Human value and work

[ZephyrusX]

I am sort of experimenting with this thread. I said I didn’t want to play “GI Joe Zephy’ any more and I don’t. But I don’t want to stop talking about things that are important to me. So I will go ahead and post my thoughts. I have my trusty ignore list up and I can always just walk out of this thread if it gets too personally offensive.

Anyway, a common discourse I hear in Canada regarding the homeless and the unemployed is that they do not contribute to our society. And so, they don’t deserve access to our health care and social security. I find this problematic for two reasons. Having researched the issue, I know that the majority of people in Canada who are either homeless or collect social security have mental illnesses, disabilities, learning disabilities or are single parents. Very few people actually take advantage of social security. But more importantly since it relates to the topic of this thread, I think this is a totally deprived understanding of what constitutes human value. It is simplistic and dehumanizing. It overlooks the fact that they contribute to our lives in other ways. They may be raising children. They may be living with another family member and taking care of the house. They may share their stories with us and impart understanding and laughter. They may hold our hands when we are distress and comfort us. All of which reproduces labour, and more importantly, contributes to the quality of our lives in non-economic ways.

Why is human value so often limited to the market place? Is that the way we really want to understand human value and human nature?

I personally don’t want to see this thread decay into a debate over social security. I’ve heard it all before. Keep it to your self. I really only brought up the social security and marginalized populations for context. I’m more interested in our understanding of human value and exploring it. Let me hear stories. Those are always nice.

[Criseyde]

Have you ever read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? I think it goes a long way toward explaining WHY we are SO focused on work -- working long hours, basing our identity and worth on our work, etc.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Let me hear stories. Those are always nice.

Here is one of my own stories.

A few years back, I worked in down town Edmonton for two or three years. The area is crawling with homeless people. (Actually, we even had our own little 'tent town' for a little while until the city displaced the population). Anyway, there was this homeless man named John Doe (fake name) who always sat outside the same restaurant asking for change. He couldn't find work because he didn't know how to read. I suspect he had some sort of learning disability, but he never named any thing. He also had to go in for kidney dialysis way too frequently to be able to hold down a job.

The guy would talk to everyone! People would just sit down in the middle of the street with him and have a conversation for 10 minutes, 20 minutes. Some times we would talk about ordinary things like the weather or current events in Edmonton and Canada. We watched the gay pride together. Sometimes we would have more serious discussions. There is another older man, Joe Joe (yes, I'm creative ) who would talk to him almost every day. I remember a conversation we had where Joe Joe told us about growing up on a farm and how his family ended up losing the property. John Doe and I just listen to him. It was obviously important for him to get it off his chest.

John Doe didn't really speak much about being homeless or how he came to be homeless, but occasionally he would answer my questions. Because of him (and just watching and participating in his life), I gained insight into his life that I would never had learned from school.

This is a very serious question; think about it. Since when was human connection worthless?

(I'm using fake names because there are other people on this forum from Edmonton. If I used real names, they might know who I am talking about, and possibly through that connection, figure out my real identity... though I sort of doubt it... but stilll...)

[ZephyrusX]

I attempted to read it at one point. I don't remember what it is about, to be honest.

It is on the lines of predestination right? At birth, you are already pre-determined for 'heaven' or 'hell'. And wealth accumulation is suppose to be a sign for which path your are heading towards? Did I get it right?

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Have you ever read The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism? I think it goes a long way toward explaining WHY we are SO focused on work -- working long hours, basing our identity and worth on our work, etc.

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I attempted to read it at one point. I don't remember what it is about, to be honest.

It is on the lines of predestination right? At birth, you are already pre-determined for 'heaven' or 'hell'. And wealth accumulation is suppose to be a sign for which path your are heading towards? Did I get it right?

Sorta.

Weber makes the argument that the reason we are obsessed with work is because of our Puritan ancestors. They were Calvinists, and they did believe in predestination. They also didn't really believe in celebration -- life was supposed to be austere. And although they believed people were predestined for heaven or hell, there were supposed to be signs of which path you were on in this life -- so yes, wealth accumulation meant you were favored by God. So did having a very strong work ethic (especially because there was nothing else to do, you couldn't celebrate, haha ). Although the ideology faded somewhat, the work ethic continued, and this was a huge factor in the development of capitalism.

Of course, capitalism is essentially the rationalization of society: what you're talking about, measuring the value of a human by their market worth, is a perfect example.

[ZephyrusX]

I love Weber's use of words: 'polar night of icy darkness' . One thing I remember about Weber is that he doesn't sound like an overly optimistic dude.

Why use the word rationalization though? That seems to imply that our conception of human value is some how based on an objective measure. I suppose in a way, economic worth is objective and quantifiable. But we still choose to measure our self-worth by this measure. I could choose to do otherwise. Just taking economic worth as the de facto measure still seems like a blind, unquestioning system of belief. But then, I suppose belief is meant to convey order and stability.

I liked this quote:

Yet this strange-ness also has a more negative side. The stranger, because he cannot be controlled and ordered, is always the object of fear; he is the potential mugger, the person outside of society's borders who is constantly threatening.

People do crave order and meaning in their lives. If they can just take the measures of self-worth that are handed down to them, it will bring some sense of meaning into their lives. But, at the same time, I think it is incredibly dehumanizing and limited to define one’s value through the market place. There could be merit in busting open this measure even if it means facing uncertainty and doubt.

Whether or not this will happen en masse is a totally different question though. And I guess may be that is Weber's cause for pessimism.

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Sorta.

Weber makes the argument that the reason we are obsessed with work is because of our Puritan ancestors. They were Calvinists, and they did believe in predestination. They also didn't really believe in celebration -- life was supposed to be austere. And although they believed people were predestined for heaven or hell, there were supposed to be signs of which path you were on in this life -- so yes, wealth accumulation meant you were favored by God. So did having a very strong work ethic (especially because there was nothing else to do, you couldn't celebrate, haha ). Although the ideology faded somewhat, the work ethic continued, and this was a huge factor in the development of capitalism.

Of course, capitalism is essentially the rationalization of society: what you're talking about, measuring the value of a human by their market worth, is a perfect example.

[ZephyrusX]

Just a random question: What is the state of qualitative research and mixed-base research in the U.S? I'm trying to think of examples of where more qualitative methods are gaining widespread acceptance and the one that pops in my mind is qualitative research. Though it is mostly focussed in the social sciences. In the health industry, it is not accepted so much and if you create a qualitative research proposal, you'll get grilled. So I hear any way.

Still, even in health research, there are some researchers that see the merit in qualitative research that couldn't possibly be quantified and shoved into nice little categories.

[OptimistPrime]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Why is human value so often limited to the market place?

I think Criseyde hit the nail on the head, with regard to some of the sociological origins in Anglophone North America.

I'd be curious to know what, if any, differences there are in Quebec and Mexico with regard to work ethic. Not to semi-derail your thread, but does anyone have some stories about that?

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Is that the way we really want to understand human value and human nature?

I don't. Of course, it took me about a decade of consistent effort to stop believing the Universe did.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Let me hear stories. Those are always nice.

I feel like I'd be repeating myself if I retold my story here, so I'll just link to this. As you can see, not valuing myself or others in terms of success in the marketplace is Kind of a Big Deal for me.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

I'd be curious to know what, if any, differences there are in Quebec and Mexico with regard to work ethic. Not to semi-derail your thread, but does anyone have some stories about that?

I don't mind. I ask a lot of semi-derailing questions my self. Actually, I would be interested in the answer. I hear that France values it's leisure time more so than North Amercia, though I think this is changing.

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

I feel like I'd be repeating myself if I retold my story here, so I'll just link to this. As you can see, not valuing myself or others in terms of success in the marketplace is Kind of a Big Deal for me.

Thanks for the link.

I liked the idea of not conditioning your sense of identity on any one position in the market. I never really thought about it that way. I just assumed that I would end up as a sociologist or may be a lawyer during my undergrad. (I ended up in library school. ). I like your idea though.

[Cochonette]

Well. People also objectify each other. I have heard a libertarian on this board say they thought people who didn't have a job were worthless members of society and should not exist (like, go die or something). That is what I call objectification: that you do not view a subjective, sentient being as a means unto themself, but only as a means unto society.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Why is human value so often limited to the market place?

We are an economically dominated society. As far as I can tell (not based on data), we came up with economic principles because we couldn't figure out how else to create trust in very large groups (larger than 250 or so). So between the rise of the bureaucracy and the identification of people with nations, we needed an intermediary for getting what we wanted in a reliable (read: trustworthy) manner. That intermediary took many forms: priesthoods, kings and their agents, contracts: but the overwhelming success story was money.

Thus, we stopped needing to trust others, or at least constantly evaluate their trustworthiness. If your money is good, the cashier doesn't care who you are. (This goes a little ways towards explaining why socialization is oddly difficult and why money has a curious tendency towards making friendships awkward.) So we got out of practice.

So how do you know you can trust that homeless man to be making a meaningful contribution to society? You don't know him. Well, the de facto standard for a trust-substitute is money. Is he making money? Is he producing any? No, if anything, he's consuming it. And the way our economies are designed, money is finite. It's scarce. If he takes enough, that means there won't be as much for you. The obvious conclusion? He's a drain on society. He's contributing nothing.

Now granted, it's not this simple. There are a bunch of other dynamics, like status and stigma, that are also in the way. But you asked about money and the market.

(P.S. If it wasn't obvious, my current obsession these days is how to do large-scale trust generation without objectification. I want to believe it would fix the world.)

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Is that the way we really want to understand human value and human nature?

Who is "we"?

I don't. In fact, most people looking down disgustedly on the homeless and the unemployed, don't understand human value fully this way. I'd guess that a large percentage of them are married men with stay-at-home wives. What contribution to society are their wives making, except through their men? Deepens the sexism a bit, doesn't it? But they're valuable, subjectively, to their husbands. Perhaps.

Doubt they realize that, though.

[Cochonette]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

We are an economically dominated society. As far as I can tell (not based on data), we came up with economic principles because we couldn't figure out how else to create trust in very large groups (larger than 250 or so). So between the rise of the bureaucracy and the identification of people with nations, we needed an intermediary for getting what we wanted in a reliable (read: trustworthy) manner. That intermediary took many forms: priesthoods, kings and their agents, contracts: but the overwhelming success story was money.

Thus, we stopped needing to trust others, or at least constantly evaluate their trustworthiness. If your money is good, the cashier doesn't care who you are. (This goes a little ways towards explaining why socialization is oddly difficult and why money has a curious tendency towards making friendships awkward.) So we got out of practice.

So how do you know you can trust that homeless man to be making a meaningful contribution to society? You don't know him. Well, the de facto standard for a trust-substitute is money. Is he making money? Is he producing any? No, if anything, he's consuming it. And the way our economies are designed, money is finite. It's scarce. If he takes enough, that means there won't be as much for you. The obvious conclusion? He's a drain on society. He's contributing nothing.

Now granted, it's not this simple. There are a bunch of other dynamics, like status and stigma, that are also in the way. But you asked about money and the market.

(P.S. If it wasn't obvious, my current obsession these days is how to do large-scale trust generation without objectification. I want to believe it would fix the world.)



Who is "we"?

I don't. In fact, most people looking down disgustedly on the homeless and the unemployed, don't understand human value fully this way. I'd guess that a large percentage of them are married men with stay-at-home wives. What contribution to society are their wives making, except through their men? Deepens the sexism a bit, doesn't it? But they're valuable, subjectively, to their husbands. Perhaps.

Doubt they realize that, though.

Interesting post.

Some Republican kid told me once that women exist merely to provide for men, who are the only real producers of the world. I was shocked. What an outdated way of viewing things, and this kid was pretty educated. Well, he was seriously studying quantum physics and pretty smart, but he thought this way.

[ZephyrusX]

Yah, interesting post.

I'm interested in this:

P.S. If it wasn't obvious, my current obsession these days is how to do large-scale trust generation without objectification. I want to believe it would fix the world.)

Is this something you have discussed already on this forum and can link to?

Interesting post.

Some Republican kid told me once that women exist merely to provide for men, who are the only real producers of the world. I was shocked. What an outdated way of viewing things, and this kid was pretty educated. Well, he was seriously studying quantum physics and pretty smart, but he thought this way.

Unfortunately, my mother seems to have internalized this view. I was also thinking about women, domestic labour and child rearing when I wrote the original post, but I left it out to make things more sensible. My mother will say stuff 'What have I done with my life!?'. She raised four kids. How is that not valuable?

To be fair though, there is probably more going on at the back of her head that she just isn't telling me.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Is this something you have discussed already on this forum and can link to?

Not really. I have a bunch of disparate ideas floating around, but nothing cogent enough for me to believe, nevermind write down. I hinted at it a little back in the "Calling All Educators" thread, but I didn't put much in there. I can give a few loose thoughts:

Morihei Ueshiba, Art of Peace #32: "Economy is the basis of society. When the economy is stable, society develops. The ideal economy combines the spiritual and the material, and the best commodities to trade in are sincerity and love." There's a little Confucius in there, but I don't like Confucius.

Trust is built out of three things: the capacity of another person for respect, intelligence, and empathy. Respect being a recognition of dignity; intelligence being a good understanding of choices; and empathy being a perceptiveness of suffering.

Democracy is a good form of government (rather than a least bad form), because its trust mechanism depends on individual people being fully acknowledged. Contrast with other models: monarchy depends on the king being trustworthy + powerful. In theory, anyways. Democracy worked out better in some countries than others. But nevertheless: forcing the issue to be a dependency on each other means that we have occasion and need to practice trusting each other. Unfortunately, we suck at it. Something's missing.

I wonder if we make a mistake in treating friendship as a matter-of-course rather than an ideal. Check out: Faux Friendship - The Chronicle Review - The Chronicle of Higher Education for instance. Using the word "friend" to describe a relationship used to be a big deal.

We make a really, really big deal out of marriage, though. In the same vein as my last post, I think that marriage is one of those attempts at building trust as an intermediary. It was one of the better ones, and I feel it's gotten perverted a bit in our day and age. I wrote somewhere else that marriage, from time immemorial, is a societal tool to manifest stability, whether it was hot-blooded males, between tribes or between dynasties, a unit of offspring production, or a microcosmic representation of the union between Christ and church.

I think marriage is a big deal today because we've devalued friendship as a society. Like, we still recognize that it's a wonderful thing, but it's not impressive. You don't write epics like Iliad or Gilgamesh or David and Saul or Don Quixote that are mostly about "these two dudes were friends and they did stuff and generic mythological figure said 'That's good!'".

So if we can shunt marriage to the side and put friendship closer up there to it (why is "friendzoning" bad? Friends are good things!), and maybe drop sex down from its pedestal down to something more matter-of-fact, then maybe the point of marriage can stop being about two people in union and more about, say, taking care of children. And since I really like polyamory, it could be lots of people taking care of children. It takes a village? No such thing as adultery: just criminal forms of negligence. So marriage is still a contract that does the stability thing, but the focus is more honest (or more insistent; take your pick).

The great thing about money is that it's cold, impersonal, and quantifiable. The really crappy thing about money is that it's cold, impersonal, and quantifiable. It really stands out as the least-worst way to interact with complete strangers for resolving trustworthiness in an time-efficient manner: it's not about you-the-customer trusting a Starbucks barista to get you a decent coffee, it's about you-the-vendor/employee/whatever getting a reliable store of value that can be used to redeem actual value somewhere and sometime later. That's hard. It's really, really hard. Once you take that out, a whole system of motivation and enterprising attitude gets torn apart. Barter is great and I.O.U.s are heartwarming, but it doesn't work well without social grooming. We don't have time for that kind of grooming.

So, you could say, just go back to Ueshiba up there. "Sincerity and love" sound awesome, but how? I don't know. It'd be great, f'rinstance, if you could analyze how much happiness people produce and use that instead of money. But that's hard! And non-transferable. And it's not enough for me to go live on a commune for the rest of my life, because there are several billion other people and they're kind of important to me.

AND THEN, we have questions of justice. Not just social justice, which I'm already glossing over, but also rule of law (which is important because it's something we can discuss rather than someone's whim; another trust mechanism that has stuck around) which spells out somewhat arbitrary restrictions and an idea of proportionate response for violation. Then again, "justice is about harmony", or at least courts are. Maybe? Perhaps?

But anyways. You get down to this one simple question: how can you quickly assess the trustworthiness of another person without resorting to turning them into widgets on your production line?

There's trust at a governmental level, in that you're not going to take up arms and march on the capital. There's trust on the social level, in that you can become vulnerable without getting exiled. There's trust on an economic level, in that value production and exchange can happen with capital resources in an efficient manner.

And the big deal being that trust creates personal space inside which we can work peacefully and make things even more better. I can only write all this because I trust the inter-networked system of routers and servers, the construction of the building around me, the surety of having food tomorrow, the disinclination or inability of my neighbors to come and raid my face.

Aaand there's probably more but I need to go to bed and I'm running down anyways.

*pause* Oh right, I forgot science. Peer review and journal exclusivity is just so... meh. And art. I don't even know what the question is for art. yeahimdonenow

[Criseyde]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I love Weber's use of words: 'polar night of icy darkness' . One thing I remember about Weber is that he doesn't sound like an overly optimistic dude.

Not so much.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

Why use the word rationalization though? That seems to imply that our conception of human value is some how based on an objective measure. I suppose in a way, economic worth is objective and quantifiable. But we still choose to measure our self-worth by this measure. I could choose to do otherwise. Just taking economic worth as the de facto measure still seems like a blind, unquestioning system of belief. But then, I suppose belief is meant to convey order and stability.

Rationalization is a word that has a specific meaning in sociology, which is why I linked it to Wikipedia:

Rationalization (or rationalisation) is a term used in sociology to refer to the process where an increasing number of social actions become based on considerations of teleological efficiency or calculation rather than on motivations derived from morality, emotion, custom, or tradition.

It sort of arises from positivistic thinking: the idea that societies can be understood using the scientific method; that human behavior is predictable and can be observed objectively, and that we can use this predictability and objectivity to better the society. I don't think Weber automatically believes that positivism is a good thing.

Another book recommendation: Against Method by Paul Feyerabend. That book seriously changed my life. I've never thought of things the same way again.

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

People do crave order and meaning in their lives. If they can just take the measures of self-worth that are handed down to them, it will bring some sense of meaning into their lives. But, at the same time, I think it is incredibly dehumanizing and limited to define one’s value through the market place. There could be merit in busting open this measure even if it means facing uncertainty and doubt.

Whether or not this will happen en masse is a totally different question though. And I guess may be that is Weber's cause for pessimism.

Agreed.

[Criseyde]

Michael, that was incredibly interesting and I really enjoyed reading it. I'd like to hear any more thoughts you might have on the subject.

[ZenPhysicist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

They may be raising children. They may be living with another family member and taking care of the house. They may share their stories with us and impart understanding and laughter. They may hold our hands when we are distress and comfort us. All of which reproduces labour, and more importantly, contributes to the quality of our lives in non-economic ways.

I can tell why you have a hard time understanding society's opinion on this one. It's because you have compared money and the things in the quote above. I would think that if that is what they give - that is what they deserve. No? Seems your reasoning would go "If they give us a laugh and share stories with us - why don't we at least speak to them when we walk by them and try to cheer them up?"

Social security equals compensation. Regardless of how you see it - there are ways to be compensated for telling stories - be an Author. Are you funny? Be a comedian. Are you caring? Be a nurse or a care taker. If you are mentally ill and unable to work - I think you should get, but you are not entitled to, support. Ultimately the person's family and community should shoulder the burden.

[OptimistPrime]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

why is "friendzoning" bad? Friends are good things!

Loved this.

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Another book recommendation: Against Method by Paul Feyerabend. That book seriously changed my life. I've never thought of things the same way again.

Oh, awesome. Have you seen this? As someone with a fondness for that book myself, I rather enjoyed it.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

*pause* Oh right, I forgot science. Peer review and journal exclusivity is just so... meh. And art. I don't even know what the question is for art. yeahimdonenow

lol - thanks Michael. I'll read the links you posted and think about what you said.

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Another book recommendation: Against Method by Paul Feyerabend. That book seriously changed my life. I've never thought of things the same way again.

I'll just read the books rather than blindly poking your mind.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by OptimistPrime

I'd be curious to know what, if any, differences there are in Quebec and Mexico with regard to work ethic. Not to semi-derail your thread, but does anyone have some stories about that?

I don't know about the work ethic in Quebec, but I can talk about the work ethic in Mexico...

It is complicated. On the one hand people in a middle income job work way harder than anyone in the Netherlands (where I come from). They work normally from 9 till 7 with a 2 hour lunch break. But if more work needs to be done, if the boss asks to stay longer... they will do that, without over time, extra pay etc.

On the other hand, there is a prevailing prejudice about the lower income class that they'll do anything to not work. They are slow, doing jobs in 2 hours that take 20 minutes, cheat if you don't haggle for the lowest price etc.

I haven't found that true myself, but since everybody treats lower income working people like they would cheat, and try to get the most work out of the least money.... guess what? They will.

Which came first? I don't know.

I do know that I much prefer to give out "tips" to people washing car windows on the street, buying water from someone selling it on the highway when there is a traffic jam... then having those people forced into kidnapping or drug trade to feed their family.

Personally I think every human being has value simply because they are alive. Those who are homeless have very right to health care and social security as those who work.

However, I also think it is the governments job not only to give out fish to people, but to teach them how to fish as well.

I think that there are jobs to be found for those who cannot hold jobs, even if that would be government sponsored. How about being responsible for keeping clean and cleaning up a park or part of a park or a street? If they are there anyway, they might as well do something useful

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Personally I think every human being has value simply because they are alive. Those who are homeless have very right to health care and social security as those who work.

Thank you! Believe it or not, I usually either hear no opinion on the matter or something along the lines of this:

Well. People also objectify each other. I have heard a libertarian on this board say they thought people who didn't have a job were worthless members of society and should not exist (like, go die or something). That is what I call objectification: that you do not view a subjective, sentient being as a means unto themself, but only as a means unto society.

I have family who do not formally work in the market place for reasons I don't really want to discuss so these type of issues really hit a sore spot. Its odd. Someone can say horrible things about my gender or sex orientation and usually I won't care so much. If someone says something classist, I want to smack them silly.

Originally Posted by ssandra

However, I also think it is the governments job not only to give out fish to people, but to teach them how to fish as well.

I think that there are jobs to be found for those who cannot hold jobs, even if that would be government sponsored. How about being responsible for keeping clean and cleaning up a park or part of a park or a street? If they are there anyway, they might as well do something useful

I agree. I think work and acknowledgement for one's work are fundamental aspects of being human. These are just my observations talking to people who are on social security, but when you have a mental illness or a disability that makes it difficult for you to find work in the market, it can really be discouraging and it makes you feel very depressed. I think a lot of homeless people just give up hope, though in saying that, I don't mean to say that their lives are totally desolate and without personal meaning. There is a group of homeless people I walk by to work and they are always laughing and playing around with each other. But I think hopelessness is a big motivating factor.

The government could step in and do something about it. I know they will give subsidies to businesses that hire disabled people. There are private enterprises too though. There was some guy in Canada that started a business that was meant only to employ people with disabilities. I'll try to find the article again as it was very inspiring.

I wonder if anyone ever took up your idea regarding cleaning up parks. May be the city would pay a small sum towards an organization that hires homeless and unemployed populations in order to clean up?

[Tanemon]

Societies exist because people do work and people take responsibility. But while this is a basic fact, I don't mean for it to reflect badly on homeless people (people with disabilities, etc).

I've always found the following to be quite interesting (though historical, and connected with a particular society)... provides food for worthwhile thought about generalities of human worth, needs of society, the value of work, etc.

You've heard of Zen Buddhism, right? This is how it got started... Buddhism developed in India, from the spiritual teaching of one historical individual ("the Buddha"), who lived about 2500 years ago. In India, holy men like Buddha were supported by the populace through donations of food, shelter, clothing, etc. About 1500 years ago, some emissary practioner/teachers of Buddhism began to wander over into China. There were some people in China who - recognizing holy men and valuing them - provided food. For a while... a few generations.

Then, the Chinese people began to look askance at these freeloaders. (The Chinese have always been extremely practical, hardworking, inventive & clever - and socially conscious, in the sense of believing in family-level responsibility.) The social situation demanded that these Buddihists support themselves and not rely solely on hand-outs. The Buddhists adapted by learning to become - besides meditators, people of intrinsic worth, and teachers - farmers, carpenters, architects, and healers. They formed their own communities, worked at practical things as well as being individuals pursuing a path of personal development and personal liberation. That's how Ch'an Buddhism (called Zen Buddhism, by the Japanese) came into being.

Our modern societies are more populous and complex, but I've always felt some implications are pretty clear. Through the centuries, there have probably been handicapped individuals living amongst the Zen Buddhists, but someone has to do the work needed for material existence. And it's natural to value those people.

[ZenPhysicist]

Originally Posted by ssandra

Personally I think every human being has value simply because they are alive. Those who are homeless have very right to health care and social security as those who work.

Maybe I am splitting hairs - but I would be careful about describing health care as a right - especially a human right. Rand Paul (a libertarian) tried to make this point - but he failed miserably. Of course, health care is not a right. For example, if there is an event where many people are hurt and al the local hospitals are filled to capacity (such as Hurricane Katrina, Sept. 11, etc.) Some people will be turned away, or simply not helped due to no medical staff available. If they have a right to medical care - we would have to say that their rights were violated. This example is extreme - but meant to show that medical care is a privilege - not a right. In countries where the law says you get social security or health care if you meet certain criteria, then it could be argued that you have a right to those things when those criteria are met, but it is still not a basic human right.

Human Rights tend to be things that center around being treated fairly, and equally.

[ZenPhysicist]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

I have family who do not formally work in the market place for reasons I don't really want to discuss so these type of issues really hit a sore spot. Its odd. Someone can say horrible things about my gender or sex orientation and usually I won't care so much. If someone says something classist, I want to smack them silly.

I would ask why you don't provide healthcare for those of your family that need it? Or why not you and the rest of your family get together and provide it? Really, that is the basic question. I like the idea of everyone being able to have healthcare - but resources are limited. In a case where 2 ambulances arrive at a hospital at the same time - 2 different people with the same injury - and only 1 can be treated - will it be the person that is helping to pay the doctors' salaries - or the guy who has been chilling on the street for the past 10 years? Which one is more fair? I say that if there is a system of healthcare provided by society - we have to reward those that WORK and make such a system possible. Some get left behind - the government can't make everyone's outcome equal. Its not possible, and that is not what they are there for in the first place.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Michael, that was incredibly interesting and I really enjoyed reading it. I'd like to hear any more thoughts you might have on the subject.

Because it's such a vast topic (using the singular "topic" feels... inadequate), it's hard to talk about it generally. If you have questions, I can certainly do my best to answer them, but I've found that every approach to the subject I take teases me with all the things I'm leaving out.

But thanks, everyone, for enjoying it.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZenPhysicist

If they have a right to medical care - we would have to say that their rights were violated.

I'm willing to say that their rights were violated. Why aren't you?

[ZenPhysicist]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

I'm willing to say that their rights were violated. Why aren't you?

Not at all. In certain cases the doctors themselves need doctors because they are injured (think Katrina.) If a terrorist set off a bomb in a hospital the doctors would be victims themselves, and at the same time also liable for not helping the other victims due to the "healthcare right" - Nahhh

That is the crux of the argument. Doctors are not state employees. Technically - you cant force them to do anything. So your right to healthcare has no way to be enforced. Resources are limited and there will be times when, sadly, those resources will not be enough to service everyone. That is where we find the current state of healthcare in America. What, should Uncle Sam force doctors to work longer hours, or maybe force more people to become doctors in order to keep up?

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by ssandra

However, I also think it is the governments job not only to give out fish to people, but to teach them how to fish as well.

I think that there are jobs to be found for those who cannot hold jobs, even if that would be government sponsored. How about being responsible for keeping clean and cleaning up a park or part of a park or a street? If they are there anyway, they might as well do something useful

I really liked this comment with its 'project implications'. I never went into the social services (despite having a BA in sociology) because I always thought of my self as being tied to the government. If the government doesn't provide adequate funding, then thats it. But that is not really true. The idea of coming up with my own little project scares the hell out of me though, tbh. Oh well, all the more reason to do it.

Library school is actually very confusing because there are so many different routes you can take with a MLIS degree. But there is an library organization in Canada that works with the homeless and other marginalized populations. Some libraries will hire community librarians who build networks with other social agencies in order to provide resources to specific, marginalized populations. I think I'll go down this route. I think there will be more emphasis on literacy and learning, but that doesn't mean that I can't some how build work and labour into projects.

Thanks for the post ssandra!

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by ZenPhysicist

Not at all. In certain cases the doctors themselves need doctors because they are injured (think Katrina.) If a terrorist set off a bomb in a hospital the doctors would be victims themselves, and at the same time also liable for not helping the other victims due to the "healthcare right" - Nahhh

That is the crux of the argument. Doctors are not state employees. Technically - you cant force them to do anything. So your right to healthcare has no way to be enforced. Resources are limited and there will be times when, sadly, those resources will not be enough to service everyone. That is where we find the current state of healthcare in America. What, should Uncle Sam force doctors to work longer hours, or maybe force more people to become doctors in order to keep up?

What exactly is it that you think a human right is...? You seem to be confusing human rights with legal code? They're very different.

[ZenPhysicist]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

What exactly is it that you think a human right is...? You seem to be confusing human rights with legal code? They're very different.

I'd say human rights are often violated by the legal code. Much of drug enforcement comes to mind. My previous point is that the concept of help requires at minimum 2 people - a helper and a person who is helped (supposing it is not self help.) Now, the government can say you have a right to a thing - say legal counsel. They hire lawyers to help you. You have a right to help in an emergency - they hire police, firefighters, emts. But out government has never been in the business of providing health care and they are not able to hire the number of doctors required. You cannot simply make up a new right and not provide a means for that right to be fulfilled. Who would treat all the people that would go to the clinic demanding to exercise their right to healthcare? There are not enough medical professionals for that - nor is there enough money to pay to school and hire all those that would be needed.