No, what i propose is pretty much the opposite of crypto. You need physical exchange, not just abstract numbers.
Carrotwurst
joined 1 month ago
The "plebs" will develop a new currency of their own. And by this I basically mean anything from bottle caps to IOU notes etc. Monopoly money, whatever. Arguably they could use something actually valuable too but using an IOU-type thing kinda secures it against theft. Point is that it starts with small communities with some degree of trust of course. Alternatively, trade work for food and goods - but we're primed to use money so I think we're likely to just create a new currency since we already know it's simpler to just trade 5 bottle caps for a carrot than it is to wash dishes for... oh i dunno, 3 carrots or whatever.
This kinda is what we should be getting to do anyway at this point. The 1% should be regarded as a force of nature. You can't win against them anymore you can win against a volcano. Best you can do is work around them (instead of trying to beat them at their own game which they are constantly rigging in their favor anyway).
Money itself only has as much value as we give it.
I never said anything about the experience of burden. You're just making that assumption and skipping over the criteria of "freedom for EVERYONE". Not just the individual.
The hyper-individualist (who might see caring for others as burdensome) has to accept that EVERYONE has the same level of freedom as them - meaning if they allow everyone the same level of freedom as themselves, they must accept the possibility that nobody catches them as they fall (and that they may have to actively defend themselves against other people exercising their freedom the way they want) and thus, they must be willing and able to care for themselves in exact proportion to how much they want freedom for EVERYONE. This does include having the ABILITY to persuade other people to care for you the way you need (be it out of genuine love for one's family or by oppressive force - but again, everyone else has the same freedom).
On the other hand, if you want to be very collectivist and put emphasis on mutual care and group cohesion, you're going to have to accept that amount of limitations on EVERYONE's freedoms. Meaning you have responsibility to follow the social norms and rules of a collective. Laws, regulations, taxes. You're going to have to be subject to some kind of authority that keeps cohesion in place BUT that authority on the other hand does have the responsibility to provide care, services, general quality of life.
Where you land here is on nobody but you to figure out.
Also sure, people can demand freedom for themselves and oppression for others but seeing as absolute freedom is the natural state of humans prior to humans themselves conceiving limitations on it, their demands will always be subject to challenge. As in, they can demand it, but there is no non-human principle that grants them more freedom than others. Whatever rules they can break, so can anyone else.
I'm not making moral claims, nor am I saying what "should" be. I'm just pointing out an obvious feedback loop, which however does put the onus on the reader to figure out for themselves how much freedom they want to allow for everyone (again, not just themselves).
Seems to me you're trying to read what I said as a call for some "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" idea. Which is isn't, if you pay attention to the words I used.
Nope, I spoke of collective freedom and ability. Read the statement again with some thought.
I didn't say "the more freedom you want for yourself, the more you must take care of yourself". I spoke of freedom any one person wants to have for everyone, meaning themselves and others (including people with disabilities OR people they don't like). And I said you'd also need ableness in proportion to the level of freedom you want. If you aren't able and can't take care of yourself, it would be in your best interest to support systems that enable getting you the kind of support you need (though you don't have to, if you want to grant everyone the freedom to refuse to support you). And if one is so disabled that they can't do anything for themselves, they probably aren't too concerned about abstract societal freedoms to begin with.
No, I'm going by the real definitions of words. Charity by definition is something done in informal basis (and as such, it's unreliable). It's not welfare system - which Keller wanted (reliable egalitarianism). Keller herself was vocally against relying on charity as the sole system of support for the needy. She argued that as long as the disabled and the poor relied on the "generosity" of individuals, they remained subjects rather than citizens.
Where did I ever say that doing everything by yourself is better somehow? I pointed out specifically that she needed assistance. She didn't need someone to do everything for her, she needed someone to enable her to do as much as she could for herself, and that's also what kind of policies she fought for.
She needed tools and accommodations, not charity. She fought for systems that allowed her to participate, not for others to do things for her. That’s the difference between dependency and interdependence with autonomy. She fought for the level of the freedom she wanted for everyone as much as she was able.
"I’m free as hell. I choose to use my freedom to help my children, my wife, and my community. So no, they and I don’t need to be more capable of taking care of ourselves. "
Yeah, as I said, this is the level of freedom you want for everyone. People who freely associate with each other take care of each other.
Nothing has real or consistent value. Value is entirely human constructed. That's exactly why again: in small trusted communities, you can easily develop your own currency or a work-trade system. The only thing stopping people is their desire for the "universal money" that they consistently overvalue (which creates a feedback loop - everyone wants money because everyone wants money). But the thing is few people actually want money itself, they just want what they think money will get them. In communities you can (and should) exchange goods and services for other goods and services instead (again, requiring mutual trust). My proposition isn't outlandish either, economists etc. have talked about it too.
https://www.ijccr.net/article/view/9504/9190
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value
I see this as a sort of a mandala actually. "THE MONEY" has expanded so much that it has little contact with the center - the people - anymore. It's become more of a force of nature that we've lost control of on the level of the individual. Yes it provides limited structures but not enough to support. The solution is to start something new at the center, instead of pining after something that's way out of reach at the outskirts (and eventually this new thing will also expand beyond the reach of the individual, prompting another new start and so on).