Servants - yes or no?

[nnmartin]

People who can should be allowed to hire help but everyone should clean their own toilets because everyone should be brave enough to clean up their own ****

that is true and is a good point.

One of the main reasons that people of a certain class have a 'cleaning lady' is for status purposes only. These lazy, idle rich could most certainly clean up their own toilets, but prefer someone else to do it for them as it fuels their delusion of self importance and entitlement.

 

[Revoltingest]

One of the main reasons that people of a certain class have a 'cleaning lady' is for status purposes only. These lazy, idle rich could most certainly clean up their own toilets, but prefer someone else to do it for them as it fuels their delusion of self importance and entitlement.

You know so much about me & my relationship with my cleaning lady!
I worked hard to be lazy & idle, & I plan to enjoy it.
Yer just jealous. If you had the loot, you'd have French maids peeling & feeding you grapes.
I wonder what your life would be like if......
[youtube]XpugML3CsSQ[/youtube]
Hedonism Bot - YouTube

 

[nnmartin]

that's heading into another debate though.

would I have a harem , seems to be what you are suggesting there.

Maybe, maybe not , but it's hardly the same thing.

as for jealousy, not at all - personally I wouldn't want servants even if I had a big house and heaps of money.

the reasons would be :

1. I would not want to recreate a form of pseudo-feudalism.

2. I would not want my personal space invaded.

 

[4consideration]

that may be pleasant from you but who tends to the cleaner's home and her children whilst she is busy looking after yours?

I never thought to ask her that question. I assumed she had that handled, since she was only at my house for a few hours a week. I assumed that she was doing the work to take care of her family. But, after a few checks I wrote to her had not been presented to our bank and it seemed odd to me, I asked her about it -- since I was concerned that something had happened and she didn't have the use of her money. She said there was no problem, she was saving the money (checks) she was earning for Christmas presents for her family. I figured since it worked for both her and me that all was well. Why isn't that good enough for you?

It seems that you think there is some ideal of how things should be that supercedes what actually works well for the parties involved. Is that right?

Of course it is demeaning otherwise you would do it yourself.

You have got to be kidding me. I am a mother. Do you have any idea of how much poop, puke and other nasty messes I have cleaned up -- not to mention the number of toilets that I have cleaned. It is not demeaning. It is a necessity of life. It's not the most fun part of it. It just needs to be done.

Did you even read my post? The ONLY reason that I hired someone to come in for a few hours a week was so that I could spend time with my family -- it had nothing to do with an attitude of being "too good" to do it myself. It was because I was working to earn money that it made sense to pay someone to do some of what I would have done if I was home during the day.

It should not be allowed due to the fact that it causes segregation of the classes, and laziness in the employers.

Martin, please tell me that I am misunderstanding you and that you are not actually proposing that it would be better to allow people to starve, rather than support themselves doing work that involves cleaning. To propose that it should not be allowed would remove employment for all those people that actually rely on it to earn a living. Is there some Provide a Living for Everyone Fairy that is supposed to magically endow everyone with a soft, clean and fluffy livelihood?

Really, are you saying that some things should not be allowed because everyone can't do them (like have someone clean their house) and that we ought to legislate against things that may lead to laziness. If so, how do you justify participating in an online forum. It could lead to laziness and avoidance of some other responsibility. (There's a new thread for you. )

ok, so when was the last time you did a full week's work cleaning other peoples' toilets?

I never did a full week's work cleaning (only) other people's toilets.

It has been a long time, and it was not a job that I held full time, but actually after I graduated from college, while looking for a full-time job, I worked with someone that was self-employed and cleaned houses. It's hard work. I did it for a short time. She ended up cleaning houses for about 20 years. She had a college degree and found that she could earn more money in that way, working fewer hours, than working as an employee for someone else -- and she could be home for her children when they got off the school bus. She paid for private school tuition and some of her children's college expenses that way. It is honorable to do a good job, no matter what job you are doing.

 

[nnmartin]

It seems that you think there is some ideal of how things should be that supercedes what actually works well for the parties involved. Is that right?

Yes, that is correct!

Did you even read my post? The ONLY reason that I hired someone to come in for a few hours a week was so that I could spend time with my family -- it had nothing to do with an attitude of being "too good" to do it myself.

Ok, perhaps in your situation you have a reason for not being able to do the cleaning yourself, but in many many sceanarios people only have cleaners as a form of status symbol - this is what I object to.

 

[nnmartin]

Is there some Provide a Living for Everyone Fairy that is supposed to magically endow everyone with a soft, clean and fluffy livelihood?

not soft, clean and fluffy for sure, but there should be some kind of national body which selects appropriate, useful work for the general populace. The tending of others' egos would not fit into this scheme.

Really, are you saying that some things should not be allowed because everyone can't do them (like have someone clean their house) and that we ought to legislate against things that may lead to laziness

yes, that is more or less correct.

certain forms of laziness neeed to be legislated against.

. If so, how do you justify participating in an online forum. It could lead to laziness and avoidance of some other responsibility. (There's a new thread for you. )

how can writing on a forum be seen as doing a job that someone else should be doing for themselves?

It is honorable to do a good job, no matter what job you are doing.

I agree with the first part of that sentence but not the second.

 

[4consideration]

not soft, clean and fluffy for sure, but there should be some kind of national body which selects appropriate, useful work for the general populace. The tending of others' egos would not fit into this scheme.

So, you want someone else to dictate to you what kind of work you do? I don't. The government does not own me and does not have the right to dictate to me how I earn a living, provided I choose a legal activity done in a legal way. I would not support including things like house cleaning amongst the list of illicit activities. :no:

yes, that is more or less correct.

certain forms of laziness neeed to be legislated against..

How do you justify making a distinction between different forms of laziness -- good and bad laziness? If laziness is so bad as to justify legislation, don't you think it ought to be erradicated completely? I think once you get laziness accepted as grounds for prohibiting certain activities, you're going to have to accept it's application to many other things like video games, hanging out in coffee houses, listening to music, online forums that do not produce income for you, etc.

how can writing on a forum be seen as doing a job that someone else should be doing for themselves?.

It doesn't need to be seen as a job. If an activity that produces laziness is established as something that should be legislated against because it produces laziness, that would be a terrible can of worms to open up. It wouldn't be pretty.

 

[Penumbra]

What do you think of the idea of having servants?

If you could afford it , would you have them?

I am thinking of servants such as butlers, cleaners, chefs, door openers etc..

Would you really want to have these people in your home attending to your every need, and what do you think of those people that have such staff?

At some point I'm going to hire a part time cleaning person, perhaps on a weekly basis. I'm already willing to hire people to do one-time tasks. I don't think "servant" is the best choice of words, but whatever people wish to call a voluntary exchange of money for work, I see zero problems with it fundamentally.

The way I look at it is, if I value my time at $X/hour, and I can hire a person to do a certain amount of work for me at $(X/2)/hour and they view that as a good sum of money, then it makes sense for me to hire that person. My income over the time period could actually be lower if I don't hire that person, and do the work myself instead, compared to if I hired that person.

A personal cook would be a distant second need. It would be nice to have someone who enjoys cooking to cook in our home, but at the current time, to pay for their total transportation time several nights a week, it doesn't work out economically. Cooking is unfortunately a more frequent need than cleaning.

another question, should they be allowed at all in the first place?

Who would be in the position to disallow it? Under who's authority, and for what reason?

 

[nnmartin]

How do you justify making a distinction between different forms of laziness -- good and bad laziness? If laziness is so bad as to justify legislation, don't you think it ought to be erradicated completely?

When I refer to 'laziness' here I mean 'arrogant laziness based on the mistaken belief of superiority' - so here, this would apply to people who only hire servants as status symbols.

 

[nnmartin]

Who would be in the position to disallow it? Under who's authority, and for what reason?

there would be some kind of authority such as 'The National Ministry of Social Affairs' , or something similar.

The exact agenda would be worked out by nationally appointed experts that could make long term plans regarding social behaviour patterns, and select the appropriate method for improving society.

 

[Penumbra]

there would be some kind of authority such as 'The National Ministry of Social Affairs' , or something similar.

The exact agenda would be worked out by nationally appointed experts that could make long term plans regarding social behaviour patterns, and select the appropriate method for improving society.

And why should they have the authority to decide what two consenting people should be allowed to exchange?

 

[nnmartin]

for the long term benefit of society as a whole.

People cannot do it themselves on an individual basis as their sphere of influence is tiny.

so for the bigger picture we need power and planning from above.


This is very similar to the classroom analogy I sometimes make - ie: a group of young children left alone to 'set up and play the game on your own' just does not work properly as they all argue amongst themselves. Thus a teacher is needed to facilitate the plan, aka: 'The Ministry of Social Affairs'.

 

[Penumbra]

for the long term benefit of society as a whole.

People cannot do it themselves on an individual basis as their sphere of influence is tiny.

so for the bigger picture we need power and planning from above.

But this only concerns their own self. Their sphere of influence covers that.

If someone tells me they'll give me $X to do a task, I can determine whether I like that or not, and answer accordingly. My sphere of influence, therefore, is easily large enough to take care of this matter without national oversight.

This is very similar to the classroom analogy I sometimes make - ie: a group of young children left alone to 'set up and play the game on your own' just does not work properly as they all argue amongst themselves. Thus a teacher is needed to facilitate the plan, aka: 'The Ministry of Social Affairs'.

The teacher is older and wiser than young children.

We're not talking about children, we're talking about adults (and possibly some older teenagers).

In all probability, the Minister of Social Affairs wouldn't be that skillful. It would be like hiring a child to tell other children what to do, or hiring a child to tell adults what to do.

 

[Penumbra]

A Ministry of a given type of affair is good when what happens between a group of people can seriously affect people that weren't involved in the arrangement.

So for instance, if I decide to dump toxic waste into my public local lake, and people would prefer to swim in a clean lake, then it would be rational for them to appoint someone to govern environmental standards of that lake.

If two adults make an agreement that doesn't concern me in the slightest, it doesn't make sense for many of us to get together to appoint someone to tell those people they can't do that.

 

[nnmartin]

If someone tells me they'll give me $X to do a task, I can determine whether I like that or not, and answer accordingly. My sphere of influence, therefore, is easily large enough to take care of this matter without national oversight.

yes, but of course this is the essence of the whole problem.

individually we may do what we think is right, and so do all the other individuals in the street, district and town.

But who is controlling the mass effect of all these actions?

the answer is nobody.

so this is why we need an overall plan for the benefit of the whole.

Order must be brought into this confused mess of individual actions.

 

[nnmartin]

If two adults make an agreement that doesn't concern me in the slightest, it doesn't make sense for many of us to get together to appoint someone to tell those people they can't do that.

We need to change peoples' fundamental way of thinking about certain issues and the only way to do so is to start at the lower levels.

ie: in this case, a small transaction between two people.

The aim is to minimise certain types of segregation whereby one person can command another to do a pointless task simply because they have greater financial means.

 

[Penumbra]

yes, but of course this is the essence of the whole problem.

individually we may do what we think is right, and so do all the other individuals in the street, district and town.

But who is controlling the mass effect of all these actions?

the answer is nobody.

so this is why we need an overall plan for the benefit of the whole.

Order must be brought into this confused mess of individual actions.

Or it's an overall plan for the detriment of the whole. Especially if it's poorly rationalized, without justification, and based on false premises, and without any data.

We need to change peoples' fundamental way of thinking about certain issues and the only way to do so is to start at the lower levels.

ie: in this case, a small transaction between two people.

The aim is to minimise certain types of segregation whereby one person can command another to do a pointless task simply because they have greater financial means.

I'd say you haven't demonstrated, at all, that we need to change anyone's fundamental way of thinking on this matter.

What if I propose that we need to change people's way of thinking so that they don't follow a certain religion? Is that acceptable? Let's organize the chaos of religions and philosophies into one, through law.

Further, going back to this example, I'd say that interfering to that type of degree with consenting economic behavior is itself a problem that would have to be addressed. If a person would like to feed themselves and put some shelter over their children, and they make an economic arrangement to exchange labor for the ability to do that, and then you tell them they can't do that, and they therefore cannot afford those things, then that would be on you, right?

 

[4consideration]

When I refer to 'laziness' here I mean 'arrogant laziness based on the mistaken belief of superiority' - so here, this would apply to people who only hire servants as status symbols.

You are arguing for establishing control (with force) of something that is outside of the realm of being managed by force. Any law has behind it the threat of the use of force (fine or jail) as the eventual consequence of failure to comply. Force can be applied to things, people, even to stop or require action.

However, what you are trying to address is internal motivation. You are supporting a law that assumes a governmental agency has the ability to establish and evaluate internal motivation -- in order to regulate a motive, rather than an action. Internal motivation can be influenced, but it cannot be forced. You can motivate a person to action through establishing a cause for fear of consequences. You cannot force a person to want to do that action.

You cannot force a person to love you. Love comes from within. It cannot be imposed externally. A loving motivation for action can only come from a person establishing love as their motivation -- from which their actions spring forth. You can only force (or enforce) action, not intent.

Even if a person chooses to hire someone else for their own sense of status, so what? People do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. The only way to keep people from doing things for the wrong reasons is to 1) decide that you know all the right reasons 2) keep everybody from doing anything. You can't lock the world in a box just because there are things that seem wrong. What you can do is establish yourself as a starting point for the very best of what you would like to see in the world, and expect that to have some impact as it ripples out. That is within your sphere of influence. Controlling other people's motivation is not.

 

[nnmartin]

we can pyschologically influence peoples' inner motivations though.

This can begin at school and also be passed through the media. This will take the form of a new moral code in which we are all brothers and sisters, helping each other on a near equal footing at all times for the benefit of the nation.

Think of our morals of today - many things which we do or don't do are a result of social conditioning over long periods of time; the concept of personal space is a good example here as we can notice how this differs over regions and countries.

If we encourage people from a young age that it is bad to aspire to have others subservient to you as a form of status then we will make progress in this area.

This form of gratification is entirely uneccessary and provides no long term benefit.

so, if we start to relegate this form of behaviour to the history books, we can move forward as a society of equals.

 

[beenie]

I'm a mother of six, and that makes me a servant by default.

In all seriousness, as long as both parties are in agreement, I don't see a problem. I'd never use the term "servant" anyway. I like "Staff" better.