General Difficulties & Solution

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

It has been suggested that the server for the podcast may have oversold, causing problems with downloading. Every now and then it is impossible to get on GF because the server is too busy. I'm sure you're doing the best you can afford to do, but there is still a bit of a need here.

Furthermore, Kevin is living off independent computer programming, which is somewhere between commendable and a miracle, and Dan is still messing with unemployment (sidenote - I believe what David is doing with disability is very ethical). You guys are doing a good job, but we could use having Kevin around some more, and Dan's use of the unemployment services is grey-area, ethics wise. If you collected some donations, it would help you get better services for the forum and podcasts, we could have Kevin around a bit more, and it would brighten Dan's ethics situation.

Will you sign up for pay-pal and put a donate now button on all your pages? You might even want to set yourselves up as an official not-for-profit organization with the purpose of spreading reason & wisdom. Work out your mission statement.

[Dan Rowden]

Two things: 1) I'm on disability, not the dole. 2) The idea is interesting but has a slippery slope element to it. I'm not sure I really want to go down that path even though there are attractive elements to it. One of the reasons we are able to separate ourselves from the "guru" tag is that we don't ask for money for what we do. I'm not sure about taking that away.

If people want to help us out financially they are free to do that privately anytime they want.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Oh, cool. I can respect your being on disability.

[ChochemV2]

Will you sign up for pay-pal and put a donate now button on all your pages? You might even want to set yourselves up as an official not-for-profit organization with the purpose of spreading reason & wisdom. Work out your mission statement.

hehe...can you see yourself trying to claim Genius Forums donations for tax exemption?

Anyway, I don't see how a donation button puts you anywhere near a guru who demands money for services.

EDIT: Also, a donation button helps breach normal uncertainty that people have as to the state of the owners. You never know how someone is going to react if you offer them money and something like that makes it clear that the owners are open to the idea.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

I agree. It can be a pretty awkward interaction to offer someone money, as well as to accept it. A donate here button eliminates the awkwardness. You guys may be enlightened enough to not feel funny about taking handouts, but the people willing to say thank you for helping us out in improving our thinking might not be enlightened enough to not feel funny about offering to send you a little something.

[Katy]

To play devils advocate though - it may seem as though you're asking money in exchange for wisdom which is a bit fishy.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Didn't Buddhist sages go to people's doors, bowl in hand, asking for food? Putting a donation button on a website is actually far more polite than knocking on someone's door asking for a bowl of oats.

[Dan Rowden]

I agree with Katy here. It's a somewhat slippery issue, but I get a "fishy" feeling about it myself, which is why I'm nominally against it. But, that doesn't mean a good argument - or a shitload of cash - won't change my mind! :)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Okay, I'm a bit busy right now, but I can throw a few things on the side of why you should put a donation button on your site.

People pay for what they want, and they understand that some of the stuff they want is beyond your control of costs. If they want to get on the site and not have it crashing all the time (like it does now) then they will chip in a few bucks.

You are not selling wisdom - wisdom can only be obtained directly from the source. All you can do is point, and some of the pointers cost money. You personally, Dan, are getting money for disability (BTW, what is your disability?) but you are volunteering your time and efforts to the cause of wisdom. Governments give grants for special projects, and you are a special project. That's fine, your government takes care of your personal upkeep, and your barkeep. No one wants to donate to your bar tab. They do, however want to have access to ways to increase wisdom. You can provide that.

By being open about what you are doing, it becomes ethical to take money for what you are doing. People are generous and will donate to just causes - but way too many just causes get corrupt with too much money. If people know exactly what their money is going to by you being very open about everything you do, then you will see enough money come in to do the things that people want done, and you will see your income dry up really quick if you are doing nonsense bullshit. By operating off of donations, one submits fully to causality. It is the most ethical means of making an income.

I believe that donations should replace wages. People should not count on getting x amount of money for doing whatever gyrations people do to keep a job - they should get paid for good work when the produce good work, and go empty handed when they are not contributing to the world in some manner that the world needs. If, for example, a person is born mentally retarded and physically unable to care for esself, then it is up to the will of the people what that person gets. If it is important to one person that this person be fed, then that person will feed e. If it is important to one person that the retarded person experience Disney World, but another person does not want to support such a venture, only the ones who want the retarded person to go to Disney World would pay for it.

How all this relates to you is that if someone wants to support your lifestyle, they should be free to do that. If they do not want to support your lifestyle, they should not have to. That way, a person can live off those who want to encourage the behavior that they are paying to see more of, and those who do not find your lifestyle worthy of supporting don't have to have money taken away from them to go to supporting you. That is what is ethical for everyone involved.

[Kelly Jones]

Elizabeth,

Where does your income come from ?

I generally read only the first two sentences of all posts, unless quality of thought is clearly expressed.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Whether or not I actually have an income at this point is debatable. I trade the markets, and I am returning to my efforts as an applied behavioral scientist - which essentially will be working for tips, as I suggested to the QRS. My pricing policy is below the poem on this page. I also ought to add a donate button, but at least I have a mailing address posted if anybody wants to send me anything. At the moment, what I have is savings and potential.

[Katy]

There's simply not enough of us here to feed and house the admin. At best, the website could be partially paid for, but most people here are rather poor, anyway... a good number don't work either and those who do aren't likely to be executive types who could afford to pay for 3 people's livelihoods even if they wanted to. Which is why the government is involved in disability anyway... There are far too many disabled people to expect a free market to take care of them. Plus that would mean each disabled person going around begging to be the disabled person someone decides to care for. Failing to pay a base amount for everyone to live and eat means more people stealing to live and eat.

If you can't be humanitarian enough to understand that homelessness is a social evil that can be avoided, at least be intelligent enough to realize that you don't want to be stolen from, nor do you want millions of additional people coming up to you and begging. BTW, I don't know if you noticed this, but people who have been reduced to begging aren't making enough money to live already. A good number of these are those who were sent out of mental institutions during Reagan's presidency through no fault of their own. Amazing how well they're doing, isn't it? Yet you want to do this to the entire population of the disability and welfare system?

PS what's with the change in beliefs from applying for disability payments yourself (I still have a transcript of a chat which confirms this) to thinking disabled people should be homeless?

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There's simply not enough of us here to feed and house the admin. At best, the website could be partially paid for,

In a complete free-market system where no one is forced to pay for anything they don't want, even with the few of us there are there would be enough.

If you can't be humanitarian enough to understand that homelessness is a social evil that can be avoided, at least be intelligent enough to realize that you don't want to be stolen from, nor do you want millions of additional people coming up to you and begging. BTW, I don't know if you noticed this, but people who have been reduced to begging aren't making enough money to live already. A good number of these are those who were sent out of mental institutions during Reagan's presidency through no fault of their own. Amazing how well they're doing, isn't it? Yet you want to do this to the entire population of the disability and welfare system?

And those currently on disability are not exactly living like kings and queens - but it is enough to keep them in civilization.

I believe that a free market system would still provide for those who legitimately are on disability, while not being supportive of wasteful and unethical behavior. Yes we should care about everyone, but if we only provide care to those we can see where our efforts are going, we have better control over the ethical and senseful use of funding. My suggestion only eliminates waste - it does not leave those truly in need without having their needs met. Furthermore, with the lack of waste, those truly in need and deserving of help will be able to get more benefits because nothing is being wasted on senseless endeavors.

Finally, all basic needs for everyone should be met - including safe housing, nutritious food, and good medical care - including psychiatric benefits. If everyone's needs are truly met, then there is no need for begging, burglary, and the like. Violence itself is only a symptom of physical, mental, and social ills. If we cure all that, then the perpetuating problems also go away.

A free market system overlay over the meeting of the absolute barest needs of eveyone is the optimal solution for envcouraging ethical behavior.

PS what's with the change in beliefs from applying for disability payments yourself (I still have a transcript of a chat which confirms this) to thinking disabled people should be homeless?

You and your transcripts. Nothing has changed - if I am unable to provide for myself, then I will end up going on disability. That is what disability is for - those who are unable to provide for themselves. At this point, I am still able to provide for myself. I also see prospects so that I may not have to go on disability. If at any point I become unable to provide for myself, I will apply for disability. I'm just not going to do that until or unless it becomes necessary.

Anyway, it's nice to see that you have removed me from your "foe" list, and are again reading my posts.

[Katy]

How do you expect to overlay a system where everyone's basic needs are met with free market capitalism? I mean, that's essentially what we have today with the exception that everyone's needs aren't met. Although SSI and SSD payments vary by person, I am living at about half of the poverty level, and there are a lot of people who aren't getting their basic needs met. So if anything you're asking to increase the government's financial responsibility to their own citizens. This contradicts your point that "In a complete free-market system where no one is forced to pay for anything they don't want, even with the few of us there are there would be enough." which I still deny. Plus, even if there is enough, who is going to ensure that one guy doesn't get everything while another gets nothing?

The ancient Chinese had a torture technique in which they put boards around your neck and forced you to wear them for a month. You could not touch your own face to eat nor drink. If you had friends you survived; if you didn't, you died. Death wasn't uncommon. Would you die in that situation? Would anyone you know? Think about it for a minute, because really, asking someone to put food you pay for in your mouth is less trouble than asking someone to financially support you.

Your plan essentially boils down to "he with the most friends wins" which simply cannot be. What about those who are agoraphobic? Should my aunt starve to death because she is too afraid to leave her apartment and make friends who could feed her? Even if you argue that you'd meet her basic needs, should she be penalized because she's unable to beg for a few extra dollars?

How often have you heard/read "don't give to the homeless guy, he's just going to buy beer" ?I know I hear it a lot. That may or may not be true. I've taken a few homeless guys to Mc Donalds and they've appreciated it, but I've also had some refuse my offer. Yet you want the same people who are so prejudiced against the poor to support them? It just won't happen. At least, it won't happen until society's entire opinion of what the poor are like changes, on top of their opinion of what disabled people are like.

[Kelly Jones]

The way this thread is headed doesn't belong in this "administrative" forum.

My apologies for contributing to that misguidedness.

Elizabeth and Katy might like to discuss ethics and economics in the "Worldly Matters" forum.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Kelly,

That discussion was dropped eleven days ago. There is no value to you complaining about it now.

[Imadrongo]

Oh, cool. I can respect your being on disability.

But you can't respect unemployment?

I think maybe a paypal donate BUTTON might be too much. However you could put somewhere on your site info that you will take donations if people want to since you aren't employed.

[Dan Rowden]

Well, I've got concerns but hell, if it's good enough for Richard Dawkins and James Randi...

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

But you can't respect unemployment?

I can respect that if it is used appropriately. Unemployment is a short-term thing for people who are temporarily without a job, but looking for another one. If a person is not looking for another job, they should not be on unemployment. If a person is on unemployment, they have to tell someone they are looking for a job, and I would not have so much respect for a person setting themselves up as a proponent for Truth if they were lying for their income.

Now if Australia says that a person who refuses to do anything other than seek Truth and help others to find Truth has a disability, then that's Australia's judgment - and there is nothing dishonest about it.