Joseph Fabbri

That's a hard question.  Milking cows, weeding, dishes, gathering firewood and laundry are all great ones.  It's too hard to pick.

Maybe dishes, I to would cook more and be more creative with cooking if dishes weren't a thing.  We have no dish washer -- I'm the primary dishwasher.  But in return I don't have to milk as much.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:I have a related situation, though not nearly as complex as gifting cattle...

I like your idea Douglas, that's an awesome skill to have.  I think that will likely work out well.  I think it could cross over to the idea I'm working on, but it might not have the results I'm hoping for.  It could be a part of it though.  

I've been mulling things over and talking with my wife and a friend a little more on the topic.  Still no solid plan on it all yet.  I'm going to try and write up some of the details and try to get my wording better.  I think part of the challenge is cultural and social, another funny thing is language.  So many words are loaded and bring to mind many things that don't flow together with this concept.

Today we talked about perhaps using words like.  "I'd like to gift this to.  I have hopes that..."  And go into some of the ideas tied to it all.  but I don't know.  I think with some people it might make sense and resonate and work well, and I think with some people it might get hung up on the details.  It's a fairly foreign idea.  A gift is a gift and typically has no real hopes tied to it.  My hopes are not bound to any contracts or punishments or anything like that, they are only hopes.  But without specifying those hopes I doubt much of it would have a chance to take place.  Charity is loaded with many people feeling like they are then needy which many people don't like.  Sharing, borrowing, lending, all feel like they aren't quite the right words either.  So far I'm at a loss for the best words to get the ideas across without triggering some people into thinking of it in a way I don't really mean.  I have not tried with all that many people yet, so it's still early and can be refined over time.

I've appreciated people's feedback it's been good food for thought.  I don't know if it can be overly simplified because there is a bit more to it with cows.  I'm hoping in time to get partners, or a team of sorts on this.  Breeding programs could flourish with more involved, and I really don't want it a monetary operation.  Of course I can just let others do whatever with selling and still have that.  But the overall point isn't about the cattle, it's about an alternative economy that is not based on money or even barter.  It's about a gifting society returning excess into earth care and people care.

It should be a fun adventure no matter how it turns out.  My hope is that I can find some that like it and it can blossom through example more than words.

Lol.  I almost feel like an alien.  

What if some being from another planet who did not understand the worlds systems of exchange came here and wanted to gift things.  How would you teach them the correct language to do such a thing.  They refused to use money or barter as part of this.  But desired to help humanity move towards a gifting society, However they were completely open to changing those words if they were the incorrect language to help move forward.  They had a perpetual 3D printing machine (cows, chickens, turkeys) that only took grass and grains to operate and wanted to share the printed gifts with others.

Anne Miller wrote:Welcome to the forum.

If you approached me with your idea I would be more comfortable with using the concept of sharing.

I willingly share with friends and neighbors though I am just not into gifting.

As Douglas suggested gifting might mean an exchange of gifts.  I willingly share not gift.

Do you think the word sharing might mean that the item or animal will be passed around?  What if I want to keep it for my family but we are sharing and then the person who shared it with me wants it back?

What about the word giving?  I'm giving this to you.  I invite you to join in on paying it forward with this item/animal if you no longer need it.  If it has babies it would be great if you considered giving it to someone who would appreciate it as well.

Do those ideas resonate with you all?

To me I am completely fine with gifts, charity, giving, sharing, and whatever other words.  I really like the idea of us moving past money and giving one to another in love and charity.  So how do I help move towards that?  What are the words that do not offend?

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

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:There's a psychology I've observed -- if it's offered free people think there must be a glitch -- something is wrong with it. Or, it's a sneaky obligation -- now I owe you something, and I'm uncomfortable with that. But if it's offered for half the going rate, paid in cash, they are thrilled about the incredible good deal. And they may reciprocate with good deals in the other direction. My 2c.

I get that and you are correct.  However I really want to keep money out of it, at least on my end.  It feels degrading to me involving money in this passion of mine.  It's like turning cows into slaves, they are my friends and I want that friendship shared not tainted with money.  I hope I'm not wrong on this, but I think the relationship that people build while laboring with a cow will build up the value of that cow in their mind.  Even if at first they are a little psychologically off on the whole thing.  But how to get over the initial resistance is tricky without using the normal systems people are used to -- money exchanges for something.

Hello,

I've been trying to motivate people to put effort into a gifting economy.  To me the permaculture ethics of earth care and people care lead to this.  Return our excess into earth care and people care leads to gifting.

So I attempted to do this with milk cows with a neighbor.  I tried to express the idea that if you want to join in with me on this then we will apply a few concepts with it all.  With baby females we will keep them and try to breed them true to type, keep them purebred.  With the males they can be banded and turned into beef.  But with the males talk with people doing this and see if we need any more bulls for breeding.  If any females are majorly problematic she can be turned into beef if you find it necessary.  Once you have more cows than you want gift your excess out to others and try to spread this idea.

As time went on the first neighbor I have tried this with started having problems.  They came up with hypotheticals and justifications to not commit to doing any of this.  Before this ever took place I let them know there is no penalties.  No punishment if you do not follow any of this.  the only mild penalty is a natural one, where anyone who does not follow this would just go down in priority to gift further cows to.

I don't want people to just take advantage of this.  For example just sell all the cows I gift.  I want people to desire these cows and treat them well.  The potential here is pretty great.  People can put more money and effort into the things needed to raise the cow rather than on the cow itself.  An extra $500-$3,000 going into a barn, hay, and whatever else is nice.  And for the person with the excess cows it is nice to be done with the labors towards a cow you don't need.  It seems like a win/win type of situation and keeping money out of it elevates the operation in my view.  Gifts are great.

Anyways, I'm throwing the gist of this idea on here to see all of your reactions.  If I were to gift you a cow and asked that you in turn would gift them when you don't want them anymore or have an excess of babies would you do that?  Would you feel this too burdensome and why?  Keep in mind the only punishment for not following this would be you might not get another free cow from me.  Is this fair?  Is this a good idea?  Would you like to be involved in this?  I'm trying to invite people I know to join in on this idea, so far it's been mediocre.  Would you join in?  If so maybe you can do this on your own and help the gifting society idea spread.

Food for thought anyways.

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.

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

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.