* except in cases of big, urgent catastrophes. Then afterwards get angry that your help was needed and there wasn't better planning.
If you're not familiar with the tragedy of the commons here is a quick link to wikipedia.
Basically, concerning anything, human laziness will exploit kindness, human greed will maximize the exploitation. Until the thing being exploited reaches a breaking point and collapses, dies out or disappears.
Helping people is good and valuable, we should find a way to pay for it as a society and to manage it collectively to make sure it's effective. If ensuring this isn't top priority to your local political group right now, their priorities wrong.
If something is urgent or critical for surival, it's valuable. The people who give in emergencies, should receive fair compensation for that value.
There is a saying that "your lack of planning isn't my emergency". The fact that someone else is having a problem shouldn't automatically make you responsible for solving it. It shouldn't load off the cost of doing it to you either.
There is a big drive to donate blood and organs.
Healthcare is an industry. All workers are paid. All resources and material is bought. Except when it comes to actually critical stuff that can't be made artificially, that relies on donation.
I believe there is a general 'young to old' transfer in this space. I would appreciate reliable statistics as sources, either in support or debunking my opinion here. It's my educated guess that younger people have healthier organs and older people have organs with higher mileage and failure rate. Older people are probably also more frequently going to have surgery and need blood transfusions.
Let's take organ donation. Let's say you're poor but put time and effort into maintaining a healthy body and healthy organs. Someone who is wealthy, has been a life long drinker, smoker and general plague on humanity, needs a new lung.
When it comes to it, there is no compensation for literally saving that life? Not even a big donation in your name? That sounds like a bad deal to me.
If the situation was reversed and the poor person needed not an organ but a car or an appartment, and the old person who died happened to have both. Surprisingly it's out of the question that the poor person gets either car or appartment without at market compensation.
I see this in German clubs and volunteer organizations that do volunteer firefighting and the "THW" which basically does bigger scale technical support in case of natural disasters.
It's a club where you are basically on call. Being on call is valuable and you should receive a kick back.
Natural disasters are a general risk. They affect everyone and they affect rich people more, because they own more property that's at risk of destruction. Insurance can handle the financing. People who are in potential need of help, can afford the insurance. If they can't, they can't actually afford to own their property.
If requiring payment for emergency services makes an area "unfeasible to live in", that's just what it is. It's not an argument to not pay people who enable living in that area.
In German clubs there is often a youth group or activities for children and usually the people taking care of the children doing things there, don't really get paid a lot for what they're doing.
And I get the edge cases that someone just wants to have a good time, teach some skills and tricks. Sharing knowledge is more of a hobby to them. That they don't mind merely getting compensated for their public transport tickets and the material they use. But that only means there should be some kind of debate around organizing this. Not that there shouldn't be some kind of compensation for passing on skills, which are valuable in and of themselves.
Also, there will be someone exploiting the offer to offload their children, somewhere. Children who are disruptive, don't want to learn and don't vibe with the group.
The goal is to do whatever and have a nice time doing it. There need to be lines drawn against people who are destroying that.
Some things in society just cost money. Period. It takes time and effort to create a nice atmosphere, to make a livable space. Just because there isn't an entry fee, doesn't give anyone the right to treat things as value-less.