What's Fairshare for you ?

I was wondering these past few days what this oft-times ignored ethic means to you.

  What does applying Fairshare look like in the current world and also in your own vision of an ideal world?

Huh?

Please define.  Your word, made from the two English words "fair share", appears to have been contracted into a single word in order to be used as jargon in a specific application.  Without knowing the context and application, it's difficult to form a proper response.

Dan

I don't think the 3rd ethic is "oft forgotten" as you state.  It deals with "surplus".
My primary in goal starting a permaculture environment is to conquer the first 2 ethics.
Permaculture essentially is providing an environment that will supply my needs, without compromising that ability to my descendants.  The first several years will be devoted into getting the infra-structure set into place.  What little 'surplus' generated will be isolated crops/animals.  Hopefully, that surplus can be sold/traded to pay property taxes, utilities, and other investments to the infra-structure.  Before my land will supply a surplus, it needs to be totally sustainable for me and my family.  I will not have surplus produce, nor time to share.  I will gladly share what I learn along the way.  Surplus that cannot be sold (to cover costs of ongoing development) will probably be shared with retirement homes and others that cannot provide for themselves.

When people need plants for their land, help them out. I like to "teach a man to fish", not just donating stuff again and again. If people needed by help to get set up, I would help them for free and without hesitation.

Kirk Hutchison wrote:
When people need plants for their land, help them out. I like to "teach a man to fish", not just donating stuff again and again. If people needed by help to get set up, I would help them for free and without hesitation.

That reminds me I have an envelope with you name with some seeds in it... should arrive by next week. 

Mollison and Holmgren intentionally left the permaculture ethics open-ended without a strict list of do's or don't's, because they wanted folks to think for themselves.  Rather than answers, the ethics lead to questions, and that is a very good thing. 

Hi,
given that the ethics of permaculture are drawn from existing and past indigenous peoples and religions that did and do live a harmonoius lifestyle i often look to the buddhist approach, especially with regards "Right Livelihood" The Buddha gave several discourses about behaviours that should be refrained from in speech, thought, activity etc and bearing in mind Buddhism is based on compassion for the self and others this doesn't seem a bad place to start - he also added work out your own salvation with dillegence, so a bit of critical thinking and observation - you could do worse than apply an action learning loop to yuor current behaviours - David holmgren "Permaculture Principles & Pathways" has a good paragraph on carrying out a self audit,

regards, gary finch

"Fair share" to me is just a cutesy but not fully accurate way of describing the third ethic.

I prefer "redistribution of surplus" or "setting limits to population and consumption" but any way you describe it, you must always be thinking in the context of doing so to further the first two ethics, and never, ever at the expense of somebody else's rights.

It does not mean that I HAVE to share my strawberries with you just because I'm not going to eat them all right now, or that Paul HAS to allow his material to be used without his permission.
If you showed up to somebody's house and "borrowed" their scythe without their permission, trying to argue that it was in the name of fairly sharing a tool to further the advances of permaculture, would not be a very good excuse.

Ahipa wrote:
I was wondering these past few days what this oft-times ignored ethic means to you.

  What does applying Fairshare look like in the current world and also in your own vision of an ideal world?

I think it is something I can't discuss here.

https://permies.com/permaculture-forums/6016_0/tinkering-with-this-site/the-third-ethic

Here is the simple fact I would like to share on this thread,

In Permaculutre One, Permaculture Two and The PDM, the phrase "fair share" never appears even one time. Fair share is an invention of people that want to change what the third ethic means. It isn't the third ethic, simple enough.

I think we all know fair share is a subjective term that's been slipped into allot of societies than borederlines on outright socialism or better put the entitlement nanny state.
Return of surplus to the first two ethic's is what the third ethic is about, surplus biomass goes back to the earth as mulch not up into the atmosphere as a burn pile, surplus seeds, plants, information or what have you goes back to people as education.
I don't know how the third ethic got mangled into some possibility of handout's when it's simply a directive to charitable behavior in whatever means one has something in surplus. Posting on the forum's your happy accidents and sad failure's is a ripe example of the third ethic in action.
Paul and the staff have a surplus skill that has been returned as a forum that's free to everyone, it's obvious the third ethic is the simplest to understand. I'm surprised there isn't more huffus about the second ethic of people care as we all know loving thy neighbor is a hard thing to do when they use roundup.

Though in danger of being seen as a zealot, I like to quote Bill Mollison a lot.

"The only ethical decision is to take responsibility for our own existence and that of our children." Chapter 1, Permaculture a designers manual.

He talks about helping people to be able to take care of themselves which gives them true security and in turn gives us security because people who feel secure don't need to take other people's stuff.

Sharing skills, knowledge and access to resources helps people to learn to care of themselves. Just giving people stuff is less likely to help them learn to care for themselves. In my opinion.

Saybian Morgan wrote: I'm surprised there isn't more huffus about the second ethic of people care as we all know loving thy neighbor is a hard thing to do when they use roundup.

How do you get "love thy neighbor" from "Care of people: Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence."? I don't even have to like my neighbor to do that, I can do it from purely selfish reasons - if they have their own stuff (resources) they'll be less likely to take mine!

Tyler Ludens wrote:

Saybian Morgan wrote: I'm surprised there isn't more huffus about the second ethic of people care as we all know loving thy neighbor is a hard thing to do when they use roundup.

How do you get "love thy neighbor" from "Care of people: Provision for people to access those resources necessary to their existence."? I don't even have to like my neighbor to do that, I can do it from purely selfish reasons - if they have their own stuff (resources) they'll be less likely to take mine!

Great point, further to me care of people really means not harming them. That doesn't mean letting a hungry person starve but I am under no obligation to live at the very edge of my needs so I can magically be in a group of "fair sharers". The best way to care for people is to make sure they are not prevented from living their lives, based on their choices in anyway they see fit so long as they don't harm others. It really is that simple.

Frankly I can think a person is a complete dick, I can think they are not worthy of my direct help but I would still not go out of my way to do them harm, doing so causes unsuitability around them and with every person they interact with. I don't have to be nice to this hypothetical dickhead to not harm him/her. I don't have to share my stuff with them to make a positive impact that benefits them in some way.

How about this for fair share, "The best way you can care for others is to work hard and insure that you provide for your own needs and the needs of your family so as not to place a burden upon another person to provide for your needs".

Note that the second ethic is not, "care of poor people" or "care of disadvantaged people" it is care of people, period. If you are not providing for yourself and your family then you are a burden on others. In any situation where you could but choose not to you are now in violation of the ethic.

Again though I say, "fair share" is absolutely NOT the third ethic. Lawton told me this in a direct conversation, he stated, "just because it rhymes doesn't make it valid".

jack spirko wrote:
Note that the second ethic is not, "care of poor people"

That would be the teachings of Jesus.

jack spirko wrote:

Again though I say, "fair share" is absolutely NOT the third ethic. Lawton told me this in a direct conversation, he stated, "just because it rhymes doesn't make it valid".

Again, I say, "fair share" is indeed the third ethic for a lot of people and just because Lawton says it's not does not mean it's not.

And again, I say, "fair share" DOES NOT MEAN socialism.

I'm re submitting this with the brilliant,thought provoking and insightful offensive and confrontational part edited out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an inteligent, hard working and productive male, "Fair Share" sounds like something that I would be paying into but would never benefit from. Therefore, I'm against it, no matter how you change it or condense it, I'll be against it. That should be set to music.

It won't matter if a billion people latch on to the idea. Many productive people won't have it and will sabotage any attempt to institute a requirement to contribute. To me, one of the best things about lots of people becoming self sufficient is that they can live well on an income so low that the government won't compel them to contribute to supporting the idle.

Whenever I see a televised protest where some group is screaming for more, I think of the European debt crisis. Less is often what is required. If you have less, live on less.

I have lived in various vehicles through Canadian winters for most of the past 14 years. (various personal, work and financial reasons) At no time have I asked society to dig me out of a mess that was largely my own creation. Now that I have land, a bus, a crane and a few other minor assets, I intend to reap the benefits of the extreme, self imposed frugality that I've been practicing all these years.

I hired a guy to help me with some work on the property. He looked around at the beautiful scene and asked, "How did you luck into this."

My "Fair Share" of the fruits of my labour is 100%. The only easy part of this has been the math.

I never built the roads, schools, libraries and other public works which have benefited me throughout my life, so I have to give society some credit for my success, personally. But that's just me!

Tyler Ludens wrote:I never built the roads, schools, libraries and other public works which have benefited me throughout my life, so I have to give society some credit for my success, personally. But that's just me!

I'm in favour of those things. My issue is with supplimental income for anyone other than our most disadvantaged citizens. I think that the vast majority who survive at public expense should be dropped from the various welfare systems. I'm in Canada where anybody with a hang nail and a convincing story has a good chance of being declared disabled.

Here in the US we mostly provide supplemental income to corporations, not poor people.

Tyler Ludens wrote:I never built the roads, schools, libraries and other public works which have benefited me throughout my life, so I have to give society some credit for my success, personally. But that's just me!

Well since those are paid for with consumption taxes like gas and sales you don't need to feel that your income and social security taxes are justified.

My income taxes and self-employment taxes probably go to pay for people like my 82 year old Dad to have really great health insurance and for people like my sister to have disability payments.

To be honest, I just like to believe they go to pay for those kinds of things. They probably actually go to pay for debt run up by the government, maybe for military expenses and the like. I don't worry much about them going to pay for old and sick people, even for lazy poor people.

Tyler Ludens wrote: lazy poor people.

Ludi's admission that this demographic exists is good enough for me and I will now stop flogging this dead horse.

off topic (kinda)

Al Franken's Supply Side Jesus video on youtube. Hilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M

BTW, back on topic. The May 26th Toronto Globe and Mail newspaper had an article in its Editorial page called "Hurt the criminal or hurt the crime?"
Would you rather spend $1 to reeducate the criminal or spend $7 on future policing,legal and penal costs?
America has a 3 out of 5 criminal recidivism. Norway's system has 1 in 5. Hmmmmm.

Here it is.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/doug-saunders/hurt-the-criminal-or-hurt-the-crime/article2443920/

I'm willing to spend my hard earned money on all the citizens to aid all of us.

My 2 cents.

I give away surplus time by volunteering as a Master Gardener. I give my neighbors and coworkers excess veggies that I have grown(mostly cucumbers, peppers and tomatoes at this point, but I expect citrus, berries and grapes sometime in the next year or three). I'd give my neighbors cut flowers too(I have plenty that could be cut), but giving a guy flowers is weird and giving flowers to their wives might be misconstrued. If either neighbor started doing some real gardening(instead of just landscaping), I'd offer them plants because I usually sprout too many. Surplus money isn't an issue, because there isn't any and I'm not really looking to have surplus money either. If I ever did, though, I'd probably end up giving some of that away, or starting a foundation myself.

Permaculture is about abundance. If you don't have abundance in at least one area, then you might want to re-examine your system. Unless your system is very new of course.

Fair Share is a term that I associate with correcting the history of exploitation inherent to colonialism . Coffee and Bananas and the serfdom suffered by indigenous peoples. Can Starbucks at least build a school to help the ones who pick their coffee for pennies an hour, a clinic or something? Can permaculture offer these folks a way up from their reliance on Starbucks and coffee monocropping and inspire them towards independence? In other words , giving back . For myself , I am trying to break free from the clutches of a consumer jungle and all I want to give back to Monsanto and Walmart is the finger. Fair Share is giving back -
Self Reliance is taking back. When you remove the politics from these conversations the recipient of the fairest share is going to be the ecosystem.

First, I think it is interesting in this other thread that we found out the the official permaculture stuff does not have "fair share", but that david holmgen tossed that bit into the ring as something to consider.

The problem I have with "fair share" is that it can mean all sorts of things. Some people can choose for it to mean that everybody gets the same no matter what they chip in. Other people can choose for it to mean that what is a fair share is that each person gets back something according to what they put in. So it seems like a tool to create division rather than solve problems.

I do know that I have seen crime in the name of "fair share". So, so far, this has caused a lot of damage.

The Little Red Hen is a folk tale, most likely of Russian origin. It was popularized in the United States by Little Golden Books . I think it illustrates the value of hard work, good planning and fair distribution better than anything written by proponents of redistribution. It's so simple that preschoolers get it.

Dale Hodgins wrote:The Little Red Hen is a folk tale, most likely of Russian origin. It was popularized in the United States by Little Golden Books . I think it illustrates the value of hard work, good planning and fair distribution better than anything written by proponents of redistribution. It's so simple that preschoolers get it.

I read that story to my kids at bed time. It has a lot of good lessons in it.

I think it's a good idea to think about what "fair share" means but I don't think that it belongs as part of the ethics. It's a side conversation and really more of a matter of opinion.

When we talk about taking care of those who are worse off amongst us with taxes or donations/charity, we find that almost everyone has a different place where they draw the line. How bad is bad enough to warrant help? How much help should be given? What are the minimum requirements to get assistance? Who should give the assistance?

These are questions which no two people will ever agree 100%.

For me, A Fair Share is an equal opportunity for everyone and everything. I take no more than I need and give back what I can. I do this in a way that allows me to continue the process. Not out of obligation but for the fact that it's the "right" thing to do. I don't do anything to harm others intentionally and if I do harm another I make it "right".

For example Last year I collected a pound of bok choi seed. I sold some, gave some away, saved some, planted some as a catch crop for flea beetles, scattered some on bare patches of soil, added some to seed mixes for insects, some gets scattered around town beside the sidewalks and later in the year I'll plant some to eat and save seed from. In my mind I've shared with just about every element of my life that I could. Everyone from the bugs in the compost to random passers by in the streets will reap some reward from those seeds. I made a few bucks and still have plenty of seed in case of emergency, with plenty more on the way in the fall.

Some will say that's a fair share and others will not. I'm not the judge and I'm not sure anyone can be the judge of something like that. What i know is that it feels "right" to me.