This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive. I relate to him in that I value money very little as a medium to facilitate my own happiness, but I still want to make a lot of it so I can give more.
He seems sweet though. I think I would get on with him were we to ever meet.
He's lucky he's in modern society where we at least take some care of people like him. Go back further in time and he'd have been ostracized from his hunter-gatherer community for not contributing, and would've lived a short life as a hermit.
Which isn't to say that self-advocacy is in some way dirty, we should all stand up for our self-interest insofar as it is otherwise ethical.
I mostly agree with what you write, but "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type.
I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange for some "gifted" groceries and a room. Obviously the city doesn't want to enter into customized barters with all its employees.
His refusal to use money is really a lampshade on a refusal to do anything useful period. Plenty of people don't interact with money yet still manage to provide useful goods and services in exchange for necessities. He's not doing any of that either.
> "You have to contribute productively" is such a capitalist mindset that it draws for me the picture of you being a Gordon Gekko type.
You've got me pegged all wrong. This transcends affront to capitalism to affront to all forms of societal organization; guy is a mooch, pure and simple, unwilling to do anything to help others but perfectly willing to accept all help from others for his own benefit. No society would put up with him, capitalistic or otherwise. He's a deadbeat father who wouldn't even do anything to support his own kids.
> I wonder if he'd agree to do some work like cleaning the city parks in exchange [...]
Based on what I read in the article it doesn't seem like he's willing to do any work at all. No mentions of performing any work or services in exchange for essentials; it's all freely given to him by charitable people and organizations.
I like you recognize that capitalism and money are not the same as productivity and value add....he doesn't seem to do the latter but he benefits still from the former because as you said he is a mooch.
Hunter-gatherer societies would have an equivalent of money not literally notes and coins but trading their effort and time. It is literally a society, people gather in a group for mutual advantage. The advantage being I don't want to personally make, build, do everything to survive so you trade skills which is effort and time which is essentially money.
No it’s not. All socialist/communist societies required all able-bodied people to work, described themselves as worker-led, and idolized work in their propaganda.
It's really all societies that require capable people to pull their own weight, not just capitalism. Even money-free communes/kibbutzes have chore rotations and expect everyone to pull their own weight regarding necessary tasks like farming, cooking, cleaning, maintenance, child-raising, etc.
But I don't think everyone has to go as far as you, and give more than they take. I think we can find win-win situations where we both benefit. I cut your your hair and you paint me a picture. We both win. But it's hard to find good one to one barter like this. Money is the way to find more win-win situations. In a system with no money, you're back to only one to one, so there are less win-win exchanges, and everyone is poorer.
It's a great community where I think you'd fit in: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/
Taking? It seemed pretty clear that he doesn't ask anyone for anything. People give him things of their own free will.
> This is basically the antithesis of my own moral code to give more than I receive.
Give more money than you receive? There are other things that can be given, like time, companionship, love, etc.
The guy from the article is striving to make the world better for those who can't afford a home in Canada (Vancouver being ridiculously expensive, a separate conversation), and prompting an interesting conversation about how focused we are on money. I think those are valuable contributions to society.
Or should society force everyone onto the same page, and moralize against those who can't or don't want to keep up?
(These are questions that I think of, just throwing them out there...)
Noo! You can't do this. If everyone did this everyone would be better off!
This is mathematically impossible to apply universally. Can it be a moral code if it can't be universal?
Although this might be applicable if you live in a wealthy circle and there are poor circles.
It's obviously impossible but it is better than the inverse which is also impossible. The difference is that if you are below the potential that is actually possible you will approach the maximum potential of your society. You're failing, but you are failing upwards.
"taking from everyone and giving very little in return is moral." is effectively trying to approach the minimum potential of your society i.e. zero.
The Sun provides the Earth with enormous amounts of syntropy (this is the inverse of entropy), and we can capture this through productive labor before it inevitably dissipates off into space.
As a toy example, it is certainly mathematically possible for everyone to grow more calories than they consume. We wouldn't want this, for the obvious reason that we don't need more calories than we consume, and this would be labor-intensive enough to leave many useful tasks unfilled.
But it proves you wrong: there's nothing preventing "give more than you receive" from being a categorical imperative. Certainly nothing "mathematical".
It's a fruitful way to live but not something you must expect of others because it's an unattainable goal.
We have a large upper class that does exactly this and not only do many people seem not to mind, they find membership of this class aspirational. It’s how capital income works and what capitalism is built on.