Society is transactional. If you want to get something you need to give something. Why? Go find a libertarian. Ask them what services they use they don’t want to pay for and they will give you a list. Then ask them what services they DO use they are paying extra for and wait for the stunned silence.
Society isn’t strictly transactional either. That is a big part of the reason why libertarianism is such a fundamentally flawed, swiss cheese ideology.
To give you a gigantic counterexample: when social security started nobody had paid a dime into it. The first seniors to receive social security received it directly from the people that were working and paying into it. The same kind of thing happens today. Despite ignorant insistence that social security should be a “bank account” of some sort, it is not. Today’s seniors receive their checks from today’s tax payers.
Please prove me wrong and tell me about all the social services and general good doing you do with no strings attached.
The idea that altruism isn’t simply rare but completely non-existent is simply…incorrect. There are multitudes of examples of it throughout history and if you look closely enough those continue into the present.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that humans are mostly good – like Penn Gillette-style libertarians often do when their arguments are pressed upon. But I wouldn’t say they’re all inherently selfish goblins either. In large parts, we are on top of the food chain because of our ability to cooperate with each other. Evidence of the cooperative spirit of humanity is all around you if you look closely enough.
(As I type my reply into an open-source browser on a decentralized platform on an open-source OS.)
The idea that altruism isn’t simply rare but completely non-existent is simply…incorrect.
Here we have hit on the issue. People can be, and are to a surprising degree altruistic. It is not a normal form of operation though because it isn’t guaranteed, and out certainly isn’t the norm for how we all interact with each other. There are homeless shelters, food banks, soup kitchens, and this sort of thing help the most disadvantaged, but those provide services until they run out of space or materials and that’s it. The ones that run on donations and that are funded by angel donors are indeed altruistic.
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. It’s entirely transactional because everyone is obliged to pay a portion of their income into the pool. For countries with free education it’s the same thing: everybody pays in so students can go at little or no cost.
And here is the rub and the original point: educators don’t and SHOULDNT be expected to work for free. Leaving aside the facilities and support staff that also needs paid at a university, it would be unconscionable to expect to go for free and just let those people figure out how to eat. Scholarships are another form of altruism which is loosely relevant, but generally speaking I think what you are considering non transactional situations to actually be those that have been collectively paid by our taxes. Socialized, if you will :).
Make no mistake though, we are all expected to put money in if possible, and then we all benefit at the end.
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 think I’ve made my point clear several times over. I don’t actually have much interest or an agenda about some specific type of educational policy.
Maybe ask professors their opinion on what the policies should be? Though I’m sure their opinion doesn’t matter much because American educational policy is set by politicians and capitalists – though I repeat myself.
Society isn’t strictly transactional either. That is a big part of the reason why libertarianism is such a fundamentally flawed, swiss cheese ideology.
To give you a gigantic counterexample: when social security started nobody had paid a dime into it. The first seniors to receive social security received it directly from the people that were working and paying into it. The same kind of thing happens today. Despite ignorant insistence that social security should be a “bank account” of some sort, it is not. Today’s seniors receive their checks from today’s tax payers.
The idea that altruism isn’t simply rare but completely non-existent is simply…incorrect. There are multitudes of examples of it throughout history and if you look closely enough those continue into the present.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say that humans are mostly good – like Penn Gillette-style libertarians often do when their arguments are pressed upon. But I wouldn’t say they’re all inherently selfish goblins either. In large parts, we are on top of the food chain because of our ability to cooperate with each other. Evidence of the cooperative spirit of humanity is all around you if you look closely enough.
(As I type my reply into an open-source browser on a decentralized platform on an open-source OS.)
Here we have hit on the issue. People can be, and are to a surprising degree altruistic. It is not a normal form of operation though because it isn’t guaranteed, and out certainly isn’t the norm for how we all interact with each other. There are homeless shelters, food banks, soup kitchens, and this sort of thing help the most disadvantaged, but those provide services until they run out of space or materials and that’s it. The ones that run on donations and that are funded by angel donors are indeed altruistic.
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. It’s entirely transactional because everyone is obliged to pay a portion of their income into the pool. For countries with free education it’s the same thing: everybody pays in so students can go at little or no cost.
And here is the rub and the original point: educators don’t and SHOULDNT be expected to work for free. Leaving aside the facilities and support staff that also needs paid at a university, it would be unconscionable to expect to go for free and just let those people figure out how to eat. Scholarships are another form of altruism which is loosely relevant, but generally speaking I think what you are considering non transactional situations to actually be those that have been collectively paid by our taxes. Socialized, if you will :).
Make no mistake though, we are all expected to put money in if possible, and then we all benefit at the end.
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.
I think I’ve made my point clear several times over. I don’t actually have much interest or an agenda about some specific type of educational policy.
Maybe ask professors their opinion on what the policies should be? Though I’m sure their opinion doesn’t matter much because American educational policy is set by politicians and capitalists – though I repeat myself.