Off By One

Volunteerism is one of those interesting ‘isms’.  It’s probably one of the most well-regarded ‘isms’ by more people, but I admit that much like my reaction to charity, I have a decidedly contrary view of this practice.

And, it appears, I’m not the only one.  Here’s “To Hell with Good Intentions by Ivan Illich,” a transcript of a speech given in 1968 to a volunteer organization.  I came across this by way of, as always, Metafilter, where a discussion on the validity of volunteering was taking place. This was spurred by an interesting article decrying modern celebrity aid programs as development porn and calling out volunteerism as paternalistic behaviour… which is how I have always sort of felt.

Poke about. It’s a good debate.

You know, I feel sorry for the iconoclasts of the world; it’s not easy to convince people that their particular brand of fixed idealism is a bad approach, and the more religious the adherence the harder it is to combat.

This particular line of thought comes about while reading an essay by Freeman Dyson entitled Heretical Thoughts About Science and Society, wherein Mr. Dyson discusses some of his own personal heresies vis-a-vis global warming. Although he makes coherent arguments, he is doomed from the start not by flaws in his arguments, nor by the unimpeachable truth of the ideas he’s criticizing, but instead he’s doomed to forever tilt at windmills on this subject because — like religion and political orientation — belief in climate change, for or against, is based not on reason but on faith.

So, I feel sorry for Freeman Dyson. I feel sorry for Bjorn Lomborg. I feel sorry for Al Gore (although for different reasons — he’s part of the solution here, and part of the problem there) and for Richard Dawkins and James Randi.

Dependency.

More specifically, I’m unconvinced that it’s for the best to depend on others for the necessities and desires of life any more than is absolutely necessary.

As an example, obviously only one data point, take the Greyhound strike that is going on right now. This is a case where, because the users of the service are dependent on the providers in a very clear, often-inextricable fashion, the providers of the service have been able to cause them no end of grief by withholding service.

Make no mistake; I believe that the other component of this is that those that provide a service are freely allowed to decline to continue to provide it, for whatever reason they choose. I don’t have to agree with the reason, just with the right to perform the action.

This acceptance, however, leads me to my main point, which is that depending on others for services is a dangerous game; you are gambling that they’ll never choose to revoke that service, despite the fact that threatening to do so at times when the service is most needed to you results in immense potential gains for them. It’s unlikely in normal relations: One’s friends rarely say “Oh, you need a ride? Sorry, I’m not giving rides anymore… for free.” This doesn’t hold with people for whom you are just another inconveniencecustomer, however.

So, think twice before you make choices that increase your dependency on third parties that do not have an interest in your wellbeing. I do.