“But she is astonished that Mulligan is charging John twenty-five cents to rent his car; she quickly learns that the word “give” is banned in the valley.’
That’s why I can’t stand this philosophy/book. The atheism! You’re politically incorrect if you “give” someone a ride.
In the science fiction of Robert Heinlein, people actually pay others to use their air once an emergency situation is stabilized. That hardly qualifies as atheism.
<“But she is astonished that Mulligan is charging John twenty-five cents to rent his car; she quickly learns that the word “give” is banned in the valley.’
That’s why I can’t stand this philosophy/book. The atheism! You’re politically incorrect if you “give” someone a ride.>
I’m afraid I don’t see what this has to do with not believing in a god. She is making the point that transfers of goods or services among free and independent individuals must be in the form of trades, either by barter, or through an intermediary such as a medium of exchange, in this case, gold. This can also, of course, involve a charitable emotion for one of the parties. Without that trade, and a coerced charity is not trade, the exchange can in effect only take place as a result of force.
Only if you have no right to your property can a coerced, uncompensated charity exist. I’ve often thought that the worst distortion of our moral education begins when we are admonished to share our toys in kindergarten, thereby teaching us that we have no property rights.
Kirk