By and large though, services provided by society to its members are not handled that way. Social security has its flaws, but it’s not altruistic because the first seniors got it for free: they were lucky.
I don’t consider any system as being altruistic even if the people involved in the system are supposed to be. So, I will not argue that social security is or was altruistic.
An implied point I’m making is that “society” is just a bunch of people. It contains systems that we made, use, and maintain. Many (or perhaps most) of those systems have been – intentionally or unintentionally – designed to be somewhere along the spectrum between simply transactional and outright hostile to altruism. For example, we still have laws on the books against people going out to the parking meters and feeding them for others whose parking is about to expire.
But these are choices. The rules of society and its systems – policies and their implementations – are built and arranged by people. These are not the only possible choices, and these are not the only possible systems.
I guess I didn’t know what outcome(s) you would like or expect?
I think “we should provide education free of charge (paid by taxes)” is great and would be beneficial at all levels.
Contrarily, I think “I should get free education and not have to pay for it or provide any effort at reciprocity” sounds and feels super entitled and shitty. It sounds exceptional, and like the libertarian examples before to me.
I guess I didn’t know what outcome(s) you would like or expect?
The actual outcome I would like is for people to take a break from looking at what the current system is and trying to provide an abstract, philosophical foundation from which to justify it.
Contrarily, I think “I should get free education and not have to pay for it or provide any effort at reciprocity” sounds and feels super entitled and shitty.
Perhaps contrarily, I think it sounds liberating…and better than our current system of “I should go into non-dischargeable debt to obtain credentials to get a job at evil corp and then have to pay 20x the amount of the loan to get out from under the debt”.
But my point isn’t that you have to go to a complete opposite system either, my point is that the way that it works today – speaking abstractly as this whole diversion began – isn’t the only way it could work despite everyone’s insistence that it has to be that way because of “society” or whatever.
Not everything is transactional. Not everything is a zero-sum game. When you teach people things, you often learn something yourself.
The people replying to me in this thread have a tendency to snap into a absolutist perspective. But if you cannot even dream of something different than debt slavery and other shitty institutions and even your thought experiments are all exercises to justify crappy systems in the abstract, then the greedy goblins have already won a total victory because they have already captured your imagination in addition to everything else.
In order to be able to improve anything, you have to first be able to imagine that improvement is possible.
I guess we are almost there, but I don’t know what the dream option is that you’re aiming for.
One individual cannot just say “go to hell, I’m taking an education and running” without breaking the social contract. What is the angle you want, because all you’ve said that I’ve read is “be open to the thought experiment” but I don’t know what that means to you. Tangibly, not in the non-committal abstract.
I don’t make educational policy dude, I’m a random guy on social media. What I want is irrelevant.
As far as the social contract, when did anyone sign one of those? Because I look around nowadays and certainly see a lot of people breaking it with absolute impunity.
I know you don’t make policy, but here we are exchanging ideas. I’m having. Heard time getting at your point, but I don’t think that’s because you don’t have one. I think it’s because we are almost lined up but still talking past each other.
There are certainly people who break the social contract, but reciprocity is pretty deeply ingrained in each of us. There’s like a whole chapter in “Influence” by Robert Cialdini on reciprocity and I thought it was compelling.
I don’t consider any system as being altruistic even if the people involved in the system are supposed to be. So, I will not argue that social security is or was altruistic.
An implied point I’m making is that “society” is just a bunch of people. It contains systems that we made, use, and maintain. Many (or perhaps most) of those systems have been – intentionally or unintentionally – designed to be somewhere along the spectrum between simply transactional and outright hostile to altruism. For example, we still have laws on the books against people going out to the parking meters and feeding them for others whose parking is about to expire.
But these are choices. The rules of society and its systems – policies and their implementations – are built and arranged by people. These are not the only possible choices, and these are not the only possible systems.
I guess I didn’t know what outcome(s) you would like or expect?
I think “we should provide education free of charge (paid by taxes)” is great and would be beneficial at all levels.
Contrarily, I think “I should get free education and not have to pay for it or provide any effort at reciprocity” sounds and feels super entitled and shitty. It sounds exceptional, and like the libertarian examples before to me.
The actual outcome I would like is for people to take a break from looking at what the current system is and trying to provide an abstract, philosophical foundation from which to justify it.
Perhaps contrarily, I think it sounds liberating…and better than our current system of “I should go into non-dischargeable debt to obtain credentials to get a job at evil corp and then have to pay 20x the amount of the loan to get out from under the debt”.
But my point isn’t that you have to go to a complete opposite system either, my point is that the way that it works today – speaking abstractly as this whole diversion began – isn’t the only way it could work despite everyone’s insistence that it has to be that way because of “society” or whatever.
Not everything is transactional. Not everything is a zero-sum game. When you teach people things, you often learn something yourself.
The people replying to me in this thread have a tendency to snap into a absolutist perspective. But if you cannot even dream of something different than debt slavery and other shitty institutions and even your thought experiments are all exercises to justify crappy systems in the abstract, then the greedy goblins have already won a total victory because they have already captured your imagination in addition to everything else.
In order to be able to improve anything, you have to first be able to imagine that improvement is possible.
I guess we are almost there, but I don’t know what the dream option is that you’re aiming for.
One individual cannot just say “go to hell, I’m taking an education and running” without breaking the social contract. What is the angle you want, because all you’ve said that I’ve read is “be open to the thought experiment” but I don’t know what that means to you. Tangibly, not in the non-committal abstract.
I don’t make educational policy dude, I’m a random guy on social media. What I want is irrelevant.
As far as the social contract, when did anyone sign one of those? Because I look around nowadays and certainly see a lot of people breaking it with absolute impunity.
I know you don’t make policy, but here we are exchanging ideas. I’m having. Heard time getting at your point, but I don’t think that’s because you don’t have one. I think it’s because we are almost lined up but still talking past each other.
There are certainly people who break the social contract, but reciprocity is pretty deeply ingrained in each of us. There’s like a whole chapter in “Influence” by Robert Cialdini on reciprocity and I thought it was compelling.