Subject:
|
Re: Altruism is a bad idea? (was Re: Finally some church/state mingling that I can really get behind!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:44:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
>
> > ... any kind of work-to-earn-charity scheme seems
> > either to disqualify the relevent gift as charity or else to qualify all
> > payment-for-work as charity.
>
> No. If you give me a roof to put over my head for a nite, that may well be
> worth a lot more than an hour's time picking up the parking lot is worth.
This may simply be a matter of our differing perspectives. If you are a
uniquely qualified brain surgeon and you agree perform a highly complex
operation for $5.00, then that particular operation is worth (in dollar terms)
exactly $5.00. Actual price is assigned at the time of exchange (or time of
contract), ie: it's "what the market will bear."
If your hour's worth of sweeping gets you a room to sleep in overnight, then
your hour's worth of sweeping is worth one room overnight. If your benefactor
later decides that your hour's worth of sweeping is worth breakfast in the
morning, then your sweeping is worth a room overnight and a breakfast. Exchange
in trade doesn't strike me as materially different from exhange of
goods/services for cash/cash equivalent.
I'm willing to entertain different opinions, but I'm not yet convinced that
charity occurs automatically when price exceeds value.
> The DIFFERENCE in the values is charity. Asking that SOME value be received,
> even if not nearly what the value given is worth, makes it a bit better than
> altruism, where there isn't supposed to be any exchange in value, just a one
> directional grant.
So if someone buys my beat-up '78 Pinto for $40,000.00, then he's given me
$39,999.95 worth of charity? I don't agree with that, either. If a price is
set and that price is met, then the price is the price: no more, no less.
"Worth" or "value" in this case are abstracts that are, in my view, subordinate
to the actual price. Someone might think he scored a super deal on his
$40,000.00 Pinto purchase, but his assessment is based on his notion of the
car's value. Once the transaction is complete, the (paid) price is an absolute,
whereas the value remains subjective and abstract.
Again, it sounds as if you're using a kind of Randian definition (which
doesn't invalidate it, but it's not a definition with which I concur, so I'm not
interested in supporting it).
Dave!
How was Brickfest, by the bye? I sense that if my clone-o-phile soul ever
entered those hallowed grounds, I'd be stricken by a pox or something.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
47 Messages in This Thread:
  
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
