My hippie tendencies
I read a rough draft of an essay on freeloading. I'm frankly wondering if the essay is dead-pan satire or devil's advocacy, or if, perhaps, someone connected to one of my circles of friends really does see the world that differently than I do.
The rough-draft essay.
My response:
To play devil's advocate [edit: upon further reflection, though my opinions don't line up with his beliefs, I'm not really playing devil's advocate here, as my arguments line up with my beliefs], and perhaps provide some constructive criticism about holes some may perceive in your argument...
- A few points Regarding Couchsurfing.
1. Your costs lists is not generally applicable, nor is it specific. You mention food, but not all couchsurfing hosts provide food. You also say "utilities" and what is "whatnot?" Specifically, I have had CouchSurfing hosts (and once, out of necessity to both me and the surfer, been a host) who *provided* nothing but a safe place on the ground to sleep, without utilities. Moreover, the incremental cost of utilities of one additional guest is extremely low, on the order of the cost of one hot shower per guest-night (not all guests take a shower, but most also incrementally increase light-bulb usage, stove gas, and electronic device recharging).
2. I continue to host, as I have off and on for years, because there are benefits that outweigh, for me, the few of the costs you mention that do apply. Cultural exchanges with others, fresh outlooks on life, new ideas from people who have lived elsewhere and in other ways than I, and social interaction are all worth the cost of my rent (which I would be paying (or not) anyway) and some pancake supplies.
In addition, I continue to host people and give rides when I can because it's a way of paying forward those who have hosted, and continue to host me, given me rides, helped me move apartments, etc., especially those who have hosted me when I just needed a free place to stay.
3. Re: "This loss of time, privacy, and financial burden to support people becomes significant, especially in highly traveled areas." I do not consider my time hosting as a time 'lost,' but rather time spent, just like you or I might spend time playing a game, reading a book, going to the park, or working a day-job. Also, loss of Privacy? So when you hang out with your friends at home, are you thinking, "oh, man, what a loss of privacy"? (Note also that surfers often stay in a separate room (or as in 2007/08 in my case, on the roof).
In my opinion, several of the statements in this paragraph are too general and should be more carefully worded.
4. You write, "when the[y] see surfer after surfer pass through, eat their food, stay for a night or two, smile, and leave. This type of behavior, in addition to be an exploitation of a host's hospitality..." Many cultures of hospitality would not consider this an exploitation. Specifically in my experience, some Egyptians, Irish, and American Mid-Westerners and Californians I know would see supporting such travelers as *part of* the culture of hospitality.
5. I don't understand your comment that freeloading couchsurfers "can be damaging to the reputation of others" (reputation of whom, among what public? Couchsurfing.com among the World? Couchsurfers in general among potential hosts?) Perhaps, also, it's not so much *reputation* (social evaluation) of other people that is sometimes damaged by a freeloading CouchSurfer, as others' openness and hospitality toward others? I'm not sure.
- Regarding your comments on Dumpsterdiving, it took me a couple reads through (perhaps I'm slow to pick up on it, or perhaps your wording could be more explicit), but I see a point here that I didn't realize before. The cooperative cycle of commerce to which you refer is beneficial to the merchant in ways other financially, so despite the lack of literal "loss" of the garbage, he or she is losing out on feedback from customers. Interesting. [side-note, I wonder how a grocer would feel upon seeing a sticky note saying "the tomatoes you threw away last week were great!"]
- In the same paragraph, you say "By the way, where is the majority of oil coming from nowadays?" It seems you intend "our oil" (I assume you mean America's Oil? The Western World's Oil? Humanity's Oil?), just like rice in Alaska and cell phones in Sudan, as a statement advocating global commerce. Note that many people strongly believe that our use of oil is a leading cause of ocean acidification (killing off sea life), global warming (melting Everest), and other environmental disasters (Exxon V is all I have to type in to google before it suggests oil spill). Whether the oft-called "eco-nuts" have it all right or not, suffice it to say that "our oil" is a controversial justication, to say the least. If I were to write this essay, I would widen the focus of the sentence to a global one (which maybe you already intended with "our"?), and generalize the statement to more universally accepted imports, like "energy, tools, and gadgets?"
- The final generalization that will ring false to many readers is in your conclusion. "The up-front costs of freeloading, to the individual doing it, are obvious- something for nothing. The background costs, and the cascading effect which is has on society, are catastrophic when viewed in the long term" The first sentence might be more powerful if you stuck with the subject - the *cost* is not *something for nothing.* The *cost* is *nothing* And "are catastrophic"? I don't believe you have mentioned any actual catastrophes. You imply that the removal of incentive to work is bad, and mention that commerce is good (implying that something that avoids commerce is bad), but where is the catastrophe?
Good luck with the essay.
Cheers,
~George J.
The rough-draft essay.
My response:
To play devil's advocate [edit: upon further reflection, though my opinions don't line up with his beliefs, I'm not really playing devil's advocate here, as my arguments line up with my beliefs], and perhaps provide some constructive criticism about holes some may perceive in your argument...
- A few points Regarding Couchsurfing.
1. Your costs lists is not generally applicable, nor is it specific. You mention food, but not all couchsurfing hosts provide food. You also say "utilities" and what is "whatnot?" Specifically, I have had CouchSurfing hosts (and once, out of necessity to both me and the surfer, been a host) who *provided* nothing but a safe place on the ground to sleep, without utilities. Moreover, the incremental cost of utilities of one additional guest is extremely low, on the order of the cost of one hot shower per guest-night (not all guests take a shower, but most also incrementally increase light-bulb usage, stove gas, and electronic device recharging).
2. I continue to host, as I have off and on for years, because there are benefits that outweigh, for me, the few of the costs you mention that do apply. Cultural exchanges with others, fresh outlooks on life, new ideas from people who have lived elsewhere and in other ways than I, and social interaction are all worth the cost of my rent (which I would be paying (or not) anyway) and some pancake supplies.
In addition, I continue to host people and give rides when I can because it's a way of paying forward those who have hosted, and continue to host me, given me rides, helped me move apartments, etc., especially those who have hosted me when I just needed a free place to stay.
3. Re: "This loss of time, privacy, and financial burden to support people becomes significant, especially in highly traveled areas." I do not consider my time hosting as a time 'lost,' but rather time spent, just like you or I might spend time playing a game, reading a book, going to the park, or working a day-job. Also, loss of Privacy? So when you hang out with your friends at home, are you thinking, "oh, man, what a loss of privacy"? (Note also that surfers often stay in a separate room (or as in 2007/08 in my case, on the roof).
In my opinion, several of the statements in this paragraph are too general and should be more carefully worded.
4. You write, "when the[y] see surfer after surfer pass through, eat their food, stay for a night or two, smile, and leave. This type of behavior, in addition to be an exploitation of a host's hospitality..." Many cultures of hospitality would not consider this an exploitation. Specifically in my experience, some Egyptians, Irish, and American Mid-Westerners and Californians I know would see supporting such travelers as *part of* the culture of hospitality.
5. I don't understand your comment that freeloading couchsurfers "can be damaging to the reputation of others" (reputation of whom, among what public? Couchsurfing.com among the World? Couchsurfers in general among potential hosts?) Perhaps, also, it's not so much *reputation* (social evaluation) of other people that is sometimes damaged by a freeloading CouchSurfer, as others' openness and hospitality toward others? I'm not sure.
- Regarding your comments on Dumpsterdiving, it took me a couple reads through (perhaps I'm slow to pick up on it, or perhaps your wording could be more explicit), but I see a point here that I didn't realize before. The cooperative cycle of commerce to which you refer is beneficial to the merchant in ways other financially, so despite the lack of literal "loss" of the garbage, he or she is losing out on feedback from customers. Interesting. [side-note, I wonder how a grocer would feel upon seeing a sticky note saying "the tomatoes you threw away last week were great!"]
- In the same paragraph, you say "By the way, where is the majority of oil coming from nowadays?" It seems you intend "our oil" (I assume you mean America's Oil? The Western World's Oil? Humanity's Oil?), just like rice in Alaska and cell phones in Sudan, as a statement advocating global commerce. Note that many people strongly believe that our use of oil is a leading cause of ocean acidification (killing off sea life), global warming (melting Everest), and other environmental disasters (Exxon V is all I have to type in to google before it suggests oil spill). Whether the oft-called "eco-nuts" have it all right or not, suffice it to say that "our oil" is a controversial justication, to say the least. If I were to write this essay, I would widen the focus of the sentence to a global one (which maybe you already intended with "our"?), and generalize the statement to more universally accepted imports, like "energy, tools, and gadgets?"
- The final generalization that will ring false to many readers is in your conclusion. "The up-front costs of freeloading, to the individual doing it, are obvious- something for nothing. The background costs, and the cascading effect which is has on society, are catastrophic when viewed in the long term" The first sentence might be more powerful if you stuck with the subject - the *cost* is not *something for nothing.* The *cost* is *nothing* And "are catastrophic"? I don't believe you have mentioned any actual catastrophes. You imply that the removal of incentive to work is bad, and mention that commerce is good (implying that something that avoids commerce is bad), but where is the catastrophe?
Good luck with the essay.
Cheers,
~George J.
Comments
-----
After reading the essay, I've concluded that whoever wrote it is either:
a) a young libertarian who doesn't know how the world works yet
b) a terrible person
For their sake, I will assume it is the former. I fortunately am too old to have been able to post my embarrassingly ignorant libertarian views online when I was in high school, so I sympathize with them and hope they grow out of it soon. Hospitality is not stealing, provided that it is met with gratitude and reciprocated with hospitality in turn. That is simply good manners.
As for welfare, I hope that this person will never be in a situation where they have to depend on the kindness of others (or as they might say, "be forced to steal"). When my father died, my mother, my sister, and I were dependent on social security for a while. It is cruel to say that programs that ensure people don't starve are unnecessary - unnecessary for most, perhaps, but the purpose of the thing is to help those in the minority who are unlucky, unemployed, unable to work. The myth of the welfare mom is one of the most pervasive and damaging propaganda pieces that conservatives have given to us in the past century and it sickens me to hear that people still believe it.
In short, this reads like an essay I might have written when I was 14 and still believed that the world was black and white. Suggestions? Burn this rough draft, go volunteer in a soup kitchen, and learn that not every human interaction should be measured in dollars and cents.
Also, it's "effect", not "affect".