transiently in the form of money, but rather more meaningfully in acknowledgement of the mutual reliance of the species.

[Rowan11088]

No man can really live alone, and we are all reliant on others. Turning that into a seemingly transient reliance through monetary transactions is surely denial of a basc truth that we all need some services we ourselves cannot provide but can also commit to other services they cannot provide, as a set of favours to be bargained, repayed, or redistributed as a base of conscience, that is giving a favour of your services to one in need of them, and the one you aid then helps, thanks to you, another in need of his services, and so on, in that each gives and receives, just not simultaneously and transiently in the form of money, but rather more meaningfully in acknowledgement of the mutual reliance of the species.

That would work great if it was a nation consisting of you and a couple of your best buddies, but obviously any malice prevents such a thing. Money still allows the trade of services in an orderly fashion without relying on favors. Plus, I don't really see what the tangible benefit of your alternative is, unless it's just to use a lot of colorful language about shiny happy people. I'm perfectly happy forking over cash for a sandwich to the guy at the register, and maybe I'll even trade a few nice words with him. I'd prefer not to have to personally get to know everyone I purchase services from, and be obligated to give each and every one of those people my service back. Also, how do you deal with people who don't produce something so easily traded? What use does a farmer have for the services of a computer programmer? Or a social worker? Or a ship-builder?

[Big War Bird]

No man can really live alone, and we are all reliant on others. Turning that into a seemingly transient reliance through monetary transactions is surely denial of a basc truth that we all need some services we ourselves cannot provide but can also commit to other services they cannot provide, as a set of favours to be bargained, repayed, or redistributed as a base of conscience, that is giving a favour of your services to one in need of them, and the one you aid then helps, thanks to you, another in need of his services, and so on, in that each gives and receives, just not simultaneously and transiently in the form of money, but rather more meaningfully in acknowledgement of the mutual reliance of the species.

I think I have identified your niche in society Squeakus, writing greeting cards for communists!

[Tom Paine]

Didn't you notice that it isn't direct returns? That's the point. You do something for x, x does something for y, etc, and eventually (or rather quicker), it'll get back to you; and everyone along the road has benefited from you doing someone a favour, and even if it doesn't get back to you, another person will do you a favour, if you need something from them; that is, because everyone relies on favours, denying someone a favour if you can give it to them is somewhat self-destructive; it uses human self-interest to create generosity.

[Tom Paine]

Oooh, wonderful. How fulfiling and well-paid. And I was thinking a political career :wink:

But on another note, I'm completely serious about the idea; a utopian society, remember, is one that can never be reached, and I believe that this is not the case. Or maybe I hope it.

[Seleucus I Nicator]

I'd survive without any money myself. I could live on fishing for my entire life, and maybe hunting. If my equipment became destroyed I'd steal new fishing equipment from a store. So money is by no means an requirement for survival. At least not for me and where I live.

[Tom Paine]

a) Vitamins?
b) And yet, you steal, and may get caugtht... and your clothing, and shelter?