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.