Living without money

Jeffrey Loucks wrote:    
    But if we desire to be a part of a first world country we have to pay the price. Being safe and having access to the luxuries we are used to means having some form of government.  Jeff  

Well, the author of the blog that started this thread doesn’t seem to want the luxuries of of a first world country. He lives in a tiny cave on land not legally his, and avoids the modern medical system. There is enough surplus food and clothing in our society to feed and clothe him. He talks about wild birds and animals, but to me his aspirations seem more like a feral cat - willing and able to live on his own and eat from dumpsters or the wild, but willing to accept comforts from people he likes.
I think there is a lot of romanticism about gift economies. I don’t know a ton, but what I have read about gift economies suggests to me that they came with strong societal norms. A gift was not “free”, any more than it usually is in our society. It came with an obligation to pass it on/gift in return. Maybe this would be a better system in small groups where you can keep track. It also can chafe. Growing up, my family culture was generous, but unwilling to accept favors from outside the family: my parents were nervous about being under an obligation to others, especially if they didn’t like them very much. Just think about how stressful Christmas can be, where if you get a gift from someone you don’t know well, you need to scramble to get them a gift in return, without being sure what they would like….

Lina Joana wrote:I think there is a lot of romanticism about gift economies. I don’t know a ton, but what I have read about gift economies suggests to me that they came with strong societal norms. A gift was not “free”, any more than it usually is in our society. It came with an obligation to pass it on/gift in return. Maybe this would be a better system in small groups where you can keep track. It also can chafe.

I once studied gift economies - or at least one historical example thereof - in an anthropology course.  At least according to that one perspective, you are absolutely correct.  The societal norms that governed the economy were very strong.  By extravagant and conspicuous generosity, you earned social status at the expense of your recipients.  They would, of course, yearn for an opportunity to "return the favor" when their fortunes happened to be higher and yours happened to be lower.   Then, they could earn back social status at your expense by gifting to you.

The good part of all this was that it created a built-in social safety net.  When hard times strike, the flurry of gift-giving from those eager to capitalize on the opportunity to amass social status points means that those at the bottom of the society, or those most badly struck by the current hard times, don't starve.  This safety net effect kicked in automatically, since generosity was inherent to the society's value system.  Whether or not it was generosity in the genuinely altruistic sense or in the opportunistic, social climbing sense... either way, the system functioned.

Whereas in contrast, in the history of Western societies it has often required a higher level of organization - either government or organized religion - to provide a universal social safety net.  Adequate bonds of neighborly obligation existed to provide for one another spontaneously in small, village-scale groups, but no larger than that.

I find economy, money, and gifting society ideas all very fascinating.  This is an old thread but it's a fun one.  I've come to the view at this stage in life that there are different comfort levels that people have with many aspects of the economy, money, bartering, gifting, accepting or giving charity of any sort, and on and on.

The governments of the world are offensive to me and to many others.  People find them a necessary evil and some find them a great protector of rights and property and more.  As I went down the road exploring libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism views the ideals laid out in voluntaryism really resonate with me.  I do not believe any governmental systems to be truly legitimate if they employ coercion, threats, force, and aggression against non-aggressive individuals.  It just sort of turns them into a bunch of thugs.  Sure it can look fairly civil, because they wear nice suits and sign fancy documents calling it law.  But underneath it all it's threats of violence and actual violence and seizure of property with fines and more that backs it up (the monopolization of violence).

All money is not created equal.  There are various levels of fraudulence tied to a monetary system.  A gold backed fractional reserve system has been used many times and many places in history.  Once you fractionalize it it becomes fraudulent in my view.  If you loan out more than you actually have that looks like a scam to me.  It slips down that slope towards a monetary system based entirely on fraud and debt which is what has spread around the globe.  A bank can literally loan money it does not have to a person so they can buy a house.  If the borrowers foreclose on the house then the bank gets that house for nothing and then sells it again.  What backs most current monetary systems it is debt and expansion of currency with debt.  So I find it very noble for people to attempt to disengage in that fraud to the best of their ability.  A 100% gold backed currency would avoid that fraudulent aspect to money.  There has been some of that throughout history.  Not expecting that to come back anytime soon.  The BRICS nations are preparing for a 40% backed international exchange system which might work out decent as the US empire continues it's decline.  I'm not a big fan of BRICS or the US empire, I'm just trying to share information on that.  I think there is a NWO (new world order) brewing that is going to be a "multi-polar world order" and it is not going to be any less coercive or more noble than the current orders it will likely be a lot worse if fully realized.

Here is a book on the USA banking system that goes into many details about the current monetary models:
https://archive.org/details/the-creature-from-jekyll-island-by-g.-edward-griffin/mode/2up

Some people have no problem with any of the problems I have with the economy and monetary systems.  Some people have major problems with it like I do.  Some are fine jumping through all of the government hoops to be part of their systems.  Some have major problems with it like I do.  

So for now being in a situation where we can't get there from here, what are we to do?  I believe the best solution is community.  A fundamental basic would be multi-generational homesteading situations.  Where those who enjoy engaging in the economy and being part of the government citizenship systems can aid those who desire distance and being able to disengage.  Ideally in my view no one would be bartering and trading this-for-that in a micro community.  Instead they would be gifting, sharing, giving in charity to their loved ones.  Like parents to their children while they are young.  This is the prototype:  A family without coercion based on love and charity.  I know this is fairly unrealistic for most groups and even many families once there are many adults.  People build up resentments and fear the moochers and whatever else.  However with this idea there could be many symbiotic situations that can blossom.

For an example, those who enjoy the economy and do well at it can help those who suck at it and are disgusted by it.  It doesn't mean either one is better than the other, it just means they can help one another out.  The permaculturists can stick around the homestead building up sustainable systems while the money makers can go do that with their time and energies.  Then the homebodies can blossom and not be focusing on money making, instead figure out what they love -- like growing food for the family and community, finding the best localized solutions for housing and structures etc.  So as the unsustainable practices of society at large starts to fail and fall then people can weather the storm.  Even temporary hitches like pandemics (real or fake), job loss, illness, and whatever people can have a much easier time as a group than out on their own as an island to themself.

Community is an important subject to many people here because many of us can see and feel that it solves so many problems.  But it is one of the most challenging things to accomplish.  There are infinite micro details that would be different community to community.  And even these ideals I'm vaguely laying out aren't a given.  Most people are fine or at least tolerate very well the ideas of modern bank systems, government issued id's, registrations, taxes, and many other ideas I find offensive.  So in many communities that wouldn't be much of a thing to think all that much about.  But life can be quite the puzzle for people like myself, and I'm not entirely alone in these views, especially if you break them apart into different subjects.

I have rejected my citizenship in "the kingdoms of man."  With that I have no state issued drivers license, don't use my social security number (social insurance), so I have no bank account.  I will never accept a digital ID.  I can't really own property or register a not for profit because of my views on things.  So I can be a wandering sojourner, perhaps a caretaker on someone's property, maybe rent at some places, and other such things.  Or I can live on some family property like I am because my family doesn't find me too insane to be playing around here.  It's a solution I wish more people had opportunity to do.  Multi-generational homesteading solves much.

By the end of my life I would love to live without using money at all.  You could argue that's impossible and that the guy diving in dumpsters is eating food that came from money and on and on.  Yes I realize that money would likely be involved in some aspects of my life by others who have some charity towards me.  That would be a wonderful gift.  If it came from someone who had no offense towards those things or towards me then it would be a healthy symbiotic relationship.  I'm already practicing the gifting economy idea.  We gift out our excess (including animals) to friends instead of barter or sell.  I'm inviting others to join in.  It does resonate with most people at least on the basic produce level.  Most of my life I've been around people who love to gift out their extra tomatoes, zucchini, cucumbers, and more.  I'm doing it with our chickens and plan to with our turkeys, and cows.  It's great and I think the gifting economy idea can spread and has a lot of potential.  I'm going to play with it even if it doesn't spread.  A boycott of corrupt systems would be great, but maybe that can only trickle into existence at this stage of society.

Kind of an all over the place ramble here.  This thread was fun to read through and these were some of my thoughts after reading it.

Here is a recent blog post if anyone is interested:
https://disconnect.bearblog.dev/are-we-all-still-just-serfs-slaves-and-freemen/

Interesting and thought provoking post.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:

Ideally in my view no one would be bartering and trading this-for-that in a micro community.  Instead they would be gifting, sharing, giving in charity to their loved ones.  Like parents to their children while they are young.  This is the prototype:  A family without coercion based on love and charity.  

I spent my morning bringing various forms of mental pressure on my 3 year old to get him to pick up enough toys that we could walk through the room. It was my own parenting philosophies that kept there from being yelling or punishments involved, not any ability on the part of the child to resist. So plenty of love, charity, AND a massive imbalance of power, with aspects of coercion and manipulation thrown in. We call it teaching, raising, what have you, but the child has no choice in his situation. Coercive by definition.

For the rest - I find it hard to imagine a modern lifestyle without government/money, because we have all gotten used to a way of life that requires capitalism. Here is what I mean: each of us can produce a certain amount of stuff with our own two hands. We can produce more than we need to survive - but I don’t think we can produce more than we have come to expect. For that we rely on industrial capital equipment. So I might be able to grow enough food and fiber to gift or barter for clothing and shelter. But how would I get a washing machine, electricity, and indoor plumbing supplies? What about electric fans, refrigerators, computers- you get the idea, just look around. All of these things, if they are to be affordable with my labor, need to be made at factory scale. Maybe its a lack of imagination, but I cannot visualize it happening in a gift economy.
Can we live without it all? Sure - but I don’t wanna…

Lina Joana wrote:Interesting and thought provoking post.

I spent my morning bringing various forms of mental pressure on my 3 year old to get him to pick up enough toys that we could walk through the room. It was my own parenting philosophies that kept there from being yelling or punishments involved, not any ability on the part of the child to resist. So plenty of love, charity, AND a massive imbalance of power, with aspects of coercion and manipulation thrown in. We call it teaching, raising, what have you, but the child has no choice in his situation. Coercive by definition.

For the rest - I find it hard to imagine a modern lifestyle without government/money, because we have all gotten used to a way of life that requires capitalism. Here is what I mean: each of us can produce a certain amount of stuff with our own two hands. We can produce more than we need to survive - but I don’t think we can produce more than we have come to expect. For that we rely on industrial capital equipment. So I might be able to grow enough food and fiber to gift or barter for clothing and shelter. But how would I get a washing machine, electricity, and indoor plumbing supplies? What about electric fans, refrigerators, computers- you get the idea, just look around. All of these things, if they are to be affordable with my labor, need to be made at factory scale. Maybe its a lack of imagination, but I cannot visualize it happening in a gift economy.
Can we live without it all? Sure - but I don’t wanna…

We have a four year old as our youngest I know what you're talking about.  We've done quite a bit of what people call "radical unschooling" which takes a lot of the power struggles and authoritarianism away.  Not completely mind you, sometimes children cannot be reasoned with and a simple "no" is the only answer that it boils down to.  This way of parenting can lead to having more messes and less cleaning than us parents would like.  But it's ended up great.  Our oldest children are out of the house and competent adults that are cleaner and more organized than I am haha.  I find our household has very little coercion and quite a lot of teaching.  However, this post could grow very large if I focus on that.

I find it easy to imagine a modern lifestyle without government as we see it today and with sound money with a completely free market and even competition in money.  But that doesn't mean it will happen.  A sound monetary system would not be offensive to me really, I'd be more apt to engage and be involved and have a bank account and other such things.  We do not have a free market capitalistic society anywhere really.  Early on there were many examples but it's all been corrupted.  What we have now is more of what people call PPP (public private partnerships) with government and corporations merged together for their common interests.  Sure there are some small people out there not too engaged in that, but big business is all about that.  Some people have called this fascism, it is one definition of it anyways.  I'm not really anti-capitalism.  And I'm not really against government in all forms, I just want it to be a voluntary situation.  I'd rather have a free market capitalistic society than a mandated communistic government or a forced gifting society, that would not work.

Here is an example of what I mean in how we could work on getting from here (an extremely coercive top down authoritarian government) to there (a voluntary society with a free market and sound currency).  One thing would be to make whatever is palatable to the people of whatever government that rules over them a voluntary choice.  I think something like the food agencies, the USDA in the USA a voluntary program could work out quite well.  Where people can voluntarily pay for the stamp of approval "USDA grade-A."  Raw milk is another fun example of this game.  The milking industry wanted to crush the small farms so they lobbied to get pasturized milk a legal thing.  Many small milk operations wanted to be able to sell their raw milk, they didn't care if big dairy pasteurized just leave it legal for them to sell raw.  The big guys won.  It didn't need to be that way, just make it optional.  Let the USDA grade-A dead and crappy milk be an option, and let the small farm raw milk be an option.  Or something that is already functioning is certified organic, that's an optional program and it's not that amazing but at least people don't have to do that to sell quality produce.  So if people want these services and certificates just, pay for it as a business and in turn the consumers.  If they don't want it then let the people have that choice in a free market.  Alternative certificates can come about (and some do) and the free market can balance things out.  The FDA and EPA (in most things) could be turned into the same sort of thing.  Same with countless other things in my view.  Stop settling everything with mandated laws, fines, jail, prison, and murder if you resist.  This could make these programs voluntary and fund themselves instead of from taxes or debt.  But people might be scared at first so it would likely have to go slow to go smoothly.  There would also be so much resistance from the power structures and those who benefit in cartel industries that it is unlikely to happen.  What is more likely is that they will break like former Soviet Russia because of becoming too large, expensive, bureaucratic and crumble over its own weight.  Then some other thugs will come and take over and do similar nonsense.

So although I can imagine things, I don't have much faith in people.  I doubt we'll get anything very awesome anytime soon.

As for a gifting society I think it would need to emerge out of a free market capitalism type system.  It is unlikely to emerge from a communism or centralized socialism or a technocratic system.  I think it might be tried way beyond what it is now, but I think it will break.  Things like UBI (universal basic income), free housing, free food, free this, free that.  Is usually not even close to free, and the gifts are built upon fraud, coercion, theft (redistribution of resources) and other such things.  I think the only way for it to blossom is from the ground up.  From people with wealth voluntarily supporting things and people they believe in without expecting return on their investment.  Investing in earth care and people care not scams to look like a philanthropist to get more gain on the other side (people like Bill Gates, the Rockefeller's, and other big time crooks).

The gifting world is ripe in the digital world.  There are dedicated people working for nothing or donations creating amazing products for people and giving away all of their source code -- it's called open source software.  In the physical world it's harder to imagine but it doesn't make it impossible, just a larger leap from where we are.  Look at how nature outside humans are.  All the things we are talking about are illusions or abstract concepts that are human constructs.  If we had no money, or markets, people would still have passions and want to do stuff.  It seems to me in the future, likely pretty distant, people will look back at us as insane.  I envision that the future, likely distant, will be a "passion driven society" and money won't even be a thing anymore.  But that likely cannot take place until the illusion of scarcity, power structure, and unsustainable consumerism dwindles away.  If everyone thinks they need as much as the affluent nations then of course there is scarcity.

Concentration of power, and industrial cartels use the mixture of capitalism and government regulation as systems of control.  If that was gone there would be more access to many things.  Right now the way our manipulated market works is that it costs a lot more to make our own clothes than buy them.  It costs more to make bread than buy it (at least low grade bread).  It costs more to make cheese than make it (unless you have a cow and get most it's grass for free/cheap).  It costs more to buy a shovel than make one.  Regulations make it so most people cannot even compete.  Look how much manufacturing is fleeing affluent nations.  There are many factors to this, it isn't just regulations, it's cheap labor, currency leverages, and so many other things.  Fundamentally it seems to me that this is because of government meddling with everything and a heavily manipulated economy.  And much of this is done by and for corporations.  We have governments of the corporations, by the corporations, and for the corporations.  This is not free market capitalism that people like to think about and defend.

I'm pretty much rambling here, but it's fun.  One main point here though is that most of the barriers to a more ideal society in my view are completely false constructs.  It's a belief system that props it all up.  Belief in money, belief in the products we think we need, belief in government authority over people.  Belief in named brands that have been ingrained into us from childhood.  Belief in the symbols printed on a piece of cloth that brings good honest people to murder one another because their rulers said to.  Governments of men are a religion and the most active and powerful ones around.  I find agnostics and atheists funny that have so much faith, belief, and involvement in their governments.

Dunno if any of that is helpful.

It is funny, this thread restarted just as I was listening to Paul’s recent podcasts about permaculture thorns and community. It all comes back to how to create a system in which people are lovely, kind, and generous without using coercive measures. Intentional communities, with or without a gift economy component, usually fail because it only takes a few unlovely people to bring it all down. Paul’s experiments seem to get around this by having a defacto government- like an hoa: you don’t have to live here, but if you do, you follow my definition of kind and lovely. Societies that run on gifts would, I expect, have both cultural homogeneity and strong societal norms regarding how much one person should accumulate.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
I find it easy to imagine a modern lifestyle without government as we see it today and with sound money with a completely free market and even competition in money.  But that doesn't mean it will happen.  A sound monetary system would not be offensive to me really, I'd be more apt to engage and be involved and have a bank account and other such things.  We do not have a free market capitalistic society anywhere really.  Early on there were many examples but it's all been corrupted.

Whenever I hear about “competitive currency” I think of the song Sixteen Tons, and the coal mining company store system it is describing. There wasn’t much government outside the mine owners in those towns. But the owners had enough wealth that they could write the rules and force workers to accept company issued currency, despite the theoretical ability of workers to leave.
The idea that in a free market society, we could rely on people who amass wealth to give it away to jumpstart a gift economy instead of using it to their advantage is a lovely one. I just haven’t seen many examples.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
Here is an example of what I mean in how we could work on getting from here (an extremely coercive top down authoritarian government) to there (a voluntary society with a free market and sound currency).  One thing would be to make whatever is palatable to the people of whatever government that rules over them a voluntary choice.  I think something like the food agencies, the USDA in the USA a voluntary program could work out quite well.  Where people can voluntarily pay for the stamp of approval "USDA grade-A."  Raw milk is another fun example of this game.  The milking industry wanted to crush the small farms so they lobbied to get pasturized milk a legal thing.  Many small milk operations wanted to be able to sell their raw milk, they didn't care if big dairy pasteurized just leave it legal for them to sell raw.  The big guys won.  It didn't need to be that way, just make it optional.  Let the USDA grade-A dead and crappy milk be an option, and let the small farm raw milk be an option.  Or something that is already functioning is certified organic, that's an optional program and it's not that amazing but at least people don't have to do that to sell quality produce.  So if people want these services and certificates just, pay for it as a business and in turn the consumers.  If they don't want it then let the people have that choice in a free market.  Alternative certificates can come about (and some do) and the free market can balance things out.  The FDA and EPA (in most things) could be turned into the same sort of thing.

One of the best summaries of the complexities involved in raw milk is here: https://lizreitzig.substack.com/p/fascinating-story-of-raw-milk-in
While arguing for raw milk, she doesn’t ignore the history of “swill milk”, its role in killing children in the cities, and the reasons the government stepped in to regulate what previously had no regulation. If you want literal crappy milk, a poorly run raw milk dairy is the place to get it…

I am a huge fan a raw milk, to the point that I bought goats and bred them to start milking. I learned how hard it is, even at the smallest scale, to keep crap out of the milk. At this point, if I were visiting a dairy with an eye to buying milk, I think I would know what to look for. I would not have before keeping goats myself. As for the FDA and EPA - again, knowing what events led to their formation is important. It only takes a few idiots to ruin it for everyone…

I admire the folks that have figured out a way to live without money in a bartering situation.

My husband and I lived several years without any income though we have never lived without money.  I don't do cash money so in a way I live without (cash) money.

I went to the post office today and the credit card machine was not working so I had do dig out my checkbook and write a check.

I have heard rumors that there are somethings that folks are thinking about doing away with.  I believe cash money is one of those things.

Those were great podcasts Lina.  Thanks Paul if you see this!  It has been fun discussing this with you Lina.  Dunno if we will change one another's minds much but that's fine.

The same idea you are laying out with the coal miner towns happens today in my view.  People stuck jobless or in dead end jobs that cannot really get out of it.  Paid very low, or living off welfare isn't all that much different.  We already do have some competition in money, crypto currency is a big one.  Another thing is that every nation has a different currency, they are just larger coal mine situations in a way.  With free market competition in currency I don't mean that sort of thing really.  But I'm not necessarily all that against that idea.  Geoff Lawton talks about that some in his community building segments in his PDC.  Coupons are a form of currency and so forth.  But it could go further.  I'd like a gold backed currency again, seems banks cannot even do that.  If they did they would be competing with the central banks like the "Federal Reserve."  People are obligated to use this single private bank notes, which are primarily backed by faith and debt.  I'd like other private banks to be able to compete like they used to.

I'm not sure what you mean by your other comment here:

"The idea that in a free market society, we could rely on people who amass wealth to give it away to jumpstart a gift economy instead of using it to their advantage is a lovely one. I just haven’t seen many examples."

I'm not too sure what you mean.  But if I'm following you here I'm not saying we would have to rely on this at all.  It would just be a better system.  If people work towards a gifting economy from this it would be great, if they did not it would still be better.  But when the economy was more free, less manipulated, less regulated, and we had much less of a welfare state -- there was a lot more charity and gifting in communities one to another.  There were many doctors who labored for free a good portion of the time to help the poor.  Churches were a primary welfare system built up and paid for by the community with free will offerings.  It still happens but from what I've read not to the same extent.  As government has taken over people get more apathetic.  Even still there is much good churches, community soup kitchens, and much more still going on with free will donations.  But if I'm right here the more the state takes over welfare the less incentive people have to create grassroots gifting economies.  In these situations the state can become an enemy to these things.  I've seen many examples of police shutting down volunteer food gifting situations.  Something also tied to this is that in our current system people are having less to gift, besides the extremely rich.  The discrepancies from poor to rich are growing sharper with the middle class getting much poorer compared to the top 5% for example.  In our highly manipulated system there are less per capita wealthy people who have enough to do much in gifting.  And with the insane monetary system with fiat currency wealth of the middle class is inflated away.  So people have a much harder time voluntarily gifting into earth care and people care.

Yes I agree with the article you linked, she's not refuting anything I said.  Raw milk is great and should have continued to be available.  I'd never buy mass produced raw milk.  

What happens with many regulations is it stomps out legitimate small businesses and protects the big business conglomerates.  If one follows the regulations they get protections.  To keep narrowed in here we can stay on raw milk.  Sure pasteurized milk was sterilized, so people are drinking sterile poop and pus, and whatever else.  This makes it so people don't get instantly sick from it.  But overtime who knows how many people have gotten unhealthy because of it.  Lots of food is unhealthy, but it's sterile so you can't point at it killing you.  but it does kill people, and because it's a slow death it is hard to prove and thus the culprits are protected.  It gets even worse with FDA approved things, cause they literally do kill people and often.  But some of those things are given a magical protection status, where people cannot sue over it.

But seriously I feel like we are going all over the place and although I am enjoying it and you are fun to talk with I am likely done.  You all are great and enjoy carrying on without me on this thread.  These topics can and do fill volumes.  Seems every paragraph and many sentences here are completely loaded with potential rabbit holes.  Hope it is beneficial to some people reading through here.  Love you all.

A book and a website that I like for people interested in the idea of a voluntary society are:

https://libertarianinstitute.org/books/voluntaryist-handbook/

https://corbettreport.com/search/voluntaryism

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
But seriously I feel like we are going all over the place and although I am enjoying it and you are fun to talk with I am likely done.  You all are great and enjoy carrying on without me on this thread.  These topics can and do fill volumes.  Seems every paragraph and many sentences here are completely loaded with potential rabbit holes.  Hope it is beneficial to some people reading through here.  Love you all.

Thanks for a stimulating discussion! I agree we were getting off topic. I would summarize my position by saying that our system, imperfect as it is, came about in response to levels of misery we just don’t see in the USA. Food insecurity is bad, but watching your small child starve to death is a lot worse. The churches and charities of times past did not solve the problem.
But I too am willing to leave the side conversation. It was fun!

One interesting and on topic question your post raised is the difference between charity and gifting. They often get conflated, but I believe there are important differences.

My understanding of a gift is that it is an expression of affection for me. It doesn’t have to be something I need, or anything big, it just says that the giver is thinking of me and is there for me. This makes me feel loved and respected and strengthens the social fabric. While a gift may not be reciprocated right away, there is the assumption that it could be - that it is a two way street.

Charity is different. The giver may not know the recipient at all. The imbalance between the giver and recipient, especially when we are talking about charity to people with chronic needs (ie, stuck in a poor situation rather than a temporary disaster). Essentially, charity patches holes in our society, which doesn’t necessarily make it stronger.  There is often a stigma associated with receiving charity, which leaves the recipient feeling bad about themselves.

My parents’ house recently burned down. The generosity if the community has been immense, and has engendered complicated feelings in my parents. On the one hand, it has made them feel less alone, and very grateful to their community, which has been very good. On the other hand, the fact that they need help has left them feeling vulnerable, and getting money and things from people they don’t know well has left them feeling like the recipients of charity. It has been an interesting study on the line between gifts and charity.

Lina Joana wrote:
One interesting and on topic question your post raised is the difference between charity and gifting. They often get conflated, but I believe there are important differences.

My understanding of a gift is that it is an expression of affection for me. It doesn’t have to be something I need, or anything big, it just says that the giver is thinking of me and is there for me. This makes me feel loved and respected and strengthens the social fabric. While a gift may not be reciprocated right away, there is the assumption that it could be - that it is a two way street.

Charity is different. The giver may not know the recipient at all. The imbalance between the giver and recipient, especially when we are talking about charity to people with chronic needs (ie, stuck in a poor situation rather than a temporary disaster). Essentially, charity patches holes in our society, which doesn’t necessarily make it stronger.  There is often a stigma associated with receiving charity, which leaves the recipient feeling bad about themselves.

My parents’ house recently burned down. The generosity if the community has been immense, and has engendered complicated feelings in my parents. On the one hand, it has made them feel less alone, and very grateful to their community, which has been very good. On the other hand, the fact that they need help has left them feeling vulnerable, and getting money and things from people they don’t know well has left them feeling like the recipients of charity. It has been an interesting study on the line between gifts and charity.

Your view on charity compared to gifting makes sense.  I see what you are saying and am not trying to correct your view in any way.  Since you asked I'll share my thoughts on it.  It seems to me the way people communicate sounds too corrective.  I'm right and you're wrong!  I think more accurately is that you are right and I am right and I am wrong and you are wrong.  The truth is in all of it and maybe a sprinkle of error is fluttering about.

Both gifting and charity can come from a place of love and desire to help another or just express love or gratitude towards an individual or group.  One key difference to me is that gifting has no major obligations attached.  Perhaps a mild amount, but nothing major.  With charity it is often pointed towards something.  Like your parents house burning down.  If they accepted money that was expected to go toward a house and they went and gabled it away playing slot machines it would be a tough situation.  But if it was a gift of the same amount they could go play slot machines and there would likely be no hard feelings.

So a gifting society would not be watching over the others who received the gift holding them into some sort of accountability with the person who gave the gift.  which I find more beautiful.  Give the person space to use the gift as they desire.  It's a slower and more sloppy process, but it allows the person to explore and express themself with that gift.

Both gifting and charity require a certain amount of humility, but it seems to me charity requires a little more.

Personally I have tried to tether some mild obligations to gifts and it's backfired quickly.  I've been loosening those ideas and it's going better.  It's  a fine balance.  With the animals I gift I want people to also gift those out as well.  They don't have to, but I'd like them to.  But I'm having a difficult time expressing that without per-emptive resentment and a feeling of obligation with a million hypotheticals to justify not committing to anything.  We are a funny organism.  If I call this same thing charity, them people are too proud to accept it.  I don't know the right words.

Joseph Fabbri wrote:
Both gifting and charity can come from a place of love and desire to help another or just express love or gratitude towards an individual or group.  One key difference to me is that gifting has no major obligations attached.  Perhaps a mild amount, but nothing major.  With charity it is often pointed towards something.  Like your parents house burning down.  If they accepted money that was expected to go toward a house and they went and gabled it away playing slot machines it would be a tough situation.  But if it was a gift of the same amount they could go play slot machines and there would likely be no hard feelings.

Personally I have tried to tether some mild obligations to gifts and it's backfired quickly.  I've been loosening those ideas and it's going better.  It's  a fine balance.  With the animals I gift I want people to also gift those out as well.  They don't have to, but I'd like them to.  But I'm having a difficult time expressing that without per-emptive resentment and a feeling of obligation with a million hypotheticals to justify not committing to anything.  We are a funny organism.  If I call this same thing charity, them people are too proud to accept it.  I don't know the right words.

Have you tried “if you have a chance, pay it forward”? That seems like a vague and mild enough phrase that nobody could take offense.

So you don’t think that the gift’s value and the prior relationship has more to do with the obligations incurred than the gift/charity distinction? At the most extreme, if I give a coat to a panhandler this winter, I won’t be following up to see if they wear it or trade it for booze. That isn’t my business, they owe me nothing. On the other hand, if I gift my (hypothetical) nephew with his first year of college tuition and he withdraws from school and uses the reimbursement for a week long bender - yeah, there would be some awkwardness. Yet I would place the first example solidly in the category of charity, and the second as a gift.

Lina Joana wrote:
Have you tried “if you have a chance, pay it forward”? That seems like a vague and mild enough phrase that nobody could take offense.

So you don’t think that the gift’s value and the prior relationship has more to do with the obligations incurred than the gift/charity distinction? At the most extreme, if I give a coat to a panhandler this winter, I won’t be following up to see if they wear it or trade it for booze. That isn’t my business, they owe me nothing. On the other hand, if I gift my (hypothetical) nephew with his first year of college tuition and he withdraws from school and uses the reimbursement for a week long bender - yeah, there would be some awkwardness. Yet I would place the first example solidly in the category of charity, and the second as a gift.

Sort of, it was in the mix of a lot of other ideas.  The thing is with this first couple I'm trying to flesh out the idea so I'm explaining all my thoughts on it.  But that might be overwhelming.  Next  year my wife and I will likely be testing it out again with new people.  She leans towards keeping it simple and using those exact words.  I lean towards making some of the details of the intent more known.

Semantics are funny.  I think that the word gift and charity can be interchangeable.  I think you could easily put both of your examples into either category.  But in my view your second example is charity, the first can sit in either.  But I don't think the majority would care either way what it's called.  Your hypothetical nephew may like to hear the word gift over charity just because of how the word charity feels to some.  But does any of this matter much lol?  Why are you pulling me back into this?  I was trying to move on.  However I have picked up on the gifting idea on another thread.  Feel free to engage over there.

https://permies.com/t/381834/Gifting-economy

I think mobility requires an item of known value for transactions. Once you are out of your circle/community there needs to be a convenient way to make an exchange. A portable, identifiable item that has a value acknowledged outside your circle.