Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#111

Post by broscillator » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

mopenstein wrote: post #30

defrost wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'It' ? What exactly is immoral and why?

It's the coercive nature by which wealth is redistributed to other people that brings upon the questions of morality. If I'm forced at the end of a barrel of a gun to give up any portion of the fruits of my labor to support others, it is immoral.

The whole point of society is to be able to support those who can't support themselves. It's not to have a pool of resources from which you can accumulate and hold on to as many resources as you can.

If you are able at all to give up any portion of the fruits of your labor you should be grateful for the conditions set up before you that allowed you to reach such place.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#112

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #108

lotsofpulp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material costs are not consumer goods like clothing and food. It is the infrastructure, moving mountains to move water, paving land to move food, laying wires for electricity and communication, train lines to move fertilizer, refineries, ports, universities to study medicines, etc. $100 per month is not going to cover any of this, but I am pretty sure you are going to want the benefits.

My comment was from the viewpoint of an individual today. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say anything about society as a whole. So, no, an individual is not paying for train lines and ports from their personal budget. Perhaps there are some people who spend 90%+ of their income on food, shelter, and electricity, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of costs are “unnecessary” consumer goods.

[deleted]

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#113

Post by keiferski » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:48 PM UTC

throw0101b wrote: post #91

keiferski wrote: post #15

It's interesting how quality of life baselines have increased so much in the last century. If you wanted to have the QOL of someone that lived in the American West a hundred years ago, it could be done today for probably $100 a month all-inclusive of food, clothing, and shelter. But you'd be eating the same 5-10 things repeatedly, wearing the same clothes, have a few books for entertainment, minimal or no electronics…

> It's interesting how quality of life baselines have increased so much in the last century. From John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren" (1930): > > Now it is true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they fall into two classes --those needs which are absolute in the sense that we feel them whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those which…

Yes, which is why I don’t think any “post-work” society will ever happen on a mass scale. People will invent jobs if they feed a social need.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#114

Post by MichaelZuo » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:49 PM UTC

mdekkers wrote: post #89

Podgajski wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try raising children that way. Come on now, people have done it for hundreds of thousands of years. Just because it’s different from what you used to doesn’t mean it can’t be done. And it doesn’t mean the children will come out harmed in anyway. > In the USA we have a problem with cost of living, but at the end of the day the reason for this is almost always misguided government intervention. If there is no governm…

> Come on now, people have done it for hundreds of thousands of years. Come now, people also used to die from toothaches, and during those hundreds of thousands of years infant and child mortality was incredibly high, and education practically nonexistent. These “we have done this since the beginning of time” arguments always make me chuckle, they are so incredibly simplistic.

That doesn't mean it's false though? The parent seems correct that human beings are capable of subsisting and surviving for many many generations on very austere conditions.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#115

Post by tonyedgecombe » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:50 PM UTC

campboy wrote: post #80

eesmith wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the QOL of someone that lived in the American West a hundred years ago I don't think you have a good idea of what life was like in the 1920s, even in the American West. Here is what Cheyenne looked like in the 1910s - http://www.wyomingtalesandtrails.com/cheyenne1900s.html . People had cars then - and horses. Train service started in 1867. The local library started in 1886 so you could get books for entertainment.…

> So, go back another 50 years, to the 1870s of "Little House in the Big Woods". It’s cute for sure but I don’t know if I’d use a novel for children as an accurate portrayal of the median subsistence living experience 150 years ago.

Thoreau was talking about the perils of excess consumption in Walden, published in the 1850's.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#116

Post by keiferski » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:52 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #114

mdekkers wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Come on now, people have done it for hundreds of thousands of years. Come now, people also used to die from toothaches, and during those hundreds of thousands of years infant and child mortality was incredibly high, and education practically nonexistent. These “we have done this since the beginning of time” arguments always make me chuckle, they are so incredibly simplistic.

That doesn't mean it's false though? The parent seems correct that human beings are capable of subsisting and surviving for many many generations on very austere conditions.

From reading these comments you’d think that human beings were miserable and incapable of any happiness or meaning until someone invented air conditioning and sewage systems.

Yes, life used to be more difficult. No, that doesn’t mean such a life was without meaning.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#117

Post by chongli » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:52 PM UTC

jasode wrote: post #26

keiferski wrote: post #15

It's interesting how quality of life baselines have increased so much in the last century. If you wanted to have the QOL of someone that lived in the American West a hundred years ago, it could be done today for probably $100 a month all-inclusive of food, clothing, and shelter. But you'd be eating the same 5-10 things repeatedly, wearing the same clothes, have a few books for entertainment, minimal or no electronics…

>I am somewhat surprised that there aren't more cheap-living communes in the US. A few thousand dollars could probably pay the living expenses of a few dozen people – assuming they are all on-board with such a materially minimalist lifestyle. A monastery of nuns or monks is something like that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosed_religious_orders Even though the members live a minimal lifestyle of near-poverty, ma…

One thing everyone forgets is that the Amish people benefit from police and national defence, like everyone else. Their simple, peaceful life would not be possible if they comprised their own sovereign nation in a region surrounded by hostile actors. With no military of their own, they’d be annexed instantly.

This means they aren’t truly independent. They’re dependent in a way they could never afford to pay for themselves. They get by as free riders while everyone else pays for them.

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#118

Post by lotsofpulp » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

keiferski wrote: post #108

lotsofpulp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The material costs are not consumer goods like clothing and food. It is the infrastructure, moving mountains to move water, paving land to move food, laying wires for electricity and communication, train lines to move fertilizer, refineries, ports, universities to study medicines, etc. $100 per month is not going to cover any of this, but I am pretty sure you are going to want the benefits.

My comment was from the viewpoint of an individual today. That’s what it says. It doesn’t say anything about society as a whole. So, no, an individual is not paying for train lines and ports from their personal budget. Perhaps there are some people who spend 90%+ of their income on food, shelter, and electricity, but I’m fairly certain that the majority of costs are “unnecessary” consumer goods.

Taxes, home, healthcare, food, vehicle (or transportation), education, retirement savings. A portion of this might be discretionary, and it is very subjective, but I doubt you are getting anywhere near $100 per month in “necessary” consumer goods in the US.

Healthcare alone will blow through that, and not sure where you will draw the line on necessary and unnecessary for that.

People at some point in their lives might be spending a majority of their money on unnecessary items, but eventually, it will catch up to them (and potentially be made up by government subsidies).

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#119

Post by vivekd » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:53 PM UTC

lotsofpulp wrote: post #107

vivekd wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think life in the 1920s, while having downsides, was a lot better than many people imagine.

I imagine many women would disagree. Or the people who just got back from WW1, and are about to send their kids to WW2.

Right, but staying on topic in terms of available material goods and income,

I don't think available goods and resources was as bad as this thread was making it out to be

Re: Is there anywhere in the world someone can just live for free?

#120

Post by caditinpiscinam » Sat, Nov 04, 2023, 1:54 PM UTC

efitz wrote: post #56

Podgajski wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a very low material quantity of life, but my spiritual quality of life is pretty good even as I live homeless with a disability in a minivan in the United States. Americans are way too materialistic and there needs to be a reckoning of this if anything is going to change. Even people I meet that live in other minivans or RVs want to have every single creature comfort they had when they were living in a house.…

Americans are way too materialistic and there needs to be a reckoning of this if anything is going to change. If this lifestyle works for you, then good for you. Try raising children that way. There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a comfortable life; the vast majority of humans forever have wanted this. In the USA we have a problem with cost of living, but at the end of the day the reason for this is almost alw…

> There is nothing wrong with wanting to live a comfortable life; the vast majority of humans forever have wanted this.

By itself I think that this is a positive attribute. The problem comes when people believe that they deserve to live more comfortable lives than others, which seems true of most Americans.