Choosing your beggars
I will offer something to this discussion. Having been homeless for period time in my youth, Even thoughI never begged or spare changed (spanged), I feel that I have a legitimate perspective, at least in so much as most people have never been homeless. But insomuch as I’m not homeless now and my life is good and I pay taxes and all, perhaps than my perspective has no greater weight than any other.
Anyways equivocation will get you nowhere. 😄
Perhaps we could look at society of human beings as a measure of extremes. Society could be said to be defined by economic if not monetary parameters. Because isn’t that what we’re really talking about in this discussion is money, who makes it, who deserves it, who has a lot of it, who doesn’t deserve it, who has no money, etc.
We can’t really argue against the fact that we need and use money to negotiate with each other and to get the things we need to live life comfortably. I believe that any argument which argues that it is unethical that people some are comfortable on the backs of the many uncomfortable, Is this sort of weak idealist argument. The plain fact is is that human beings are self-centered and greedy. Even if I’m trying to help someone by giving them the shirt off my back, there is a very large chance that the only reason that I’m doing that is because I have already served myself sufficiently to be able to feel good and not ruin my life by giving this person my shirt.
But human logistics aside, let’s just drop parameters at least in the modern urban Corredor and say there are people that have no resources that can barely feed themselves, and then there are people that have so much money that they have to invent shit to spend it on, for example overpriced everything.
Now, I am not making any ethical judgment on those parameters I am simply stating that maybe we could look at society as defined by those extremes.
Now if we can apply a bell curve to the probability of any human being following somewhere on that spectrum, I have not done a study, but it might be safe to say that at least in our urban/suburban centers, There are very very few people that have such a vast amount of money, and as well there are very few people, though maybe not quite as few, that have absolutely no resources besides their best effort. This is to say that assuming the person is not strung out on drugs or in someway or another mentally or physically (or even socially, there is an argument that handicap is a social construction) compromised to be able to work and make them selves money, Maybe this is an overgeneralization, but somehow I feel we could safely say that there is very few people who have an ability to work, and who want to, who are not able to feed themselves every day and have clothes . Perhaps I am naïve though; but what I conceptually develop so far as human population and numbers and situation and circumstance, is not the same as how I deal with individuals. Call me an inconsistent hypocrite.
But again, I’m not making any sort of ethical comment on whether or not they wear Hollister clothes or Armanni watches or have to simply settle for thrift store attire. There is an argument to be made that the idea being able to feed one S. and clothe one S. is the constituency of happiness and contentment is itself a kind of idealistic addictive mentality (kind a pusher mentality, to use an old school term for someone who pushes drugs upon someone who is never done them).
But nevertheless, let us just take the category as given in the article as just a plain fact of people that are begging. What are we do about that?
On the other side of this coin, we have the people that have so much money that we could probably take half of it away from them in their lives wouldn’t even be affected one iota.
I have had a couple discussions with a couple people about this idea I’m going to tell you about, and both of their reactions were that socialism is terrible, and to you cannot put a limit on people’s freedom to make money.
Because these were just casual acquaintances that I happen to get a conversation with, I didn’t feel comfortable calling these two people capitalist pigs, congregants of the cult of self-centered Providence. Lol. So I let them go wwith the thank U for having this discussion with me and being honest. I have no malice towards them, but really More a kind of disgusting empathy, One that can never be solved because somehow I live in a world that I find filled with disgusting people. I’m OK with that in fact though; I’m perfectly comfortable living my upper middle-class life paycheck to paycheck with very few vacations, and that is the truth. I harbor no resentments towards the capitalist pigs.
But my question to them was how much money does a person need to be content and happy and forfill everything that they would want to have in life?
And for this post here I’m kind of paralleling it to people without any money. And I apply the same question: How little money does a person have to make, how small amount of money does a person need to begin to be not content?
I don’t think that at this lower end, or this other end, that it is proper to say well people need to have a certain amount of money to feed themselves and clothe them selves. I think just as it is a religious ideology to say that we should not Or put a limit upon a person’s freedom to make as much money as they want, we should also not put a lower limit and say that the amount of money that is needed for person to be content and happy and do what they want in life is dictated by how much money they would need to feed and clothe them selves.
I say this for the simple fact that I was homeless for A number of years and I was perfectly happy and content. I had no idea where I was going to get any money and I didn’t worry about what clothes I had on as long as I was warm enough from the winters, which was usually the case.
Now I may be an exceptional case, and granted it was only for maybe two or three years in my early 20s, at which time I opted into capitalist compatibility instead of a rugged individual holiness. But I think that my situation has the exception to the rule really shows where the rule marks off a religious ideology that perpetuates this ideal of freedom to make as much money as one wants.
but because indeed I am a human being and at that in the category of the exception, I feel, in a very postmodern kind of way, That there are people in the world that would rather live without cell phones, And would rather not be affected by the excesses of the society into which I contribute.
OK; so besides all that nonsense, let’s get back to my question.
My answer was $5 million a year. And my answer is based on just a rough estimate gained from friends that I know who make probably about that much year. Their whole life pretty much is their job, But they love their job and they love the life that they can afford. Ok.
These people basically can do whatever they want whenever they want. They can pretty much buy anything there is that is sold. They can get the best medical treatment, and the best legal representation. They can go on a vacation anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat. There is virtually no limit to what they are capable of doing from a financial standpoint.
So but given that perhaps there might be things larger or things that people could create that would cost more than they could purchase making $5 million a year– but let’s do the math. If you make $5 million a year, that means you are making approximately $13,000 every day.
Let that sink in. For much of my life I had to work for months of full-time work to make with this person ddoesin one day.
— but just for the sake of this idea of freedom to make however much money you want, let’s double that. Let’s say that if you actually think that you need more than $11 million a year — which is $26,000+ a day — then something is wrong with you.
Now, I’m not really making any ethical judgments on that kind of money. I have indeed been the benefactor of these friends who make so much money so I’m not going to complain.
But I am going to suggest something about what constitutes sanity. Can we make an argument about consumption and accumulation that makes a comment upon a person’s mental health?
But also keep in mind that the only way that I would even want to make $5 million a year would be if it was free. I would not feel comfortable by having probably any job that I would want to do that makes $13,000 a day. That’s just me. That’s where the ethics comes in in my book, but it’s just me . I wouldn’t feel comfortable charging someone $1500 an hour for anything that I would do.
But that’s just me. I feel like I would be taking advantage unfairly. That’s me being ethical. I’m not saying that people charge that amount money for their work say are unethical . But I am bringing up the possibility that they may be involved in something of an effort that is insane, reflecting a sort of mental instability, something that perhaps they should be regulated about and/or committed to an institution over.
Ok. Now we that Spat out that bullshit.
I’ve been reading this science-fiction series called “the expanse”.
It’s pretty cool I like it.
But edit the world is 1000 years in the future something like that, where humanity has begun to colonize our solar system. There’s a colony on Mars that has something like, I don’t know, 3 million people, and I feel like the earth has something like 64 billion people (I don’t quite remember what the figure was but it was huge) .And then there is people that live in the astroid belt and they work to get resources and materials for Mars and Earth.
Anyways I like his picture of the future of earth.
There are so many people and there is such a vast amounts of wealth that have accumulated, that those who make the large amounts of money, and this includes the government itself, actually makes so much money that the segment of the population which actually does work to make money can support a segment of the population that does not want to work, Who has no gumption and is made a choice to not work. These people do not get any money nor do they have any money, but because of the sheer vast wealth that circulates in the other segment of the population, such people get basic needs such as clothing food and shelter enough to live.
I kind a like that. I make no ethical proclamations on someone who is lazy, or someone who would rather spare change then go work at Burger King, or someone that would want rather sit around and get stoned rather than have any aspirations about doing something great in life. Innoway I kind of sccept that human beings as an organism generate members of this group that do not function within the system that the larger group enjoys or attempt to maintain. For people that want help sure let’s give them help. But the people that don’t want help hey you’re just kind of a generic byproduct of the human organism.
Now I haven’t really thought through this whole idea or my opinion. So I’m not making any judgments upon people or what we should do or what extent we should go to help people, or to what extent they might not be mentally healthy enough to want to contribute to society and their own well-being. I’m not making any comments about that.
But I am maybe suggesting that as the world society perhaps we are already entering the point where there is a Enough money to go around in a certain segment of society to support another segment of society that can’t support themselves. Perhaps we need to get out of this religious kind of ethical conundrum that went that were in that would say those people are bad people or lazy or something is mentally wrong with them or whatever sort of justification we use to keep ourselves going.
But I am making a kind of judgment on the sanity of someone who could not be happy making $26,000 a day.
I mean cant I want to contribute to society just because that’s what I want to do? Does every human being also have to have that same in level motivation for me to feel justified? And on the other side of it, do I have to understand my freedom in a context where people can amass as much power as they want? Perhaps my freedom is established in the awareness that freedom itself, just like food or drugs, can be abused. Perhaps where I feel a limitation on my freedom is exactly because these people are free to make as much money as they want, without anyone claiming upon them that perhaps there a little delusional in there appropriation of what is real and good.