Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

capitaldaily.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 390 posts

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#341

Post by noduerme »

shkkmo wrote: post #324
kbenson wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between being empathetic to those that have problems and need help and those that choose knowingly to opt out of the surface level of the system while still receiving its benefits. While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that grou…

You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other. I think my criticism applies equally to the people who look down on people for particpating in the system as to those who call them parasites. Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise. G…

I don't despise, dehuminize, wish violence upon, or lack empathy for crusty street kids, because I can fully relate to them. And when I was one - or at least traveled as one - I was one of the few who bore no ill-will toward the people who chose to have cars and homes and careers and children. When I was 22 I thought the careerists had a limited view of the world: I still do. I just realize now that the punkabestia have a limited view, too. As you say, no one should be blinded by their social status into dehumanizing anyone else. But by the same token, it's possible to arrive at the conclusion that some things lead to objectively less miserable personal and social outcomes than others, based on experience, without apologizing to people who are still blinkered by certain views.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#342

Post by hnick »

SavantIdiot wrote: post #262
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #74

I’m not sure living in the city off handouts, charity, and free tax payer provided facilities exactly promotes his no money philosophy. His life relies on the things he despises, if the economic collapse he predicts comes he will be among the first to starve to death. Go into the wild and grow/hunt food or trade some skill - the post money society doesn’t need philosopher poets scavenging cigarettes from trash cans

> Go into the wild and grow/hunt food It is easy to radically underestimate how much food a human needs every day and how hard it is to acquire, especially when living a non-sedentary life as a hunter/gatherer. Trying to accumulate 2000+ calories per day growing food requires a rather significant farm and skill (and weather); doing so with meat requires daily hunting, or a permanent storage facility with refrigeratio…

It's also a little harder these days with how barren the environment is, comparatively. The oceans and shorelines especially, past generations could walk on down and gather lobsters by hand. Good luck now. Maybe after a few hundred years of human population collapse.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#343

Post by noduerme »

LightBearer wrote: post #323
noduerme wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard the nobility of homelessness and joblessness expressed as an ethos countless times by people who wouldn't care for the work of living off-grid. I happen to work in a town with some of the highest taxes in the country that's also one of the most attractive places for indigent campers. The park across from where I live has become a tent city. I get the pleasure of paying for its "upkeep" while also having to…

You sound mad that this fellow has found a way to not contribute to the society you think everyone should. Jealous?

No, I think he's missing out on the best part of life - building creative things for others to enjoy and to improve their lives. And elevating the total refusal to add an iota of value to the world from your own existence into a form of sainthood is the apogee of lazy Gen Z culture, isn't it? I pity the guy, as any sane person should, but I also think it's grotesque that hangers-on are attracted to his lame opinions.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#344

Post by SavantIdiot »

hnick wrote: post #342
SavantIdiot wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Go into the wild and grow/hunt food It is easy to radically underestimate how much food a human needs every day and how hard it is to acquire, especially when living a non-sedentary life as a hunter/gatherer. Trying to accumulate 2000+ calories per day growing food requires a rather significant farm and skill (and weather); doing so with meat requires daily hunting, or a permanent storage facility with refrigeratio…

It's also a little harder these days with how barren the environment is, comparatively. The oceans and shorelines especially, past generations could walk on down and gather lobsters by hand. Good luck now. Maybe after a few hundred years of human population collapse.

I grew up on Long Island in 60's, which is a bay (called a "sound", like Long Island Sound) bordered by states CT, RI, Mass, and NY/Long Island. Many relatives caught lobster there, but no more. In the summer we would walk down to low tide and pull steamers clams out of the sand and cook them on holidays, along with periwinkles which are 4" snails (not the same as French periwinkles which are tiny!!) Now all areas are polluted and shellfish cannot be eaten. Is it crazy/sad? Yes.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#345

Post by France_is_bacon »

He is still spending money, no matter what.

Just because he doesn't touch the money, what does that have to do with anything. If someone like Queen Elizabeth never touches the money herself, mean that she does not spend money? If Jeff Bezos has a person following behind him 24/7 and never touches money, does that mean he has no money and doesn't spend? Of course not.

If someone gives the dude food for free, the homeless guy still paid money for it. Maybe not cash, but he paid some form of money. The person purchasing the sandwich loaned or gave the homeless dude money, and then paid for the sandwich on behalf of the homeless guy.

The homeless guy spends money living in the guy's house.

Not only that, the sandwich he received for free is taxable by the IRS. It's like on those game shows where you win a car for free, you still have to pay taxes on it. That is because it is legit income, as in money to you. The gameshow gave you money for the car, but the gameshow then bought it for you, hid it behind a wall, and made you work for it.

If the guy needs healthcare and goes to the hospital for free, he's not going for free. The doctors and nurses and rent and utilities and tools all cost money that someone pays. Nobody is working for free. The homeless guy is getting money from everyone, he just doesn't touch the actual cash, but it is all the same thing. He is spending $10,000 or $50,000 or $150,000 or whatever the medical care may cost, in value.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#346

Post by AussieWog93 »

mikem170 wrote: post #301
chmod600 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Better Angels of our Nature by Steven Pinker makes a compelling case that violence (including rape) are dramatically lower in modern societies all around the world.

I'd buy that. I just didn't know that it was relevant or comparable to modern state backing of the rentier rich. wasn't sure how to judge such a comparison. I know that modern governemnts will send uniformed guys with guns if you mess with a rich persons property. But I wondered if aborigines beat low status members and women for economic reasons, or for mating reasons, or for something else?

>But I wondered if aborigines beat low status members and women for economic reasons, or for mating reasons, or for something else?

I'm not sure if you're Aussie, but please understand that problems like domestic violence and incest/rape still exist in Aboriginal communities to a large extent.

There are also an army of "nice" middle class, urban white people performing the most mind-bending mental gymnastics possible to shift the blame away from the perpetrators and onto white society in general (who, to be fair, brutally mistreated the Aboriginal population for the better part of two centuries during a colonial campaign of conquest).

To me, within that context, the more interesting question is not whether or not there were economic/mating pressures on aboriginal populations that lead to the brutal behviour, but why a middle-class 21st century professional is looking to excuse it.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#347

Post by jpmoral »

MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #116
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #74

I’m not sure living in the city off handouts, charity, and free tax payer provided facilities exactly promotes his no money philosophy. His life relies on the things he despises, if the economic collapse he predicts comes he will be among the first to starve to death. Go into the wild and grow/hunt food or trade some skill - the post money society doesn’t need philosopher poets scavenging cigarettes from trash cans

It is incredibly ironic that the very people that claim the system is bad, effectively cannot survive on their non-conformist lifestyle without the current system. In a way though, it's no different than a religion. Priests cannot effectively survive without parishioners giving them money. Priests likewise preach things about the modern era of morality are bad and we must change them. So if you think of these vagabon…

Why is it ironic? The system may be bad, or it may not be, but the fact that it is virtually impossible to survive completely outside it is not evidence of it being bad or not.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#348

Post by musingsole »

jerry1979 wrote: post #234
imtringued wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He also has an unhealthy relationship with money. Withholding money from being spent is immoral because that money is needed to pay debts and saving money causes unemployment. Spending all the money you get is moral. Of course you are allowed to spend your money on stocks and bonds to maintain real savings.

Do you have any resources that explain how saving money hurts others?

It's a pretty natural conclusion from many economics teachings that will highlight money only has value in the middle of a transaction and is virtually ethereal while sitting in any account.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#349

Post by kbenson »

shkkmo wrote: post #324
kbenson wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between being empathetic to those that have problems and need help and those that choose knowingly to opt out of the surface level of the system while still receiving its benefits. While GP comment may be painting groups with an overly broad brush, I'm not sure I see any fault with the criticism of the specific type of person they describe, which does exist, even if it may not be all of that grou…

You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other. I think my criticism applies equally to the people who look down on people for particpating in the system as to those who call them parasites. Critical rational thought can take you all sorts of violent and negative places if you don't make an effort to pair it with empathy and a genuine effort to understand the perspectives of those you are tempted to despise. G…

> You seem to be aligning me with one side or the other.

I'm not sure why you think that, or even what the "sides" are in this case. I thought your response seemed a bit canned, so used it as a jumping point to talk about how I think a bit more critical thinking is good in some of these cases.

And critical it the operative word, not necessarily rational (as many seem to interpret it at least, to me rationalism without accounting for how it affects the human condition is somewhat worthless). The only reason critical thought would take you to violent and negative places is if you're doing it wrong. Lack of critical thinking leads to violence and negative places far more often from what I've seen.

> Giving in to "rational" dehumanization and hatred is not going to actually help anything and will probably make things worse.

This isn't about dehumanization. It's about not blandly lumping people together without forethought. That works for not assuming all homeless are drug addicts and criminals as well as it does for not assuming they're all completely upstanding citizens that for the quick right type of help could be your neighbor. They are an amalgamation of many people in many circumstances, and we should remember that and consider that.

Re: A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

#350

Post by Retric »

Chris2048 wrote: post #335
Retric wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What moral standpoint does Disneyland represent? The GP listed doing anything productive as a moral stance, Disneyland is therefore part of that anything. > net harm of Disneyland Promoting millions to take longer trips and regularly visit the middle of Florida directly causes travel related pollution. Simply developing that land is harmful to the local ecosystems. Producing all the merchandising is similarly an is…

> anything productive as a moral stance If Disneyland is harmful, it isn't productive > rest of the economy which this guy is also dependent on

> Of Disneyland is harmful, it isn’t productive.

Any activity that burns fossil fuels directly produces measurable harm. Feel free to think about what that means for all current economic activity.

Post reply on HN