Live data from Hacker News

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

reddit.com

221–230 of 493 posts

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

#221
post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a simple clean studio I would be fine. I am not asking for much, just clean and stable. But even a mess of a studio costs $800 a month which I can’t afford. even if I had a place to park that was stable I wouldn’t mind either. Just something close to a town with food and place to shower, etc.

> even a mess of a studio costs $800 a month which I can’t afford There are definitely cities in the Midwest where you can get studios for <$500/mo still.

Please name one that one that will not trigger my suicidal ideation.

or just name one in general.

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

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of debt to manage the social fabric and facilitate the exchange of goods and services. I would say it is the opposite. Looking back at the millenia of human history, it is people migrating. Successive waves out of Africa and across the continents, and everywhere e…

Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did.

> Single individuals didn’t migrate, entire communities did.

Single individuals did, but my comment was really about individuals or subcommunities leaving the larger commmunity when it became too oppressive.

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

#223

OP's premise of "living for free" seems to mean "not pay taxes" and "use what resources are available". I wonder what the motivation is here, I've heard this sentiment expressed many times. It usually seems to imply "away from others". Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of debt to manage the social f…

I mean have you not read Walden? This idea of being more self-reliant and independent is popular with a lot of people, it's a central precept of certain schools of philosophy and ethics as well. No, they weren't all miserable hermits who died young. If you don't like that lifestyle it's fine, but you don't need to pee in everyone else's Wheaties.

Hmm, Walden? You mean the book by the author who took his laundry back to his mother once a month (or thereabouts)?

Don't get me wrong - loved the book, love the concept. The distance between both and reality is a little larger than is immediately obvious, however.

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

#224
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Americas largely were empty land ready to be taken by colonists, because Europeans brought old world diseases that killed 90+% of the native people, often before they'd even seen a European.

The whole of westward expansion can not be explained with that alone at all. It took a lot of violence, multiple wars and like 400 years.

Without smallpox et al., it very likely would not have happened at all. The settlers/colonialists would have faced a massively larger existing population, and would almost certainly have lost the violent struggle. There would still be people of European descent in the Americas, but not as part of the dominant culture.

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

#225
post #177
post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And for that matter, the clearance job wasn’t always exactly complete: part of the price of admission to your “free homestead” was fending off the occasional raid by its armed and rightfully furious former occupants. I suppose a similar sense of menace applies to some of the options on the linked inventory, but my first interpretation of the task was to think of places sufficiently remote/economically-irrelevant as t…

Rightfully? What right do they have to the fruit of the earth more than any other person? They only have the right to take it by force, if they can, as they did before from other people and animals.

You think you have a right to take something by force, but the other person doesn't have a right to be furious about it and try to take it back?

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

#226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Jobs" exist because division of labor is an enormous generator of human welfare. If I have to grow my own food, compose and perform my own music, build my own housing and vehicles, life will be shit. If we do have division of labor and pay each other for the work, we've reinvented capitalism. If we don't pay each other, the incentives are very strong to be a free-rider.

There are countless models available beyond this black and white, boxed thinking.

The dichotomy presented between capitalism as the byproduct of division of labor and the inevitability of free-riding in its absence paints a rather stark picture. However, this view presumes a rigidity in human motivation and socio-economic structures that simply does not account for the complex tapestry of human innovation.

Life is not relegated to the binary of paying or not paying for services. Consider that human motivation is not solely hinged on material compensation but also on intrinsic rewards—personal growth, satisfaction, and the joy of contributing to something larger than oneself. The potential for human societies to organize around principles that value these intrinsic motivations equally, if not more than the extrinsic, suggests that the welfare generated by division of labor need not be confined within the traditional frameworks of capitalism.

A more nuanced approach considers economies as organic, adaptable, and evolutionary entities that can incorporate diverse motivational drivers, beyond just financial incentives. In such systems, the fear of free-riding is mitigated not by imposing structures but by fostering a culture where communal contribution is as valued as individual success. This shifts the focus from a simplistic labor-for-pay model to a more expansive, dynamic model that embraces a spectrum of motivations and rewards.

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

#227

OP's premise of "living for free" seems to mean "not pay taxes" and "use what resources are available". I wonder what the motivation is here, I've heard this sentiment expressed many times. It usually seems to imply "away from others". Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of debt to manage the social f…

I mean have you not read Walden? This idea of being more self-reliant and independent is popular with a lot of people, it's a central precept of certain schools of philosophy and ethics as well. No, they weren't all miserable hermits who died young. If you don't like that lifestyle it's fine, but you don't need to pee in everyone else's Wheaties.

[deleted]

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

#228

OP's premise of "living for free" seems to mean "not pay taxes" and "use what resources are available". I wonder what the motivation is here, I've heard this sentiment expressed many times. It usually seems to imply "away from others". Looking back at the millennia of human history, we've always formed communities, always assumed more-or-less specialized roles, and always used some form of debt to manage the social f…

There are a few places with no property taxes. So you could setup a self sustaining home and after an initial investment live free forever, and still be part of a community.

> live free forever

Well, this requires not only that there be no taxes or external fees /today/, but /for all eternity/. Not very good predictive models on what tax regime will be in place a few civilizations down the road. But there's other challenges to living forever that, historically, have proven a bigger obstacle to most people than taxes.

Fortunately, most people aren't overly concerned with living forever; and in that case, you only need a place that has no taxes for a finite amount of time. The goal, in this case, is to avoid taxes for the rest of your life. And in most jurisdictions, you can elect to just not pay taxes and not suffer consequences for a significant period of time, often five years or substantially more. As long as you intend for the rest of your life to be no more than five years or so (and have a mechanism to enforce this), a huge majority of the world has a favorable tax enforcement regime, even if the tax billing regime isn't to your taste.

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

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean have you not read Walden? This idea of being more self-reliant and independent is popular with a lot of people, it's a central precept of certain schools of philosophy and ethics as well. No, they weren't all miserable hermits who died young. If you don't like that lifestyle it's fine, but you don't need to pee in everyone else's Wheaties.

Hmm, Walden? You mean the book by the author who took his laundry back to his mother once a month (or thereabouts)? Don't get me wrong - loved the book, love the concept. The distance between both and reality is a little larger than is immediately obvious, however.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN