Reasons

Because it's fulfilling!

• Need we say more?

Because it will change the economics of the world around you.

• This isn't a platitude. We are surrounded by companies and individuals who strive to build monetarily sustainable businesses, so we often forget that there are other measurable goals and other organizational principles. Many of us are able to apply our means toward endeavors beyond just sustaining lives, and if we dedicate more of that to gifts for our future then the next generation will have even more time and space to give to their progeny, and so on. Pioneers and artists invested such that their gifts last long beyond their lifespan, and there is no reason every one of us cannot do the same.

• Grasp the full power of that proposition: we can evolve to a point where everything we need is freely given, and almost everyone can find ways to fulfill their life's desires based on these principles (the only exeptions to that rule being people whose life's desires are authority over other people or absolute unreasonable command over resources).

• Let's evolve.

"We need money!"

• Wrong. Money is an efficient measurement that has brought us great innovations & improvements rapidly, but it is hardly a necessity. How many farmers and builders would just never work again if everything was provided for them? Of course people would work and produce, and humans would still adapt and thrive, just in different ways. People wouldn't be pushed to work -- unless they drove themselves, which most of us do anyway. If we had already started along this path, we would be much more fulfilled... we would not currently be as prosperous as we (Global North) are at this point in history, but humankind would get here eventually.

• Oh, and see David Graeber's book on the real origins of money ("Debt").

"There would be freeloaders."

• Yep.

"No, seriously: the freeloaders would drag down everyone else."

• Nope. That only happens when producers have less of a value of charity and have more of a sense of jealousy or greed in their lives. There is a valid argument against giving children everything they want; there is no valid argument against giving children and everyone else in the world the basics they need to survive.

"No, you're still missing the point: the freeloaders will take more than they deserve, often violently."

• Only if the culture has an unbalanced value of material goods or forceful activities. Even if you judge today's world to be that sort of culture, the majority of small-scale violence and theft are reactionary in nature, in rebellion against unfair systems. We can overcome with a better culture.

"If we give everything away, we'll end up with nothing."

• There is definitely a range of effective and ineffective giving. There is no reason to give everything to the point where your own livelihood is at risk. The volition of the giver is paramount to any gift.

"Nobody will choose live this way."

• Look up "gifting economies", "intentional communities", "off-the-grid" and "self-reliant" living, and "homesteads".

"Only a few folks on the fringe would do this. The vast majority of the world will choose to participate in the monetary market economy."

• That's true for now, at this point in history, because that's the focus of the dominant power structures. But once we demonstrate the life-affirming practices of a non-monetary society, more will be attracted.

"This lifestyle would not survive because the existing power structures require money to work collectively."

• If you're talking banks and military might, then, yes, this is true today -- but many of us cannot wait to starve them out. Large-scale operations do more to serve the egos and lifestyles of authoritarians than to actually serve people. If you're talking about governance of limited goods (like water & land), see Elinor Ostrom's work showing how collective ownership has worked.

"This is practical inside a community, but gifting breaks down in between tribes."

• This is a better argument but it is the same issue, so again we point to Elinor Ostrom's research. Maybe there will always be a place for markets that run with money and trade, for collaboration across boundaries of low trust or for luxury items above and beyond necessities -- but that would be much preferable to today's world where impersonal trade is an everday necessity.

"Although sharing common resources is possible, there is always the threat of a powerful nation-state to take over so it is necessary to support a military by taxes and by force."

• Immoral and/or misguided ambitions are all a threat, but internal, centralized military powers are just as much a threat to prosperity... and more of a threat to basic humanity. Dedicated, decentralized defenses have worked in the past for the American Colonies, and more recently for the nations of Vietnam and Afghanistan, showing that a dedicated citizenry can chase off even top world superpowers; there are many counter-examples, but it's very possible.

"You're dreaming! The world today proves the inevitable supremacy of large, forceful nation-states."

• Our history demonstrates the power and widespread attraction of a particular mindset; however, it also happened in a particular world and time frame, and we're in a different world now where information is now much more widespread. Lies and improper authoritarianism are more difficult to cloak. This will lead to a realization that all people are equally worthy to make their own life choices... so those of us today who can give, will give as much as we can for the benefit of one another and of future generations.

• We're building human-oriented society. The only way to get there is through application of the best moral compass imaginable.

• What is a "Gifting" Economy?

• What Holds Us Back? (Sneak peek: debt!)

• What Brings Security? (No, not money.)

• When Is Force Reasonable? (Sneak peek: not for offense!)

• What Brings Meaning to Your Life? (I bet it's some type of gift.)

• Some of our Favorite Tools for Inspiration.