Our obligation to society is ongoing. It’s not as if the only benefit we enjoy is the education system that we did not utilize. A system of lesser consequence than the human knowledge the system exists to perpetuate.
Knowledge that you, too, benefited from during your home/self education. When you say self taught, I assume you used some kind of books/curriculum as I did?
However:
Yes, books that were purchased by my parents, who paid their taxes.
> Absolutely nothing is inherently owed to society. There is no obligation at all.
As a member of a social species of animal, why do you believe this to be true?
> I can live my life in a cave if I choose.
Living in a cave is choosing to stop participating in society. If you’re not living in a cave, and if you’re participating in discussions on HN using a computing device, you have obligations.
> Yes, books that were purchased by my parents, who paid their taxes.
The value of those books is not primarily monetary. Those books have utility because they are transmitting the collective knowledge of our species; ancestors whose thoughts and discoveries are the basis of our lives today.
Many people never stop to consider or admit their dependence on this ancestral knowledge, or their own responsibilities as a beneficiary of it. Almost everything we come in contact with (unless you disconnect and go to that cave), comes with implied collective responsibilities.
Paying taxes is the minimum legally required level of contribution, but far from the only required activity to maintain a functioning society.
You might say that you don’t like this society or would prefer a different one, but the only solution to these problems is to involve yourself in the process, which is the only path to changing the status quo.
Absolutely, see my reply above.
I say my education is moot, and I am allowed to participate in society with zero obligation.
> As a member of a social species of animal, why do you believe this to be true?
Because it isn't false. Where is my obligation exactly? What "obligation" does any animal have? I am most certainly an animal, but I'm an intelligent one and I choose my obligations rather than letting others choose for me.
Edit to address your other points:
> if you’re participating in discussions on HN using a computing device, you have obligations.
No, I don't. I can do whatever I wish.
> The value of those books is not primarily monetary. Those books have utility because they are transmitting the collective knowledge of our species; ancestors whose thoughts and discoveries are the basis of our lives today.
Who cares? I'm obligated because they recorded their knowledge and I studied it? No, I am not obligated, I am educated.
> Many people never stop to consider or admit their dependence on this ancestral knowledge, or their own responsibilities as a beneficiary of it. Almost everything we come in contact with (unless you disconnect and go to that cave), comes with implied collective responsibilities.
Again, no it doesn't. This is lazy collectivist thinking.
> Paying taxes is the minimum legally required level of contribution
Taxation is actually theft and shouldn't be allowed. This isn't a contribution at all, it is theft by the government.
> but far from the only required activity to maintain a functioning society.
OK - sure. I never said it wasn't. I also don't care - it's not my problem, not my focus, not my "obligation".
> You might say that you don’t like this society
No, I just don't like humans.
> or would prefer a different one
No, I just don't like humans.
> but the only solution to these problems is to involve yourself in the process
Involving oneself in the process doesn't imply "obligation"
> which is the only path to changing the status quo.
No, not really. One can make a big splash being outside of "the process".
I originally said "It’s not as if the only benefit we enjoy is the education system that we did not utilize.", i.e. education is just one of many things we all collectively benefit from in an organized society. You used your alternative education path as a reason to claim you have no obligations to society, so I focused on that claim, but education (even the self-delivered kind) is just a single example.
> Because it isn't false
You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you.
> I am not obligated, I am educated.
Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this? If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs?
Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc?
> Where is my obligation exactly? What "obligation" does any animal have?
Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing.
Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups.
It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale.
No, I'm saying that State education is not a reason for obligation and FURTHERMORE I have no State education so assuming that one has State education and basing one's whole premise on something be owed to society because of it is ludicrous. And I apply that sentiment to any form of education. It matters not where the education comes from - the only thing owed is money for the educational materials and labor involved in teaching.
> You can't justify an argument by claiming its truth or falsity. Assume I disagree with you, but would like to understand why I should agree with you.
Sure.
> Doesn't this create a huge issue if everyone decides to believe this?
Not my problem.
> If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs?
not my problem.
> Where does the lack of obligation end? i.e. are you obligated not to steal, not to respect laws, etc?
Correct, I am not obligated to, but if I choose to violate those things there will likely be consequences.
> Obligation is a word humans made up to describe something that most cooperative animals do without the capacity to explain to themselves what it is they are doing.
Ok.
> Cooperative species that haven't developed language exhibit behaviors that are automatic and expected in what must be the set of traits natural selection arrived at. Humans are unique in that we've invented words to describe these social interactions. There are plenty of reasons to believe/understand that cooperation and certain principles of fairness, mutual respect, reciprocity, etc. are more adaptive for the survival of the group/species and coexistence with other groups.
Ok.
> It sounds like we disagree fundamentally one one key point: participation in society imparts implicit expectations on the participant. My core issue with your stance is that it is untenable if chosen by everyone, i.e. it doesn't scale.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I got nothing for you. You want to feel morally justified, go for it lol. As a free human, I'm not under any obligations.
-----
"My content is mine"
How much of your education and upbringing did you get for free? You were brought up and educated by society to be in the fortunate position of being a content creator. You are now suggesting that you owe nothing back to society in return.
This person is stating that you OWE society something back for what you were given "for free"
First off, my stance: yes copyright is a monetization scheme. Good, I'm glad. That's what I'm after as a creator.
1. Education isn't free, if this person is referring to the State. I'm assuming it is an American as this discussion is about Copyright law. Taxation is theft by the government. The DOE is a waste of those stolen funds. The people attending also pay taxes. It isn't "free".
2. Even if education is free - let's say given - the person who got it for free received a gift. They are under no obligation to do anything with that gift.
3. I already stated that actions have consequences and laws have enforcers. A responsible person takes responsibility for their actions. A victim blames others. Either way, they both face the consequences of their actions (or not) with or without laws. I'm not sure how "no obligations" has translated to "no consequences" or "no responsibility" in your mind.
4. Cooperation, yes sure. Words yeah, participation yep. I never stated any of the things you're attempting to put in my mouth. This is why I don't like humans, as I stated earlier. They're manipulative without cause (or perhaps with cause in this case?). I said I'm under no obligation to anyone etc. within the context of the original comment. But yes, I'll play the game and take it deeper: I'm under no obligation period. But actions have consequences as I stated before you tried to play gotcha.
5. "If the world collectively stops caring about the importance of educating the next generation on the basis that they themselves got theirs?" Another thing I never implied or stated.
I just wanted to reply again now that I have more time. I could go on but its a waste. Stop trying to gotcha me.
I'm under no obligation to society to do anything. I choose to play nice because it is beneficial to me. What if everyone thought like me? Who knows, I don't fantasize about such things.
Having read the dialogue between w4ffl35 and you and noting your large differences of opinion I realize I should have chosen my words somewhat more carefully in my first post when I used 'owe' when commenting about the statement "My content is mine".
I did mean 'owe' in the literal sense but I also implied 'obligation' which I should have made clear given that those who were homeschooled would perhaps consider themselves less obligated to owe anything to society. I clarified this to some extent in my reply to sensanaty when I raised the matter of one's obligation to society as being very divisive: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38815042. Suffice to say, I was rather amused when I read the dialogue between w4ffl35 and yourself as it was an almost instant verification of the accuracy of my comment.
I'm essentially in full agreement with your stance on the matter. I say that as someone who does not live in the US but who has not only been there many times and even worked there but also who has relatives who were born there some of whom were homeschooled. Thus, I well understand w4ffl35's position but I vehemently disagree with it. In response to my post w4ffl35 says "What an incredibly weird way of looking at one's life", so the chasm between our views could hardly be any wider.
Homeschooling is essentially outlawed where I am so I have had the opportunity to compare the educational model here with that of the US. For the most part I cannot imagine not being in school with dozens of my peers around me, I would have felt socially isolated and there's little doubt that I'd be less well integrated into society had I been in a homeschool environment. (I'm not saying that everyone would go this way but I pretty much reckon I'd have been worse off socially. Moreover, I went to a coed school and I consider that as being a distinct advantage.)
As an outsider, I find it very difficult to reconcile w4ffl35's rampant individualism (which noticeably characterizes or differentiates the US from that of almost every other country I've been in) with the way that I was socialized—which was in a society where utilitarian values—the greatest good for the greatest number—was the norm both in government and in education, and which was accepted by almost everyone (debate over such issues was almost unheard of).
From my observation, the social contract where I live is far more cohesive and intact than it is in the US although, unfortunately, in recent years its cohesion has come under considerable stress due to cultural influences from US.
Collectivist thinking doesn't mean you are correct. You don't need to reconcile my "rampant individualism". I don't care if I were the only person on the planet who thinks this way (I'm not though... not by a long shot) - my opinion, life philosophy, religion and political affiliation all align. You might not be familiar with this sort of philosophy, and you clearly do not like it, that's fine,. You are entitled to your individual feelings on the matter. Still doesn't make me wrong.
There is no such thing as an inherent ethical or moral obligation to society. There are actions and there are consequences. There are laws and there are enforcers. Without enforcers there are no laws. Without consequences actions are irrelevant.
Nothing is written, in law or in "moral code", which obligates a human to give away their creations because they "owe something to society", as the concept of "owing something to society" is not actually a real thing.