"Help" vs "Slavery" or "time is also a ressource"

[Arent11]

There is always the argument that we "have enough ressources" today to feed everyone & that we "just need to share" & everyone will be happy. The problem with this argument is that it is both true and wrong at the same time. Taken literally, yes, we have enough "ressources" to create food & stuff for everyone. What this hides, however, is that there has to be someone who does *work* to create the machines, the food & the stuff.

Now, a lot of people say, hey, shouldn't you be nice and help other people? What is a little work, it doesn't cost you anything? However, work of course uses up a very important ressource. Namely time.

Time is important to learn, play games, found a family. And therefore, it is completely justified that some people demand conditions for "help" and view unconditional "help" for complete strangers as exploitation or even slavery. They, of course, would rather like to dedicate their time & work to their own family and friends.

So, what's your take?

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

To help is necessary. To help unreservedly is great and to help unconditionaly is a pinnacle of human greatness BUT it has to be done efficiently and wisely. Its pointless to try to help those who are not ready for your help and it can even be harmful. Its inefficient to help those who dont try to help themselves...

 

[Cutlass]

Badly constructed argument is bad. And doesn't deserve a serious response.

 

[Ryika]

There is always the argument that we "have enough ressources" today to feed everyone & that we "just need to share" & everyone will be happy. The problem with this argument is that it is both true and wrong at the same time. Taken literally, yes, we have enough "ressources" to create food & stuff for everyone. What this hides, however, is that there has to be someone who does *work* to create the machines, the food & the stuff.

I think that's not really the problem, as people are compensated with currency that they can then use to buy products themselves. That currency is not distributed fairly by any standards aside from the capitalist point of view, but it is what keeps people willing to work in the system.

The real problem with the argument that we "have enough resources" is really the incentive that got us to this point. The global economical state exists solely because of capitalism, and was pushed there on the premise that producing more means you can have more of other things (and also that you can get a higher status). Whether we could create and maintain an economical system that produces enough food to feed the world, but distributes it by where it is needed instead of pushing excessive amounts of it towards the areas where the people who built all the machines and infrastructure use to produce those foods, is highly questionable.

 

[stinkubus]

Badly constructed argument is bad. And doesn't deserve a serious response.

The false dilemmas are strong with this one.

 

[Lexicus]

I voted for the first poll option, "Yes, of course! If you give stuff for free you simply encourage fraud and exploitation!", and I propose that we stop giving rich people stuff for free immediately. No more surplus value going to people who just sit around owning capital.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I gave away three empty moving boxes yesterday, to the niece and nephew of my building manager. They undoubtedly could have gone over to Staples or Walmart and bought boxes for themselves (two of the ones I gave away were boxes I purchased for my own move; the third was one that an online shopping order came in).

So by the OP's logic, I wasted that precious 10 minutes of my life finding boxes I was willing to give them (they didn't get the best ones, but they were sturdy enough), it was inconvenient to be woken out of a half-doze/half reading a book by the phone call, asking if I had any boxes to spare, and I'm just enabling these people by giving them stuff they could go out and buy themselves, right? Admittedly it was a bit disagreeable to be called out of bed at 11 am on a Saturday morning to deal with RL instead of the science fiction story I was reading. And there's no shortage of moving boxes on the planet.

The reasons I did this are fourfold:

1. I have lots of boxes. Most are taken apart and bundled, stored for the next time I have to move. The ones I gave away were just in my way, and were not the best-quality ones anyway.

2. I believe in the concept of "Save a Tree" - recycling boxes is important for the environment.

3. I know what it's like to have to scramble for moving boxes. Call it a case of "pay it forward".

4. It gives me brownie points with the building manager... being a good neighbor, so to speak. That means she's more likely to do me a favor some time later.

Bonus: After taking the stuff out of one of those boxes, I found a few things I'd been looking for but hadn't found yet.


To the OP: If you would rather play another round or level on a computer game instead of helping someone (say, by rounding up a few boxes to help make their moving experience a tiny bit less stressful, or doing some other favor for someone that doesn't cost you more than a few minutes), that looks more like an argument defending selfishness than anything else.

I'm not saying I've never anything that turned out to be a waste of time, and yeah, that included some favors (either the situation didn't work out, the solution didn't work, the person turned out to be an ingrate, or just a plain backstabber). But in the long run, it's a more positive thing to err on the side of being nice and helpful, rather than cynical and selfish.

At least that's my 2 cents.

 

[Archon_Wing]

You shouldn't be forced to help people.

This is entirely different, from not helping people, and then feeling smug about it through some sense of moral superiority.

 

[Synobun]

If the items are already manufactured and are instead simply rotting I don't see a particularly compelling argument that it should be withheld from those without.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I voted for the first poll option, "Yes, of course! If you give stuff for free you simply encourage fraud and exploitation!", and I propose that we stop giving rich people stuff for free immediately. No more surplus value going to people who just sit around owning capital.

Amen.
How many different ways is our tax code and society built to favor the rich and corporations at the expense of everyone else?

 

[warpus]

If helping someone is like slavery, then punching someone in the face is like Christmas.

 

[Lexicus]

How many different ways is our tax code and society built to favor the rich and corporations at the expense of everyone else?

Just pretend he's saying "ways" instead of "things" so that it makes sense