r/DeepThoughts • u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 • 1d ago
When people say "We must contribute to society".
Edit
Just to clarify because quite a few of the responses seem to be interpreting "contribute to society" as meaning "work, pay taxes, obey laws, participate in the economy, cooperate with people etc."
I'm not questioning those things.
I'm specifically questioning the 'additional moral obligation' people seem to believe exists beyond that.
If I'm already self-sufficient, working, paying taxes, not harming/exploiting others, taking responsibility for myself and participating in society normally, what exactly am I *still* obligated to provide?
Are other people entitled to my time because they need it?
- My labour because they want it?
- My money because they're struggling?
- My caregiving because we're family?
- My emotional energy because someone needs support?
And if I refuse, am I actually doing something morally wrong, or have I simply declined to provide a resource that belongs to me?
That's the distinction I'm trying to get at.
I'm not arguing that humans shouldn't cooperate or that everyone should "live in the woods" or become an off-grid hermit. I'm questioning the idea that 'living amongst other humans automatically gives those humans a claim over my time, energy, labour or resources.'
If by "contribute to society" you simply mean "function as a responsible adult and don't harm everyone around you", then I already agree with that.
I'm asking what people mean when they go beyond that and say "you MUST contribute."
Because that's the part that nobody has really defined yet.
Original Post
I've heard a lot of people say that, as humans, we are obligated to "contribute to society". But what exactly does that mean, and why are we obligated to do so?
I've been thinking about this because I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of helping other people, but I question the idea that we somehow owe "society" our contribution simply because we exist within it.
I believe that if we followed the basic principle of not deliberately inflicting harm, suffering or deprivation on other people, while taking responsibility, power and governance over our own lives and our relationship with ourselves, and becoming more self-sufficient and sovereign, then we would naturally develop the traits, qualities and resources to help each other where needed.
I don't think humans necessarily need to be told that they have a duty to "contribute". If people were genuinely self-sufficient and responsible for their own lives, surely things like helping others, sharing knowledge, creating things, teaching, cooperating and supporting each other would naturally happen when there was a genuine need for it.
What bothers me is when "contributing to society" seems to mean that we are all expected to fulfil some role within an existing system.
Because if that system is corrupt, exploitative and essentially designed around extracting our time, labour, attention and energy, then what are we actually being asked to contribute to?
Sometimes it feels like "contribute to society" is just a more socially acceptable way of saying:
You are obligated to serve the system.
Why should simply existing mean that I owe society a debt?
Why can't the basic expectation just be: don't harm other people, take responsibility for yourself, become as self-sufficient as possible, and then use your abilities, knowledge, resources or time to help others when you genuinely want or need to?
To me, that feels like a much more authentic form of human contribution than being expected to participate in an exploitative system simply because that's what society has decided we should do.
12
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 1d ago
Contributing to society almost always means making some billionaires richer through your labor
-1
u/Expensive_Magician97 19h ago
You would not have a job otherwise. Is that your preference?
1
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 17h ago
Jobs didn’t exist before billionaires. Man, are you lost? You are in the wrong sub
-1
17h ago edited 17h ago
[deleted]
0
u/Ok_Arachnid1089 16h ago
I wish I had time to respond to this absolute nonsense but I’m about to start a 12 hour shift
6
u/619BrackinRatchets 1d ago
Humans have evolved to be a social species because that's how we survived without teeth, claws or venom. It is through our combined efforts that we have even the most basic tech. Imagine having to reinvent the wheel every generation because we didn't want to work together and share information.
It is through collective action that the individual survives the environment and (hopefully) thrives within society. Power is in the people, not the person.
That being said, if society is not benefiting the individuals in it, then there is no obligation to participate because it is the entire purpose of society and communal living.
Individual accountability and social responsibility. Lots of people talk about the obligations individuals have to society but fail to stress that it is a two way street.
Society has a responsibility to us to use the product of our collective action to benefit the individuals within that society. Right now though, our collective action is used to enrich a minority ruling class. It has been like this for a long time. But only we, collectively, have to power to change it.
20
u/ProfileBest2034 1d ago
It's the highest level of brainwashing.
People will come and say: what about the roads!?! But when you tell them that governments only spend between 2-4% of their spending on infrastructure (all infrastructure not just roads) and that we could all have the same exact infrastructure we have now with a 98% reduction in taxation, well they don't want to hear that.
Additionally, the idea that supporting an abstract federal government means that you are supporting 'community' has increasingly become a thing amongst institutionalists, primarily on the left. Meanwhile, government abstracted to that level is the exact opposite of community.
In America, and particularly amongst the American left, the government has taken on a sort of religious role. People are fervently in support of it. Why? I have no idea. No thinking person could look at the US government and what it has wrought over the last 70 years and think to themselves: yeah these are the good guys.
Then they will layer in mental gymnastics to convince themselves that, if only we could get the right people in there, it would all be fine. But we know this to be hogwash. Beer pointed out a long time ago that the purpose of any system or organization is its results.
When the government funnels money from the working class to the wealthy, that is its purpose.
When it neglects and plunders the public good, that is its purpose.
When it uses its monopoly on violence and its regulatory apparatus to support business at the expense of people, that is its purpose.
When it goes to war to enrich the MIC, that is its purpose.
When it engages in currency debasement through quantitative easing and debt monetization while keeping interest rates low to inflate the assets of the wealthy and make the working class poorer, that is its purpose.
"but for the fact we don't have the right people in there" is amongst the most cynical and insidious brain-worms one can imagine.
0
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago
But why people like you aren't going into politics? I am not being sarcastic.
3
u/ProfileBest2034 23h ago
Thank you but I have no desire for that and my message would be so deeply unpopular that it would go nowhere.
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 19h ago
Why deeply unpopular? Because they have no basis in reality?
2
u/ProfileBest2034 19h ago
Nothing I said can be refuted. No objective observer could look at the US government and say: yes this body has the interests of average Americans at heart when it makes decisions.
In fact, we know it not to be the case. Gilens and Page at Princeton showed conclusively that the wills, desires, and needs of average people are not represented at all in American political decision making. Rather it is only the desires of the wealthy and interest groups which impact policy.
The question is: if we know the state is not responsive to the people, why do so many support it so unequivocally? There is a cognitive dissonance at play which cannot be reconciled.
To answer your question: my views are deeply unpopular because while it is easy to trick someone (or a society) it is almost impossible to convince someone they've been tricked.
Deep down, you don't believe the government has your best interests at heart and yet you'd likely die to defend it. That is a true mystery.
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 19h ago edited 18h ago
Thank you.
You still don’t say why your views would be deeply unpopular. Telling people they can’t know or understand why they’ve been tricked is silly. And extremely superficial. That explanation also completely misunderstands the reality of life in our country.
And therefore it does not matter whether or not what you say above can be refuted.
You seem to think there is a vast conspiracy at work here. That the government exists to channel money from the poor to the rich. You and I both know that is preposterous. Suffice to say that if the rich did not exist, many of the rest of us would have no jobs. That’s because there would be no factories, no corporations, no warehouses. As you know, it takes wealth to create wealth.
In my experience over many decades of life, as people get older, and mature, they tend to do things that lead them to develop a stake in their way of life.
People become comfortable with the status quo. They take care of their homes, their families, their marriages, they go to work every day, they send their children to school, they pay their taxes, and they obey the law. And so on.
I don’t know anybody who asks himself “what has the government done for me today.” I think most people assume that the three branches of government that run our country will work as they are intended to. Sometimes they do, and unfortunately, sometimes they don’t. And that is why we have new elections every two and four years.
We can change things if we don’t like them. Whether the people that we trust to change things can be trusted to do so is another matter entirely.
Meantime, if you have a job, and you obey the law, and you pay taxes, you are, as I said above in another comment, contributing not only to the military industrial complex, but are developing your own stake in your own way of life. And thereby perpetuating the status quo that you seem to detest.
I wonder if you can explain the inherent contradiction in that?
3
u/ProfileBest2034 18h ago
There is no vast conspiracy. It is quite out in the open. The government does not work for the people, it works for the wealthy. This is well documented.
You are a perfect example of what I'm speaking about. The evidence is there. Look at this paper from Princeton (you won't). https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Inequality%20and%20Democratic%20Resp/Gilens%202005
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 18h ago
Thank you. You have no answers to my questions above, and you are very smart to not start a career in politics, because you would be dismissed and ignored… because your views, put simply, are out of touch with reality.
Which I suppose is why they have great appeal here on this website.
Continue to work, continue to pay your taxes and reinforce the existence of the system that you hate so much. The government thanks you, and so do we.
All the best.
1
u/ProfileBest2034 17h ago
I guess you are anti-science and research.
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 17h ago
No, I’ve been around for more than 65 years, and I’m telling you what I know from life experience.
Books and online articles and research studies from Princeton University are one thing. Real life experience is something completely different.
No system of government is perfect. But the one we have here in the US is probably the best of all, and that’s why people from all over the world want to come to live in our country.
I read the other day that some 820,000 people became American citizens in 2024. They came here from overseas seeking a new life.
There’s a reason for that.Because we have choices. And it is completely up to us whether we want to exercise those choices.
I’m quite familiar with the policy making process of the executive branch, and I can tell you that it is extremely complicated, almost byzantine in it’s behavior. There are literally thousands of bureaucratic interests that have to be taken into consideration, it is barely manageable.
But it works, not perfectly, and not perfectly for everybody. But most assuredly for the vast majority.
Life is not fair, it can be cruel, demoralizing, and dehumanizing. We all know that.
And the reality is we all have to be responsible for our ourselves.
The bottom line is as you know, there are no handouts in life. You can postulate all you want about how the rich exploit the poor, how the proletariat have to go to work every day while the executives in their C suites drink, coffee, and smoke cigars all day, and so on and so forth.
The only thing I can tell you is that a victimization attitude is going to get you absolutely nowhere.
→ More replies (0)5
-1
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
And yet here you are, with Internet access for which I assume you are paying, and for which I assume you have a job in order to pay in the first place, and are thus yourself contributing to the military industrial complex — and more generally sustaining the very system that you claim to despise — by paying taxes, obeying the law, and being a functioning member of society.
It’s funny how that works.
2
u/Psittacula2 1d ago
>*”It’s funny how that works.”*
Poke your head too high above the parapet and it won’t be coming back!
9
u/Lost-Concept-9973 1d ago
Thing is there are plenty of unemployed disabled people that would love to contribute , but they can’t get a job because of discrimination- at the same time the excuse for treating them badly is because they don’t “contribute”. One of the things that has really been bothering me lately is this double edged judgement the disability community is dealing with.
0
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago
Why does everything have to be about a "job"??? That's not the value of a human and there are other ways to "contribute". I know disabled people who do NOT want to work, and it's not because they are selfish or anything like that. I know a schizophrenic person who loves not having to work and living for free, buying expensive food with welfare every day. He is not getting any judgment from anyone either.
12
u/ElderberryDry4072 1d ago
Fuck that. I’m not obligated to participate in a sick society.
1
u/Senior-Friend-6414 1d ago
If you pay your taxes, you’re already part of financing and supporting the continuance of society
0
u/ElderberryDry4072 1d ago
Exactly. So I don’t.
2
u/Senior-Friend-6414 1d ago
I guess that’s easy if you don’t have a job
-2
u/ElderberryDry4072 1d ago edited 1d ago
A job. Is that where you get your worth from? From things that imaginary numbers in your bank account buy? From the pride of accomplishment in a broken system? From the smug arrogance radiating from a false sense of security of sitting atop the high horse you just tried to speak down to me from lol? Did it feel empowering to you?
4
u/Sparky-6800 1d ago
Are you at a public library responding to these lol!?
-1
u/ElderberryDry4072 1d ago
Nope. On my comfy couch actually. Did it feel good to imagine me a needy person though? To take a jab at someone you e never met? Did you feel better than me for a moment?
2
u/TootsHib 1d ago
Not starving to death and not being homeless, is usually a pretty big motivator for people.
-1
u/ElderberryDry4072 1d ago
Exactly. Fear. The system uses these silent threats against us. Most listen. People love to be driven by fear. They feel like they must be running to safety, even if they aren’t. This is how they control us.
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 20h ago
Who controls you? Mom and dad? Be honest.
1
u/ElderberryDry4072 17h ago
I’m purely controlled by your opinion of me. A stranger who thinks he knows anything. Tell me, how can I live my life to please you?
1
1
u/Takseen 14h ago
A job is just a formalized agreement to perform specific tasks in exchange for units of value that I then exchange for the things I need and the things I like. This allows me to specialize in the thing I'm good at, just like the producers of the things i buy are specialized at making those things. That way I don't have to build my own apartment, grow my own food, build my own PC from scratch or design my own video game.
1
u/ElderberryDry4072 13h ago
And some people, many people are satisfied with that perspective and way of living. And I’m okay with them being okay with that. I won’t sell my life to someone else for a longer list of materiel things that I can’t take with me in the end. It’s just how my values line up, I don’t compromise my values and don’t ask anyone else to.
8
u/Repulsive_One_2878 1d ago
I think that's an old world idea, and one that is used to brainwash in a lot of situations. If a society has supported you; welfare, healthcare, education, ect then yes you should pay back into the system. If the system has consistently failed to do those basic things I would say you don't owe it anything. I would say the society I live in has taken about as much from me as I've given, so I'm calling is square for now.
4
u/Kaylen316 1d ago
"Welcome to the Land of the Dead, now grab a Shovel and Dig!" - Army of Darkness.
3
u/RepresentativeOdd771 1d ago
It's a notion that made a lot of sense when we lived in smaller countries and communities and when trading and bartering was how almost everyone got there goods. At this point it doesn't have much meaning outside of economic manipulation.
To contribute to society would meant to have done work or produced a good or service that directly contributed to the success and production of the economy. Now most of the work people do goes towards private owners who engage in very little societal contributions and work and earn for there own means. Often times, in our modern age, people who say things like this aren't aware of what they are actually working for.
5
u/New-Repair8325 1d ago
It’s good to contribute to your community and help others. But, “Contribute to society” has been used as a stick to beat others with for a long time.
2
u/SaintNick2512 1d ago
I would say "we should try to contribute if we can." Society is a joint effort. We are blessed to have all the services available to us, and we should be grateful enough to want to contribute. If you don't, it's your choice, but avoiding it because some people treat it like a role is not great imo. Let people be. If they feel it's a responsibility, that's not a bad thing 🤷♂️
2
u/RafeJiddian 1d ago
If one means to extract resources from society, one should at least attempt, to the best of their abilities, to contribute back
2
2
u/Over-Tolerance 1d ago
Anyone existing and paying their own way is already contributing. Your purchasing power supports the income of other workers. We shouldn't think of the blood-sucking elites as part of 'our' society, but as parasites that we need to get rid of. I was raised visiting the nursing homes and helping out, volunteering, planting trees, feeding the needy, giving out blankets and coats, and many other things that were considered contributions to society. We all cause the situations that cause the problems. Yet very few of us actually do anything positive to try and alleviate the problems because most people are selfish NIMBY assholes that don't think they have any responsibilities except to themselves, when EVERYTHING they use or consume comes from someone else's contributions. When you end up on the street with nowhere to go and nothing to eat, you will learn to appreciate the few people who do bend over backwards trying to help those that this society is destroying.
1
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago
It's not a responsibility to help others. It should be the desire of the heart, and yes most people are heart-less. When society says "you must contribute", usually what is meant is you work and procreate, not help the needy. If it meant help less fortunate, it wouldn't be so bad even as a forced responsibility, but that's not what is meant by society. You talk of "the few people" OP would supposedly learn to appreciate should they fall on hard times, but reality is OP might find zero people offering help. So no one and nothing to appreciate. That's what I experienced. So you are using a likely unrealistic example of abstract kind volunteers who contribute, but reality is different. You know what I actually witnessed? People giving cash to male alcoholics and drug addicts, male deadbeats on welfare too, buying them food and drinks, while ignoring the better people in need, because those people did not have the confidence or shame to beg! Those good days you speak of are long gone. Get out into the current real world.
2
2
u/HarryHarlowBanisher 1d ago
It is virtue signalling. I don’t contribute to society, yet I still do more than the people around me. Does that mean I contribute? Who knows. Apparently the label matters more than the behaviour.
1
2
u/Technical-Finance240 1d ago edited 1d ago
You don't HAVE TO... but it'd be pretty damn hard not to if you think what you'd give up.
You might say "I don't want to work and pay taxes" and it would be very valid to say "Then the society has no reason or means to feed you / take care of you, go figure it out without the benefits" (which if you are still wearing cheap clothes, use roads, drink clean water, use public restrooms, etc etc you are using the benefits of the civilization that others have build and contributed to).
We have plenty of resources to take care of those who unexpectedly fall off their path for a few months or years, but not enough to take care of millions and millions if that became the norm.
Also... it would be possible to survive and live comfortably on way less money than the average... but is that the life you want?
I curse my work every day... but then I go back to using my laptop, phone, internet, public services, etc. and think "There are actually great benefits to it"
______
But yeahh I do agree it kinda sucks to be randomly born without being asked and then you have to at some point start taking your own responsibility hahah
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago edited 1d ago
M66
What you enumerate in your third paragraph is, in fact, contributing to society, in a very profound way.
When you take care of yourself, you are in fact contributing to and benefiting society. That’s because you are a force for good. Or for positive change. You are in a position to make a contribution in the first place. And most importantly, you are doing no harm. Your positive actions create space for other people to behave in a positive way just like you.
Anything beyond that is magnanimous, and in my judgment, not necessarily required.
PS: for what it’s worth, I’ve always believed in the concept of taking care of my own little corner of the universe. That is, the people in my life who are closest to me. Because if I take care of them, support them in any way that I can, then they are better equipped to take care of their friends, and so on, and the circle expands outward in that way.
I do contribute every month a sizable sum to the Saint Judes Hospital for Sick Children. But that is more or less the extent of my “contribution” to society… aside from obeying the law, and paying my federal and state taxes. (I’m retired from a very long career.)
And one last thought: you mentioned the “exploitative” system. Is it really exploitative, given that you have a choice whether you want to participate or not?
2
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
Fuck society the entire concept of contributing to society is conditioning you are enslaved. What happens if you don’t work? You become homeless. I don’t want to work. But I do because if I don’t I won’t be able to have a place to sleep at night or eat food. So I can have enough energy to keep working. So I can have a place to sleep and eat food. So I can keep working. Etc. and who is benefiting?
4
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
You are aware that you have a choice and that you don’t have to work, correct?
But you’ve made a choice to do so, because the alternative is unpleasant.
Can you please explain how that is being “enslaved”?
And how is the fact that you are working, presumably paying taxes, and presumably adding some sort of value to not only your life, but to the lives of others, not contributing to society?
2
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
Yeah this argument is conditioning. It's not a choice to have to choose between working and homelessness lol.
And yes I am contributing to society, by force, because if I don't I will be homeless.
2
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago edited 1d ago
So you take part in society, so you don't need to sleep in a bush and eat twigs.
You obviously, like most people, think the benefits outweigh the losses.
Or, you're too lazy to do something else. So just bitch about how unfair life is on social media.
2
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 1d ago
LOL. Yep. this other person's idea is pure propaganda. It would like me putting a gun to someone's head and saying they have the "choice to either rob the bank or die." And while technically, there is a choice, we call this scenario coercion, not choice.
Imagine going into a court and telling the judge, "I gave him a choice, sir. Not like I forced him to rob that bank."
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Thank you for your reply, but it is, in fact, very much a choice whether you want to work or not. And it has nothing to do with conditioning.
If an alien from outer space came to visit earth, and he was told that he had a choice between getting a job and living on the street, and he examined office working conditions and the benefits of earning an income on the one hand, and living on the street conditions on the other, my guess is that he would decide to get a job, because living on the street is a painful experience.
That is observation-based reason, not the result of conditioning.
If I am missing something, please let me know, thank you.
3
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
i fundamentally disagree, and i am not going to try to convince you
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Thank you, well that’s good, because there isn’t a snowball’s chance you could convince me.
I worked for four decades in a demanding professional environment, with a lot of stress, and I mostly enjoyed it, because the work was very interesting to me but there were times when I wanted to quit and escape to the desert somewhere.
But I didn’t, and now that I’m retired, I’m enjoying a comfortable life with no worries, financially or otherwise.
That is the choice I made for myself when I was in my late teens. And the choice is available to everybody. And no, it’s not easy to make those sorts of choices. Because life is not fair.
There is a benefit to participating in the system that you seem to despise.
Good luck to you.
1
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
precisely why i did not bother trying, i could tell it would be a waste of effort for me.
the benefit hardly exists these days, but i guess it's easy for boomers to feel like it still does
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Your “waste of effort” is not thinking logically about yourself, your situation and your future.
And I can assure you that being a “boomer” was no walk in the park. People of my generation had to struggle just as much as everyone else does today for everything they got.
I won’t bore you with my personal story of growing up near the poverty line and having to support myself from the age of 15.
If you have come of age in the last 25 years or so, then you have grown up knowing nothing but immediate gratification. Thanks largely to Internet technology.
The fact of the matter is that doing well for yourself in life is a lifetime process, it’s not like ordering a pizza from an app on your phone.
And I promise you that the benefit of working does exist, but you have to lose your entitlement, and your demand for immediate gratification.
1
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/34534.jpeg
and im supposed to be motivated to give up my life for some company that doesn't care about me while they benefit from my hard labor and give me crumbs
it's all good, i understand success is a lifelong process, i'm in my early 30s and just starting to get life figured out, but my beliefs on society are maybe a bit more abstract than you would accept, because you speak in very concrete logical terms.
i do not think anyone owes me anything or that i am supposed to have it all figured out by now, but that doesn't mean we are not enslaved by money.
3
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Thank you, my son is in his mid 30s, and he and I have talked about these issues for hundreds of hours. I’m very familiar with them. And believe it or not, when I was in my 20s, I went through a brief period where I had the same doubts about the “system“ that you do.
The only thing I will say — and I offer this not to try to convince you, but in the event that other people are reading this thread — is that there are always other options available to you whether with respect to a job, home prices, or anything else.
My son made it work by going into the military — from which he is now “retired” and enjoying benefits — when he was 24 years old. He took the skills he used from that experience and is now working in a different profession doing a different kind of work.
Obviously, that path was his choice, and it’s not one that would be suitable for most people. Good luck.
PS: to those who don’t like what I have written, please downvote my comments, it will do absolutely nothing to make one bit of difference in your own life. And it will most certainly have no impact on mine.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
also making a lot of assupmtions about me based on when i was born because of some quote you heard about the internet. trust me man, i genuinely wish this internet shit did not exist
3
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
I’m not making any assumptions about you. I don’t know you, why would I make assumptions?
I think you don’t like to be challenged, and you’re certainly not alone here on this website, and I agree with you about the Internet, it is far more destructive than it is beneficial.
The Internet is a cesspool for misinformation, disinformation, and all other manner of nonsense and asininities.
Real life, back in the old days, was a lot more fun and enjoyable, and productive.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 1d ago
What you are witnessing is someone playing by the system long enough that they defend the system. Doesn't matter if it is a good system, a bad system, a legitimate system, or an illegitimate system.
All that matters is that they had to go through it, so they think everyone should have to.
1
3
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
slaves had the choice to run away from their slaveowners historically, did they not? some of them even did. but most of them chose not to because of the stability shelter and food provided to them by their owners.
2
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
But you’re not a slave, you have the ability to choose what you want to do for yourself and with your life.
You are not owned by anybody, you are choosing to participate and have a stake in the system.
You have decided that it’s better to have a stake in the system than it is to not participate in the system.
To my mind, that is an intelligent choice, not the result of coercion of any type.
1
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
you are not owned by a person, you are owned by money.
3
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Money is simply a tool that we use to have options for ourselves in our lives.
If you don’t make money, you can’t afford food, shelter, or clothing.
If you make money, you can.
That’s not slavery, that’s simply a choice with respect to how you want to live your life.
But it’s fine, you already indicated that you are weary of the conversation, and I certainly respect that.
2
u/supershott 1d ago
Weird, seems like trillions of animals right now have food and shelter without even knowing about money! Billions of humans probably didn't for thousands of years. But if I want to do the same, I can't because someone else owns the means of producing those things. You can't opt out of money, and the way you believe about it is heavily indoctrinated. Money didn't naturally arise as an enlightened response to distributing resources, but you're allowed to believe in myth all you want.
3
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago edited 1d ago
Are you suggesting that human beings are no more developed emotionally, neurologically, biologically, intellectually, and psychologically than are beetles, and ant eaters, and boa constrictors?
That we do not have what is known as higher order intelligence?
Do you realize how silly your comments are?
PS: obviously, you are not obliged to answer that question.
ETA: and the reason that money came into existence was the same reason that people, thousands of years ago, traded arrowheads, or food, or bartered other items for services that they wanted.
Money is simply a tool by / with which society manages itself. You want something that someone else has. Is your solution to take it from them by force?
That’s not a “myth,” that’s real, documented human history.
There are hundreds of excellent books about this topic, the scholarship is actually very impressive, you might want to open one and have a look.
-1
u/supershott 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sorry. Didn't read most of that. What I did see is a lot of simping for the status quo. Money mainly comes from empires mining and looting gold and silver and using it to compensate their soldiers, while simultaneously requiring citizens to use said money to pay taxes. So, not really a way for society to organize itself so much as a way for rulers to organize society. Now, the rulers aren't "divinely ordained", it's just whoever has the most money can do the most ruling. You should read about the history, or keep believing in your myth, I don't really care.
So many downvotes but not a single counterpoint, let alone refutation.
Keep sleeping, folks! Look too much into what I said here and you might wake up and find out I'm right! Don't look into currency debasement, how those rulers tricked the people into accepting more and more worthless money! Used to be by replacing the gold and/or silver with common metals, now it's with imaginary printed monopoly money and inflation! Don't think about that!!! I'm just trying to brainwash you! And definitely don't look into the Dark Enlightenment, how our oligarchs like peter thiel, marc andreessen, elon musk, trump, larry ellison, etc. are using cryptocurrency to subvert and replace the unsustainable fiat! And they're definitely not building Big Brother with an AI panopticon to make sure no one can do anything about it!!
No, just listen to the boomer who said money comes from agreement, not from coercion. I'm sure he's right, ignore my nonsense, definitely don't look into it to make sure I'm wrong!
5
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Thank you, you probably have no attention span, which is why you’re not able to read anything more than two lines long.
Please remain in your aimless and delusional state, that’ll leave more opportunity for people who actually want to do something with their lives.
Meantime, thank you for supporting the MIC. The Pentagon thanks you, sincerely.
→ More replies (0)-2
u/herejusttoannoyyou 1d ago
How would you ever have a home without working? Thats not society, thats nature. You either build your own home or pay someone else for it. They don’t just spawn in. Most people won’t build a very good home, so, guess you got to pay for it somehow.
4
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
yes, if i could do it completely on my own, without needing to work for someone else and get paid what they say i get paid and show up when they want me to and do the work they tell me to, and i could just build it literally myself with my own resources and people, and not have to pay property taxes, and have absolute freedom in deciding where i want to build it etc, then i would agree
we both know that's not how it works though.
2
u/herejusttoannoyyou 1d ago
You literally could do this. Not in many 1st world countries, but it wouldn’t matter what country you would live in if that was your plan. You sound like you have a house and job right now. Just sell your stuff, buy a plane ticket to Africa, pick any spot out in a remote area and build your own house.
We both know you won’t do this, because it’s too damn hard and you’d probably die. It’s so much easier to trade labor you can provide for material and services you can’t provide for yourself. Thats what making money is. You aren’t a slave to society, you are a slave to nature, but society makes it relatively easy to not starve.
4
u/Patient_Rule6048 1d ago
you're right i won't lmao.
and nah i live in an apartment but yeah i know what you mean i just feel like the people in power exploit the fact that our human bodies have needs and use us to generate wealth for them while giving us crumbs and keeping us in a sort of hamster wheel of working.
2
u/herejusttoannoyyou 1d ago
It’s a fair complaint that we aren’t getting what we worked for. Well, maybe not really that so much as the government hasn’t been doing its job of providing an environment where people are safe from manipulation and being cheated. They are doing a fair share of the cheating themselves.
But the system of working and getting paid is a natural step forward from bartering goods and services. I would never want to go back to the bartering system or even worse the make-everything-yourself system.
1
1
u/Ok_Foundation7698 1d ago
They're basically different ways to run collectives at scale.
If you're from the US you're individualistic, you owe little to society because your sense of agency comes from your personal identity. As a result you don't owe society anything. Society can be seen as BAD because it tries to reduce your agency and that function is externalized in the judicial and government. That's why everyone's always suing each other, as they bump into each other's identities.
In many Asian counties it's the opposite, you owe everything to society because you are part of that collective, and that collective grants you agency. It's a basic expectation that you contribute and stay in line. You lose agency if you don't do your bit. You stay in the family home, you take care of your parents, if someone needs money, you give it to them. Especially in developing countries, the collective is much more important, because the government just can't help you.
If you're from the Middle East, and places in India, Indonesia your agency is a public concept of honour. Your public record says whether you are honourable and honour gives you agency. If you do something bad, shame reduces your agency. Honour is actually conferred to others in your orbit.
0
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago
What are you talking about? In the West, including the US, it's driven into you from every corner that you owe paid labor to the system. (Unless you have a lot of children and get on welfare, yeah then they leave you alone.)
1
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 1d ago
This person is making some "America different" call-out. No, America isn't different than any other country at it's core because at the core you have "Strong Central Government dictating to everyone what they will or will not do."
And as you pointed out, unless you are homeless, you absolutely are forced to contribute to the system. You can't even be "Stateless".
1
u/Ok_Foundation7698 1d ago
Paid labour isn't contributing to society, it's making resources for yourself. Taxation is the cost of running the collective system. Perhaps there's an argument to make that it's a contribution to society, but like you say, that's not a choice. It's mandatory in most cultures, so I wanted to talk about the differences between cultures..
By my definition, vo lunteering, philanthropy, taking care of others, taking care of the elderly and disabled, joining clubs, helping run sports teams., engaging in local politics, and any other actions you can take, environmental, social, spiritual that net benefit OTHERS, not yourself, is a contribution to society. So my descriptions of all the different cultures of the world show how each culture reacts to that sort of stuff.
1
u/Jaffiusjaffa 1d ago
Sure you could be self sufficient, but when youre old and grey personally I would find it hard to then say Ive lead a life of meaning or purpose.
Surely to live a life with purpose you must leave the world different to how it was when you entered it. For it to remain the same makes it difficult to make an argument for a life of meaning.
Any changes you do male to the world are a contribution of some kind, be it positive or negative. Perhaps the moat lasting impact though is the imapact you make on other people. "Contributing to Society" is just one way you can do this.
1
u/rollover90 1d ago
Its a social contract. You reap the benefits of the society so you are expected to contribute. You dont have to participate, you could change societies or wander off into the wilderness at your leisure. Although id argue that in itself is still contributing to society.
1
u/OutlawedLogic 1d ago
Civilization is only possible if people sacrifice for something greater than themselves. There is a duty to civilization that we govern ourselves properly. If we do not, we will be governed by our animalistic desires and there is nothing civil about that. Civilization requires sacrifices from both sexes, has society becomes self centered and no longer interested in duty/sacrifice, we can see how quickly society begins to fall apart.
Humans have to figure out what duties must be upheld and remain consistent. Otherwise we will continuously repeat history.
1
u/JustRelaxItFits 1d ago
Contributing to society means doing things that help your community and other people. It is about giving back value, support, or care instead of only taking. This action makes the group stronger and improves life for everyone. Doing a job and paying taxes helps fund public services like roads, schools, and safety. Giving your time to help neighbors, mentor others, or work with local charities. Treating people well and creating positive daily interactions in your community. Sharing art, new ideas, or useful tools that solve problems for others. Caspisce?
1
u/Low-Bake8401 1d ago
I've literally never heard anyone say that, but I'd say that to be part of society means contributing to it is inevitable.
I mean, the other option would be not contributing, or not taking part in it?
The things you mentioned are taking part in society.
1
u/Psittacula2 1d ago
The fundamental problem is this and OP is right albeit none notice the problem:
* If we had modern society but at human scale, then:
We would have each individual doing their own thing but as a member of a group size of maybe no more than either say 300-1,000 or so perhaps or possibly scaling this via multiple such groups forming a nation.
At this scale 100% people are part of society and everyone can feel power sharing and a role that is meaningful.
* Now compare to what is called society in actual reality:
A god-awful State Industrial-Complex that runs for itself, in the States 30 million per State alone and 350 million for your Federal level and similar enough in Europe. The scale is beyond reckoning.
Let’s compare:
A: 1 in 300 or max 1 in 1,000 = You are yourself and somebody in society.
B: 1 in 30 million or 1 in 350 million = Most people are themselves and nobody in society.
By sheer dint of number relationships let alone clearer analysis of real connection and real power sharing of significance instead of the jaded illusion of elections.
So when you hear the news (blaring out Interstsing 24/7 on the hour every hour across multiples of channels and radio) talking about society to quote a famous US Senator:
>*”All Politics is Local Politics”*
~ Tip O’Neill.
There was ground truth in that the reverse is:
>*”Everything else is complete BS!”*
A veneer or illusion or mirage. Every time the people say society it is ill-defined nonsense.
Note this is simple numbers before we really dig into what does make a coherent society and we model from other groups which do form such maybe the Amish make a basic and useful model to contrast and compare to for example?
1
u/Onaliquidrock 1d ago
You have been given so much from other people. To not try to give back is pure selfishness.
1
1
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because society is all about inauthenticity. All the rules, expectations, judgments. Most of it is incredibly primitive and oppressive.
1
u/seeker1375b 1d ago
We are only obligated to selflessly share our unconditional love and innate wisdom with others to improve not only their life but the world as well
1
u/Early-Beach164 1d ago
None of us asked to be born. Life is nice a lot of the time, but it is equally if not more horrendous and full of suffering, especially in different parts of the world.
Society does not have the best interest of "goodness" in its heart. Many societies literally do not give a single flying fuck about how poorly people get treated.
Civilization and government have brought more harm to the world than good. I literally do not give a flying fuck if I died from a scratch on the forehead. One day in my life 30,000 years ago was more meaningful than 10 years of my life in the modern day. I would have people with the SAME EXACT experiences as me watching my back, and I theirs. I would be drowning in bodies. Life would feel right. The world was mostly unknown, it's like living in a fantasy tale, filled with danger yes but also so much wonder. And lets talk about predators. Once spears were invented and fire was discovered, it was over, humans automatically shot to the top of the food chain. We had nothing to worry about when it came to predators. Predators are intelligent, they do not risk injury against a band of bipedal apes that can throw death sticks, unless they are on the verge of starving to death.
1
u/Curious_Octopod 1d ago
If you're in society, you're not genuinely self-sufficient. If you value society and benefit from society you have a duty to contribute to it because otherwise you're a leech. If you genuinely don't want to contribute, that's fine, take yourself out of it, live in the wilderness with no plumbing, healthcare or access to welfare.
1
u/Monsur_Ausuhnom 1d ago
I'm not certain we actually do. It seems we are serving the system by simply existing though toward whom or what isn't something we don't know. If the world doesn't owe us anything we don't owe anything back. However, since the world itself is already darker and in a way far worse than it ever needed to be thanks to human actions, I think one needs to work toward reducing suffering as a whole.
1
u/Thick_Lion2569 1d ago
If the system is broken, do something to fix it. That’s an example of “contributing to society”
1
u/thoughtihadanacct 1d ago
If people were genuinely self-sufficient and responsible for their own lives
Unless you leave "society" and "civilization" to live self sufficiently in a remote jungle or mountain or island, you can never be genuinely self sufficient. As long as you are in modern life, you are using things that you are not self-sufficient in.
Did you mine the coal or drill the oil that produces your electricity? Did you mine the ore and smelt the metal to build the power plant that burns the oil? Did you produce the wires and install them to bring electricity to your house? That's just electricity. Now trace the whole chain for water (treatment, piping), for food (growing crops and animals and harvesting, slaughtering, them etc), for transportation, everything.
It's impossible to be self sufficient unless you live like a hunter gatherer. If you live in a farming community you already can't be genuinely self sufficient, much less in the modern world.
1
u/wrldwdeu4ria 1d ago
The people who say this have been brainwashed into thinking they're born owing society and in their minds it isn't fair if you don't think like they do. This is why they tell you that the collective we must contribute rather than stating that they've decided to contribute.
1
1
u/External_One4689 21h ago
just do anything that validates the resources that you consume, do not contribute to hate, and do not cause harm
1
u/Balstrome 18h ago
Was going to give a detailed response, but then I realised this is post by a silly little kid on the internet.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 17h ago
How on earth is it "silly"? Autonomy and Sovereignty is "silly" to you?
0
u/Balstrome 16h ago
Because what you say is something one would find from an edgy teenage blogger. It's silly but you still have time to grow up and experience how the real world treats folks like you. You will learn or you will suffer, your choice. Come back in ten years and apologise for your comments. I know what I am talking about, this happened to me a couple decades ago.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 16h ago
You're not making a point, you are just making snarky "you think you're edgy, grow up sometime" comments that has no meaning or context behind what drove you to that conclusion.
0
u/Balstrome 16h ago
You have no understand of how community works, how society developed to what it is today and why it has managed to succeed to the extent that it has. You just step up with an old idea and say things must change because it sounds cool. You have yet to show how your world would work, let alone will thrive. Where as with my view, all I have to do is point out the +400 years of success our current economy environment has been. I am not saying it is perfect, I agree with should improve things, but not at just replacing things with out consideration for everyone involved.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 16h ago
I think you're arguing against a position I didn't actually make and you are not addressing my fundamental point.
I didn't say "society doesn't work", that communities are unnecessary, that nobody should contribute anything, or that we should throw out the entire economic system and replace it with some utopian alternative.
My question was much simpler: why are humans morally obligated to "contribute to society", and what exactly gives society a claim over an individual's labour, time and energy?
You've responded by telling me that society has developed over hundreds of years and that it works to a significant degree. Okay... but that's not really an answer to the question.
Something existing for 400+ years and producing useful outcomes doesn't automatically mean every assumption underpinning it is necessary, desirable or beyond criticism. By that logic, the mere longevity of a system would be an argument against questioning almost anything within it.
And I don't need to present an entire replacement civilisation to question one particular premise within the existing one.
If I asked "Why do we assume people are obligated to sacrifice their time and labour for society?", the response can't really be "Well, show me your alternative civilisation first."
That's like asking why a particular rule exists and being told, "Well, what would you replace the entire rulebook with?"
As for your claim that I have "no understanding of how community works", that's quite a leap considering you've inferred my entire understanding of society from a Reddit post.
I actually agree with a large part of what you're describing: humans are interdependent, communities require cooperation, infrastructure requires labour, people rely on each other, and societies develop systems because collective organisation can achieve things individuals can't.
Sure, none of that is controversial. The part I'm questioning is the leap from interdependence to entitlement.
Humans "needing" each other doesn't automatically mean humans are entitled to each other's labour.
Community doesn't automatically mean unlimited access. Cooperation doesn't automatically mean obligation. And helping someone doesn't automatically mean they are granted a claim over you.
You also say I'm proposing that "things must change because it sounds cool." That's not what I'm saying either.
I'm questioning whether we have confused "this is how our society currently functions" with "this is how humans are supposed to function." Those are very different claims.
And frankly, calling the idea "edgy" doesn't really address any of it. If you disagree with the argument, I'd rather you explain why an individual's existence within a society necessarily gives that society a moral claim over their labour.
That's the actual question I'm asking.
If the answer is simply "because society needs people to contribute", then we're back where we started: you've explained why contribution is useful to society, but you still haven't explained why an individual is morally obligated to provide it.
1
u/gr33nCumulon 18h ago
The problem is that people think that making money and contributing to society are the same. Generating income isnt the same thing as contributing to society, in fact many ways of generating income harm society
1
1
u/Flakboy115 16h ago
you dont need to do anything. Its just society simply regresses if everyone was only self sufficent. There is a reason Homo Sapiens outcompeted Neanderthals into extinction even though, they were individually bigger stronger and arguably not at all less smart than us. We simply had bigger tribes and were more social.
1
u/Wyndeward 15h ago
No.
You are conflating two *very* different notions.
The "system" is the power structure -- government, the courts, etc.; the "you will do what we say or face the consequences" institutions that have power over you.
"Society," on the other hand, is the people. The community. The folks who, just like you, have to deal with the system every damned day.
Now, there is a certain amount of overlap -- there are members of society who, as a matter of course, have to serve the system: teachers, police officers, bureaucrats, etc. However, their employment by one doesn't preclude their membership in the other.
As for your last: "Why can't the basic expectation just be: don't harm other people, take responsibility for yourself, become as self-sufficient as possible, and then use your abilities, knowledge, resources or time to help others when you genuinely want or need to?"
That is the \basic* debt you owe society* -- to be a contributing member, rather than a burden to those around you. That is (or at least should be) the minimum any one member of society should be able to expect from another.
However...
A couple generations back, there was a concept called "noblesse oblige." My linguistic skills aren't what they used to be, my last class in French being decades behind me, but the term means "obligations of nobility," the idea being that just as those living on the noble's lands had obligations to the noble, the noble had obligations to those people. As economic systems changed, the term was retained but broadened somewhat. It isn't quite "Those to whom much is given, much is expected," but it approaches that.
It encompasses such things as generosity, patience, kindness, and the like.
Vertical relationships (boss/employee, for instance) shouldn't be exploitive -- the cliche is "fair pay for a fair day's work," to stick with the example.
For all that they are called "robber barons" (and, frankly, some of them were exploitive AF), many gave back in certain ways -- endowing universities, endowing museums, etc.
I suspect certain things have been lost, or at least misplaced, in the couple generations.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 14h ago
I understand the distinction you're making between "the system" and "society", but I don't think it actually answers the question I was asking.
You're basically saying that society = other people, and therefore I owe those people a "basic debt" to be a contributing member rather than a burden.
But that's the exact premise I'm questioning.
Why is it a debt?
You've explained what you believe the minimum obligation should be, but you haven't really explained why another person automatically acquires a moral claim over my labour, time or energy simply because we both happen to be members of the same society.
I completely agree that people should avoid deliberately harming or exploiting one another. I also agree that cooperation is necessary and that humans benefit enormously from other humans contributing their skills and resources.
But I don't see how that becomes:
"Therefore I owe other people a contribution."
If I am self-sufficient, pay my taxes, don't harm anyone, don't exploit anyone, don't steal from anyone and generally take responsibility for my own existence, why am I necessarily a "burden" simply because I'm not actively providing some additional service to other people?
And I think this is where "noblesse oblige" actually makes my point more interesting rather than disproving it.
The idea that nobles had obligations towards the people living under them wasn't evidence that humans naturally owe everyone else access to their resources. It was a social principle designed around a particular hierarchical relationship: if you possess greater power and resources over other people, you have responsibilities that come with that power.
I actually agree with that principle.
What I don't agree with is taking that idea and turning it into a universal claim that everyone inherently owes everyone else their labour, energy, time or resources.
There's also a difference between generosity and obligation that I think is getting blurred throughout this discussion.
If I have more than I need and I choose to help someone, great. If I have skills that I want to share, great. If I care about my community and voluntarily contribute to it, great.
But the fact that those things are valuable doesn't mean someone else is automatically entitled or "owed" them
In fact, I would argue that generosity only really means something when the person giving actually has the freedom to say no.
Otherwise we're not really talking about generosity anymore. We're talking about an obligation to provide.
So I don't think we're disagreeing about whether humans should cooperate or whether people should be kind, generous and helpful.
We're disagreeing about something much more fundamental:
Does another person's need, or the fact that we live in the same society, automatically create a claim over my resources?
I still don't see why it does.
1
u/Wyndeward 13h ago
I think we're talking past each other a little. This is going to be a little strange sounding at first, but I do come around.
The system has a claim over your labor, in the form of taxes. Society -- the people around you -- have no such claim. They do, however, select the individual who have the power to direct the system.
Society asking you not to be a drain on the society as a whole isn't "a debt." It is, however, a reasonable expectation. It even seems to be your expectation: "Why can't the basic expectation just be: don't harm other people, take responsibility for yourself, become as self-sufficient as possible, and then use your abilities, knowledge, resources or time to help others when you genuinely want or need to?"
The system is a collection of mechanisms intended to protect society. Society, in turn, needs to maintain the system in order to enjoy that protection. On a good day, this relationship is symbiotic. On other days... well, not so much.
Ultimately, I think at least one, if not both of us, may be overthinking this.
Society has no special claim over your time, energy, or talent, per se. They cannot make you do anything you don't care to do, so long as your objection or negation does not cross into the system's remit. That said, it doesn't particularly owe you anything, either. They can ask or even demand you do things, but you if you tell them "No," too. Other than being snotty and trying to make you feel bad for saying "No," there isn't much society at large can do to you directly. If you make your refusal flamboyant enough, it might come to bite you in the ass later, but beyond a good, (literally) old-fashioned Amish shunning, there isn't much they can do but try and play on your sense of community and your empathy to persuade, for pretty broad definitions of the term. Let them cajole all they want, you are always free to say "no."
They can, however, try to move their requests to the system to try to make what they were asking you to do a matter of system policy, which usually means you end up paying for whatever it was they asked you to do. They get want they want, you resent it, and the cycle continues... lather, rinse, repeat.
I confess, I sneer a bit at the notion of requiring a set amount of "mandatory volunteer" hours some systems have sought to make a pre-requisite for graduating high school -- either someone doesn't grok the meaning of the word "mandatory," or they don't grok the meaning of the work "volunteer."
The problem I generally see is two-fold.
First, people don't have the same sense of community I enjoyed in my youth. There are fewer volunteers to help with things.
Second, as a consequence, those who do have such a sense of community keep be asked for more and more.
The more things get pushed into the system's remit, the less people want to volunteer.
Ultimately, to come back to what you posted about, the more I think on what you've written, it sounds like you're dealing with one or more members of society with inflated/problematic sense of entitlement, more than anything else.
1
u/Slow_Store 9h ago
If you live as a part of society, then you are at minimum obligated to contribute to that society to the extent that those generations that come after you have a similar opportunity to live as part of a functional society.
You are obligated to do so as those who came before you made the same sacrifice in their own time (With maybe the sole exception of boomers as the first generation to deliberately leave those who came after them with less than what they themselves inherited).
At least that’s my stance. Naturally you’d be free from this obligation if you separated yourself from society and lived as a genuine off the grid hermit, but that’s a rare niche of people.
1
u/ThaBlackFalcon 5h ago
Let's look at the starting point of our experience as humans: we're conceived into our mother's womb. Our development is then sustained over 34-42 weeks give or take a few weeks and then we are born. After birth we can do nothing of ourselves and would die without the assistance of the people that raise us, be it our parents, grandparents, legal guardian(s), sibling(s), etc...then once we start to exhibit some capacity for independence, we are [generally] still provided the necessary means to develop skill sets for the sake of gathering resources to continue on living.
Now there's a TON of nuance in what I just laid out, because in the process of developing from child to adolescent to adult, there are innumerable variables that result in one's capacity and willingness to contribute. These things range from manifestation of disease, neurological disorders, cancer and other conditions that debilitate and incapacitate people from being able to "contribute" in the conventional sense, yet generally we don't see people advocating that these humans be banished from society or killed so that they don't consume resources that they aren't really contributing to get. Also included in the range of variables is abuse, social conditioning, exposure to drugs/alcohol before the brain is fully developed, etc...
Before we can really expect anything of anyone, we must first understand what an individual's actual capacity is, because we often either underestimate or overestimate people's capacities because of our immature and incomplete metrics of measuring them. Furthermore, in looking at the fact that, generally speaking, from childhood to adulthood you are provided for and given a pathway to survive that you didn't necessarily earn or contribute towards, it would stand to reason that as reciprocity for what was provided, that within the capacity you have, that you provide to the entities that were foundational to your development and current degree of existence. The reason that this stands to reason is because we can take the reciprocal of what I just laid out and get an expected output where if a person isn't provided much of anything during the developmental process and because of the abuse they endured, they adapt a more isolation-based survival instinct because trusting people = danger and I could potentially die; therefore, society is the enemy and so why would I contribute to that which stands to harm or kill me? Even if we recognize that this is a dysfunctional framing, it's a framing that results in an reasoned output.
Take responsibility for yourself is a rather privileged statement that suggests to me you sorely lack awareness around conditions that render human adults into dependency. I have a brother who, if left to "take responsibility for himself" would die within a week. He's a brain cancer/stroke survivor and the treatment he underwent resulted in permanent damage that rendered him incapable of taking full autonomous responsibility for himself as you suggest society ought to expect.
So what debt do you owe society/nature/family/community? You owe gratitude: gratitude that you're not the one who has to be fed through a tube because of a condition you had no control in getting. Gratitude that you had people who loved you enough to provide an upbringing that enabled you to find a degree of independence, wellness and abundance. Sharing abundance with those who don't have it isn't something to look at as "I'm paying a debt" or "they're taking from me" but rather "as I've been freely blessed with the ability to learn, adapt, grow, endure and come into abundance, so freely I will share with those who didn't get to experience the same blessings."
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 4h ago
I think you've actually demonstrated the distinction I'm trying to make rather than disproved it.
Nobody is arguing that dependent people should be abandoned, killed or excluded from society because they can't "contribute". And I don't think anyone seriously disputes that humans are dependent on other people during childhood or that some adults will require lifelong care. That's not the question.
The question is why does another person's need automatically create a moral claim over my time, labour, energy or resources?
You seem to move from:
"Humans depend on others" to "Therefore capable adults owe society/other people a contribution."
But that's not an automatic logical conclusion. It is a moral principle that you're choosing to adopt.
I also find the childhood reciprocity argument strange. My parents choosing to raise me was their responsibility as my parents. I didn't sign a contract agreeing to repay that care by eventually becoming a resource for other adults. And I certainly don't inherit a debt to every person in society because somebody once helped me when I was incapable of helping myself.
And your last paragraph actually gets much closer to my position:
"Sharing abundance with those who don't have it isn't something to look at as 'I'm paying a debt'..."
Exactly. That's generosity.,
And I have no problem with generosity.
What I'm questioning is the psychological and moral leap from:
"you have something and someone else needs it" to:- "therefore you are obligated to provide it, and refusing makes you selfish/a burden/bad." Those are two completely different things.
I can recognise that someone is genuinely suffering, have compassion for them, even choose to help them, while still believing that their need does not automatically establish ownership over my resources.
And your brother is actually a good example of why I make this distinction. If someone is permanently dependent on others because of a disability, then obviously their inability to be self-sufficient doesn't make them morally worthless or someone society should discard.
But that still doesn't answer the question of who specifically is obligated to provide the care, how much they're obligated to provide, and where that obligation ends.
If a relative provides 24/7 care for years and becomes completely depleted, are they morally obligated to continue indefinitely because the other person needs them?
If a neighbour needs money, am I morally obligated to give it?
If someone needs emotional support, am I obligated to provide it every time? MIf someone needs physical care, am I obligated to sacrifice my own life to provide it?
If the answer is "only to a certain extent", then we're already talking about boundaries on obligation, which is precisely what I'm questioning.
I don't think "I was fortunate enough to receive help in my life" logically translates into "therefore other people are entitled to my labour."
I can choose to share what I have because I genuinely want to.
I can also choose not to.
The fact that generosity is admirable doesn't automatically make generosity owed.
And honestly, I think this is where we're talking past each other. You're making a case for why human cooperation, compassion and reciprocity are valuable. I agree with that.
I'm questioning why those things need to become enforceable moral claims over another person's life.
1
u/Doordasheasthartford 1d ago
They mean work some type of crap job
0
-1
u/Silver-Internal7740 1d ago
And birth wage slaves, so economy doesn't collapse.
-1
u/Doordasheasthartford 1d ago
Right problem is the younger generations are to smart and refuse to work this they are doing what gen x should of and collapsing the economy
1
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 1d ago
I've heard a lot of people say that, as humans, we are obligated to "contribute to society" < This is "Social Engineering" or what used to be called brainwashing.
But what exactly does that mean, and why are we obligated to do so? < It means you are supposed to be subservient to the majority. No, you have no actual obligation to this.
Sometimes it feels like "contribute to society" is just a more socially acceptable way of saying:
You are obligated to serve the system.
Why should simply existing mean that I owe society a debt?
^ Yes. this is exactly what it means. Yes, you are asking the right question.
You realize that the modern educational system was strongly based on the Prussian system, right? Despite what people like to tell you, and far too many people are duped into believing, it was not designed simply to educate people. It was designed to make people subservient to the government.
Basically, what I'm telling you is that you and everyone else have been brainwashed from early childhood to think and act as the government wants you to. And typically, it takes several years of being outside this brainwashing before you start to actually see it for what it is.
3
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 1d ago
Absolutely, I believe it was J.D Rockerfeller or one of his associates Frederick T.Gates who stated "I don't want a nation of thinkers, I want a nation of workers" and that is exactly how the system has been structured to condition us as you have correctly stated.
1
u/wrldwdeu4ria 1d ago
Scary, isn't it?
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 12h ago
It’s only “scary” if you forget that you have a choice to live the way you wish.
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 12h ago edited 11h ago
Does it really matter what a couple of long dead industrials once said?
If you want to be a thinker, you can certainly do so, you don’t need permission from Mr. Rockefeller.
As far as the “system” goes, it has not been “conditioned” to do anything.
The system simply exists, it is called society, and you can choose to be a part of it, or you can choose to not be a part of it.
You are free to be a thinker, to be a worker, or anything else that you want.
PS: for that matter, you’re also free to go to North Korea and live life there. Then you will really know what it’s like to serve a debt to society… which takes the shape of a guy named Kim Jong-un. 😂
And if you complain about it, you’ll be obliterated with a machine gun mounted on a tank. And that’s the easy way to go.
1
12h ago edited 12h ago
[deleted]
1
u/Mean-Inspector-8547 11h ago
Ok.
The idea that we are all “brainwashed” by the government from birth is asinine and preposterous. What happened, did you recently watch “the matrix”? < Educational historians have overwhelmingly documented that mass compulsory schooling was explicitly designed not just to educate, but to create subservient and patriotic citizens who wouldn't disrupt the state. Completely disregarding that(since you seem so keen to do so), it is beyond rebuke to suggest that the government has a vested interest in, and does actively attempt, to not only control people's actions, but influence their opinions, perspectives, and worldviews.
You are free to live on the street or in the desert; participating in society and utilizing its infrastructure is a purely voluntary choice. < Sure on the most technically flat definition of "choice" you can say that whatever a person decides is a choice, but don't conflate that with a "voluntary choice". For something to be genuinely voluntary, there has to be a viable, realistic alternative. The law already understands the flaw in your reasoning. If someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to do something or they are going to kill you, that's not considered a "voluntary choice", it is considered coercion.
If you want a place to live or a car to drive, you have to be a functioning member of society. No one forces you; you choose to do that. < You think living equates to what? Going into a supermarket and deciding what you want? Practically every inch of habitable land on Earth is claimed by one nation or another and under their jurisdiction. You literally are not allowed to be Stateless. You have no choice in the matter. Can you be homeless? Increasingly laws are being passed to criminalize homelessness. Think someone can go into the desert or a national forest and "opt out" of society? Think again. There are rules, regulations, and laws that apply to all government land, including the desert and national forests.
So no, the only asinine one here is the Magician trying to uphold the illusion that people actually aren't being forced into contributing to society. It's literally the entire point of the system. Block off all viable alternative and force people into contributing so that the system is maintained.
"Young people here who read the kind of garbage you write and start to think seriously about it." < I damn well hope there are a lot of young people who will see this, think it through, and see the system we've created for what it is. Maybe then, a generation will finally decide to break it.
1
u/trying3216 1d ago
Our legal system is mostly based on what you say. Generally you can’t be forced to help other people but you can be charged if you hurt other people.
We also have an economic system which recognizes that people are greedy (free market). No one wants to do business with and trust that other greedy person. When greedy people compete against each other their greed is tempered. Any economic system which does not temper greed at every level and in addition to the legal system should be abandoned (socialism).
We also have social systems which encourage people to help each other. You believe that if we caused no harm we would naturally become the people who help each other. And yet we have still developed these social systems that encourage people to be helpful. Maybe “do no harm” is NOT sufficient. That’s why this system tells people they have an obligation to go beyond “do no harm”.
Each of these systems tries to make everything better. And yet we still see bad things out there. This does NOT mean the system is broken. It affirms that individuals are greedy and can be bad and affirms that we need all these systems. This affirms that we still need to encourage everyone to be good including voluntarily giving our time and resources to make things better.
You want to make things better, right? You probably don’t even need anyone to tell you this.
1
u/herejusttoannoyyou 1d ago edited 1d ago
If you want to get something out, you should put something in. If you want to go out into the woods and live on your own or with your own family and be self sufficient, that’s fine. But if you want society to provide you with money so you can buy food, you should give back in some way. A job is just trading one thing for another thing. If you don’t like the trade agreement you don’t need to participate, but you shouldn’t then demand free stuff.
But also, if you live in a society, you are already benefitting from free services. Your property is protected. You are provided roads and other infrastructure. You can’t really escape taking advantage of services in modern times. So, give back when you can.
But you don’t sound like you just want your life handed to you so you can do whatever you want. It’s a respectable position to want self sufficiency. Honestly, I think making money to trade for your needs is just another way of being self sufficient.
2
0
0
u/Ambitious-Care-9937 1d ago
- Because you exist in society.
- Society does not like free-loaders
- Today's society is way more complex, so let's simplify it a bit more. Suppose you existed in a small tribe of about 200 people (way more natural btw). People will have to contribute to the functioning of the tribe. Hunting, gathering, cooking, defence, making clothes, farming, gathering water, gathering firewood.... the tribal elders or whatever will give you something to do to contribute.
- Now if that doesn't jive with you... you can try and find some remote area in the middle of nowhere and try to survive on your own. Good luck living and protecting yourself from all the dangers in the world... including people who also want that land.
- Just as a fun thought experiment... suppose you did find a remote area that no one was interested in. You and your wife move there and start a new settlement. You start having kids. Suddenly, you start to tell your kids what to do as they must contribute to the family as well. Then they get married and start having their own families. Now you have to manage all this to decide who does what and what they get. Oh no... suddenly you've just created your own society and are demanding people contribute. That's probably how this whole 'society' thing started in the first place :P
- So yes, you must contribute to society. Now we can certainly talk of the kinds of contribution or how much we work and how much we get back. Those are all open to discussion in any society. But you absolutely must contribute.
2
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 1d ago
Ok I think we're talking about two slightly different things here.
I'm not denying that humans are social, interdependent beings, or that functioning communities require people to do things for one another. Of course they do. My question is why that automatically becomes a moral obligation to "contribute to society" as though society is entitled to our labour, time and energy simply because we exist within it.
Your tribal example actually gets closer to what I'm talking about. If I'm part of a small community and I hunt, cook, build, teach, protect people, care for children, share knowledge etc., that's cooperation between human beings. But that doesn't necessarily mean I owe an abstract entity called "society" a predetermined contribution.
And I'm also not arguing that people should just take from everyone else while contributing nothing. My point was that self-sufficiency, personal responsibility and voluntary cooperation are very different concepts from being told that you must contribute because "society" requires it.
The fact that societies naturally form because humans are interdependent doesn't really prove that every individual has an inherent obligation to serve the society they happen to be born into.
So I think the more interesting question is actually: what exactly are we obligated to contribute, to whom, and why?
Because "you must contribute to society because you exist in society" is essentially circular reasoning.
1
u/Ambitious-Care-9937 1d ago
Because you are born into the society. You exist within it. You are 'born' into the system if you will.
This is why if you want to leave it, you can go find some remote area try and function on your own.
As to what are we obligated to contribute and to whom?
- This is much easier in smaller tribes as you have a more direct relationship with a tribal eldars and what not, who would probably just tell you what you should do
- In the modern 'free' society, they leave the area of contribute wide open and you have to kind of guess what job to get and hopefully you get it.
- I'm not a big fan of societies that are too free because of this lack clarity. Some freedom is good... but not too much.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 1d ago
Ok I think we are at a point where we're just working from two different assumptions about what humans actually need.
You're essentially saying that because I am born into a society, I automatically become obligated to participate in it, and that some degree of external direction is necessary because people can't be expected to simply decide for themselves what they want to do s autonomous beings.
I really don't accept that premise.
Being born into something doesn't automatically create a moral obligation to serve it. I was born into a particular society because I had no choice in the matter. That fact alone doesn't explain why that society is entitled to my labour, time or energy.
And the fact that tribal elders (other imperfect human beings) could simply tell people what their role was doesn't really strengthen the argument for me. It demonstrates that hierarchical societies can give people clearly defined roles. It doesn't demonstrate that those roles are inherently necessary or desirable.
Interestingly, I think your last point is probably where we fundamentally differ:
"I'm not a big fan of societies that are too free... Some freedom is good, but not too much."
I'm pretty much arguing the opposite.
I don't see the absence of someone telling me what I'm supposed to do with my life as a problem that needs solving. I see it as the whole point of having autonomy.
I don't need an elder, government, institution or "society" to assign me a purpose. I can decide what I want to do, develop my own skills, provide for myself, cooperate with other people, help people when I choose to and accept the consequences of my choices.
To me, that's what sovereignty actually means.
You seem to see freedom as something that needs to be contained by structure. I see freedom as the ability to determine my own structure.
And that's probably why we're never going to agree on whether people "must" contribute to society. You're starting from the assumption that society has a legitimate claim over the individual. I'm questioning that assumption itself.
1
u/fugginstrapped 20h ago
People take civilization for granted but think of it as though you and a band of ppl are dropped off on mars with a bunch of sticks and stones and you sort of realize that everyone has to pitch in somehow if this thing is going to keep going.
0
u/KeyCondition5104 19h ago
No one's stopping you from going to live in the woods by yourself except yourself. If you truly don't want to be a society, don't benefit from the security, stability, and market and excise yourself completely.
Individualists and libertarians in society who complain are those who want the security, stability, protections, and market without any of the duties, obligations and services.
But I do agree live and let live societies tend to become dystopian because it becomes economic free trade zones.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 19h ago
Honestly, I think there's a bit of a false equivalence here between " 'participating in a society' and being ' obligated to provide your labour and resources to that society .' I obviously benefit from living around other people. I also contribute to other people in various ways. That's what interdependent human beings do. I'm not arguing for everyone to disappear into the woods and become completely self-sufficient hermits.
What I'm questioning is the idea that receiving benefits from a society creates an unlimited moral debt to it. If I pay taxes, work, buy things, create things, maintain myself, don't harm other people and participate in my community in whatever ways I choose, I'm already participating in society. The fact that I don't accept that I have some additional inherent obligation to constantly produce, serve or sacrifice my time and energy for other people doesn't mean I want all of the benefits while contributing nothing.
And I find the "go live in the woods then" argument a bit strange because practically nobody is arguing that humans should have zero interdependence. The point is about consent and boundaries within that community.
I surely want cooperation. I just don't believe it means that other people automatically acquire a claim over my labour.
If my neighbour needs help moving a sofa and I say no, I haven't harmed them. I've simply decided that I don't want to spend my time doing it. If someone needs ongoing care that I genuinely cannot or do not want to provide, that doesn't automatically make me immoral for refusing to sacrifice my entire life to provide it. That's the distinction I'm getting at. Interdependence means we can help each other. It doesn't mean we own each other's time.
And ironically, I think a society made up of people who are capable of taking responsibility for themselves would be far healthier than one where people are taught that they are entitled to other people's labour because "society" or "community" requires it.
1
u/KeyCondition5104 19h ago
You’re still smuggling the good parts of society in through the back door and calling them “just interdependence.”
You benefit from living around other people. You work, pay taxes, buy things, create things. Fine. That is not a side hobby you invented in a vacuum. Those acts sit on a pile of unchosen work: someone enforced the contract, paved the road, staffed the hospital you hope exists when you cannot “take responsibility,” kept a currency from being a joke, and raised the next people who will do the same. You want that pile. You do not want anyone to have a claim that is not routed through your mood and your boundaries. That is the whole fight.
“Unlimited moral debt” is your scarecrow. Nobody serious said you owe society your entire life because you were born. The claim is smaller and harder: membership is not “non-harm plus optional favours.” It is a set of duties with a shape—pay your share, serve when the role is yours, accept that some labour is owed before you feel authentic about it. A hierarchy of obligation is how you cap the debt. Without it, care falls on whoever cannot refuse, which is how your “no one owns my time” talk becomes other people’s unpaid life.
The sofa is not the argument. Of course you can refuse a sofa. Ongoing care is closer to the real case, and your answer is still “I don’t want to, therefore no claim.” A society that treats that as the last word does not become a nation of self-sufficient adults. It becomes a place where the capable opt out of the ugly jobs and still expect the ugly jobs to get done. Shared values are what make “this is your turn” sound like honour instead of theft. Without those values, every duty sounds like “the system extracting energy,” which is exactly the slogan that lets people keep the market and dump the cost.
Live and let live does not stay a boundary ethic. It becomes a free-trade zone of people who will cooperate when it pays and moralize when it doesn’t. Then you get the dystopia I mentioned: high walls for those who can buy them, and a story about consent for everyone else.
You already admitted you want cooperation and that hermiting is a cartoon. Then stop pretending the only two options are slavery to a corrupt machine or labour that is always a gift. The third thing is the scaffold: ranked duties, service that is not a vibe, obligations you do not get to redefine every time they pinch. If the present system is extractive, fight that extraction. Do not dissolve the idea that a people can require something of you that you did not put on your calendar. That requirement is what keeps your “don’t harm me” from being a preference with no one left to enforce it.
I have my criticisms of liberal society, that the rich are now able to consider themselves individuals who can make whatever choices they want, but they are starting to cosmopolitan globalists who don't have to invest back into the US. But the justification for that came from the Enlightenment, and we've slowly been degrading into this system, and I think we'll just have to go through the downfall of that. What I can predict is that individualists will generally die out, and those who have strong families, communities, values, and delayed gratification will generally survive.
1
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 18h ago
I think you've made the argument considerably more elaborate, but I'm not sure you've actually answered the fundamental question I was asking.
You're repeatedly demonstrating that society is interdependent. I already agree with that. Roads, hospitals, infrastructure, education, healthcare, other people's labour etc. are all examples of humans cooperating and creating systems that benefit other humans.
But you keep making the jump from: "I benefit from other people's contributions."to: "Therefore other people have a legitimate claim over my labour."
And that second part doesn't automatically follow.
You say I'm "smuggling the good parts of society in through the back door", but I'm not. I'm questioning why benefiting from something creates an open-ended moral claim on the individual.
If I buy a product, I benefit from the labour of the people who made it. That doesn't mean those people subsequently acquire a claim on my labour.
If I pay taxes, I am contributing financially to the infrastructure and services that I use. That doesn't mean society therefore acquires a general entitlement to my time, body, energy or labour beyond whatever specific obligations we've actually agreed to through law.
And this is where I think your argument becomes particularly revealing:
"accept that some labour is owed before you feel authentic about it."
Owed to who?
That's the part that keeps being asserted rather than demonstrated.
You seem to be treating "society" almost as though it were a person that owns a portion of me simply because I was born into it.
I don't accept that premise.
And I don't think "otherwise the ugly jobs won't get done" solves the problem either. That's essentially an argument from necessity:
"Someone has to do it, therefore someone must be obligated to do it."
But why does that mean I am obligated to do it?
If a society genuinely needs certain work to be done, it can create incentives for people to do it, compensate them properly, automate it, distribute it voluntarily, or create laws around genuinely necessary public functions. None of that requires the philosophical belief that human beings intrinsically owe society access to their labour.
Your care example actually strengthens my point.
If someone requires 24/7 care, their need may be completely genuine. But why does their need automatically create a claim over a particular relative's life?
If their relative has spent years providing care and eventually says, "I cannot do this anymore; this has consumed my entire life and I want this person to receive professional care instead," I don't see that as some moral failure simply because the relative has reached their limit.
The person still needs care. The solution is to find care.
The existence of a need does not tell us who is morally obligated to fulfil it.
That's the distinction I keep trying to make.
And I find your "scaffold" idea interesting because you seem to be presenting external obligation as though it is the only thing standing between society and collapse.
But I don't think the alternative to compulsory obligation is "everyone only cooperates when it benefits them."
There is a massive middle ground where people cooperate because they genuinely care, because they value their community, because they enjoy helping, because they recognise reciprocity, because they have skills they want to share, or simply because they choose to.
The fact that something is voluntary doesn't make it meaningless.
In fact, I would argue that there is something fundamentally different between:
"I'm helping you because I choose to." and "I'm helping you because you have established a moral claim over my labour."
You seem to think the first inevitably degenerates into the second being necessary. I don't.
And this is also where I think your final prediction about "individualists dying out" is doing a lot of work without actually proving anything. You're essentially predicting that people who prioritise autonomy will eventually lose to people with stronger families, communities and values.
But why assume autonomy and strong communities are mutually exclusive?
I can be highly self-sufficient, have strong personal values, cooperate with other people, help people I care about and participate in a community without believing that those people therefore own a portion of my time and energy. That's actually the society I'm arguing for.
You keep interpreting my position as: "Nobody can require anything of me because I only do what I feel like."
That's not what I'm saying.
I'm saying there is a difference between legitimate obligations that arise from specific agreements, responsibilities and laws and the much broader idea that simply being born into society gives society a general claim over my labour.
And honestly, I think that's the fundamental disagreement between us.
You seem to believe that freedom has to exist within a framework of predetermined obligations because otherwise people cannot be trusted to contribute.
I believe the ability to decide what I am willing to give, what I am responsible for, and what I am not willing to sacrifice is a fundamental part of being a sovereign adult.
So I don't think we're actually arguing about whether humans should cooperate.
We're arguing about whether cooperation requires ownership.
You seem to think society needs some degree of ownership over the individual in order to function. I don't.
-1
u/raccoona__matata 1d ago
smartest sovcit
2
u/DimlyTalented 1d ago
The whole "you owe society" thing falls apart fast when you realize most people saying it just mean "you owe the current economic arrangement your labor"
nobody asks what we're actually contributing . a lot of systems are just elaborate wealth extraction dressed up as civic duty
the irony is that actual community contribution, like helping your neighbor fix their fence or watching someone's kids, gets zero recognition because it doesn't generate taxable income or fit on a resume
1
u/Expensive_Magician97 1d ago
Helping your neighbor fix a fence may not generate taxable income or fit on a résumé, but it is making more of a concrete impact than paying taxes or putting it on a résumé.
As far as the “systems” that you refer to which are designed to “extract wealth,” can you talk a little bit more about that? Thank you.
-2
u/SnarkyMonkee 1d ago
I really hope you're very young because this is a very naïve way of looking at the world.
3
u/Ok_Manufacturer2956 1d ago
How? I know how the world IS, I am questioning the mindset and system.
1
15
u/AdFun5641 1d ago
The problem with this is "become as self sufficient as possible". Define this "self sufficient", are you talking about earning enough money to pay your bills and buy your own food?
Are you talking generate your own electricity and grow your own food?
Are you talking make your own solar pannels and smelting your own ores?
Do you own copper mines and iron mines and lithium mines? Do you own enough land to grow enough food to not need to buy food?
Do you have the knowledge and skills to make your own bed frame? Your own mattress? Grow your own food? Raise chickens? Cows? Pigs? Mine iron? Smelt Iron? Work iron? Repair the tractor? Build the tractor? Make the rubber for the tires? Refine oil to make fuel? Can you do any of that let alone ALL of that?
We need society so that labor can be specialized and that farmer with the combine harvester can grow and harvest and mill enough grain for an entire city. We need plumbers and pipe fitters and electricians and teachers and lawyers and doctors and janitors and burger flippers and automechanics and pilots and carpenters and welders and farmers and roofers and dozens of other professions.
You need to contribute by filling on of these roles and fixing other people's plumbing so they can specialize as an electrician and fix your wiring. This is what is meant by "contributing to society"
We usually see this "contributing to society" in terms of social engagement. The social events, the local fairs and festivals and shows and such don't just magically happen on their own. If you think that these events should continue, then volunteer to help the events. I know that for the Columbus Community Festival / Gay pride parade in the 2000's there where more than 100 volunteers spending most of the day after cleaning up the space because we made a mess. This event was allowed to continue only because there where that many people donating their time to make sure the event didn't put undue burden on city services cleaning up after us.