Response: Practical Benevolence

In response to Katie Emerson's post "Broke" (January 28, 2012):
I have a few refutations to present in response to some of the comments in this post.  Firstly, what does 'broke' mean in this context?  Does it mean 'without enough money to survive', 'without enough money to do whatever you want', 'without enough money to be respectable', or something else?

Secondly, most of these arguments against benevolence assume that few or no others in the world are being benevolent.  While I agree that in contemporary American society teaching for free with no other source of income (even welfare) would result in one becoming broke (in the first sense of the word), contemporary America society is not the society Confucius is promoting.  In an ideal Confucian society, no one would have to worry about being broke because if anyone appeared to lack something they required or very much wanted, another person would freely give them that thing out of benevolence.  The usage of money would not be necessary, because no one requires money, or would really want money if they can obtain things without it, through merely asking another benevolent person.

Lastly, the assertion 'without competition there is no motivation' does not seem valid to me.  There would be no motivation to be wealthier than anyone else, true, but why would such a goal be worthwhile?  The motivation to perform certain actions which are currently considered careers would still be there, either because people simply enjoyed doing them (some people, for example, genuinely enjoy teaching others) or because they recognized that doing so would help themselves and others; a recognition which would lead to their performing those actions, due to both self-interest and benevolence.