Live data from Hacker News

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

reddit.com

291–300 of 493 posts

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

#291
My POV - no, and I would not recommend trying this. Some questions to consider: Your security: How would you ensure your (and your family's) security if you are really, really, on a allotment of land, let's say free from any form of government (no taxes)? You would take care of your own security with your own guns and such? Well, now you have to spend money to buy those - where do you get it? And maybe you are able to protect yourself from some individuals, but what of organized gangs - if your land is not governed, then there are no law - good luck!

Your security again, but this time from the point of view of insurance? Your home is on fire, how do you deal with this? Are there any firefighters available? How do you pay for this service? Your house is completely burnt, were you insured?

In the end maybe it can work if you plan on living in a cave with almost nothing (nothing to lose!) - but watch out for other people that may be interested by in having your cave! Strongest person (or organized group) wins...

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

#292
post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only by means of statistics - they had so many children that it compensated for high mortality rates. As recently as in the early 20th century the fertility rate required to sustain population numbers in Germany was over 2.5 - and that was well into the industrial era. Before such obvious to us things like antibiotics or doctors washing hands it was likely much higher.

So you are saying it works? You just have to have 2.5 children.

Well, that and survive yourself through said childbirths, which was (and indeed is) never guaranteed for approximately half of humanity. Childbirth is dangerous! Obviously, humans have always had more than enough children on average, but the burden of it is quite high.

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

#293

The book "into the country" covers people homesteading and gold prospecting in the 70s in Alaska. They would live off a bag of rice and a bag of corn and whatever they could hunt or grow for the year, then once a year, get big bag of rice and corn. It sounded, well, unpleasant, but exciting. But it's exciting because you are on the edge of survival. cheap land colorado is a book about similar efforts today by people…

McPhee's Coming into the Country?

One of his better books--which is saying a lot--though it's been years since I read it.

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

#294
post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The loners, the hermits, the "self-sufficient" seem to be outliers, doomed for a hard, brief life In the Pali Canon, the Buddha is often referred to as “the recluse Gautama”. Seems like he found a way to have a pretty good life though. Your generalization doesn’t account for the other path in history where hermits got away from the maddening crowd and found peace of mind and knowledge. You’d prefer to live in socie…

India at the time of the Buddha was favorable to wandering ascetics. People were culturally conditioned to donate alms. And, indeed, alms-seeking is required by the vinaya for monks, so they can't live in complete seclusion from society. Society today is very hostile to wandering folks. Many western monastics independent of monasteries (especially female monastics) have a hard time getting alms without a lot of organ…

I went on a bike tour this summer and for a week was living the life of a wandering folk. I experienced no hostility. People were all very friendly and helpful the whole way. Like, super friendly and super helpful, offering me meals and places to sleep. I had a tire blowout which stranded me at a small town gas station for a few hours, and about a dozen dudes came up over that time and offering me use of their tools and generally trying to be of assistance.

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

#295

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.

Thoreau had a strong social network and his mother still took care of him. he was very lucky in this regard that the people he depended on let him be free.

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

#296
post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

or a comfortable life subsidized by the work of someone else

and a tacit understanding that people who aren't integrated into that world need to be swept under the rug until they just go away and die already

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

#298

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.

I mean, have you not heard about how during the Walden years Thoreau was fully dependent on and subsidized by others? https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/pond-scum Walden bros are like house cats: fully reliant on a system of support they neither acknowledge nor understand.

I feel like this is an extremely uncharitable take.

Surely you can agree that interdependence is a spectrum, and people can find satisfaction at different levels.

At least the newyorker article lays it's objections out clearly. It finds Thoreau repugnant for his libertarian outlook, and even more so when Thoreau comes to agreeable conclusions, but by different means than the author.

>"This is not the stuff of a democratic hero. Nor were Thoreau’s actual politics, which were libertarian verging on anarchist. Like today’s preppers, he valued self-sufficiency for reasons that were simultaneously self-aggrandizing and suspicious: he did not believe that he needed anything from other people, and he did not trust other people to provide it. “That government is best which governs least,” Jefferson supposedly said. Thoreau, revising him, wrote, “That government is best which governs not at all.”"

>His moral clarity about abolition stemmed less from compassion or a commitment to equality than from the fact that slavery so blatantly violated his belief in self-governance.

The author seems upset that Thoreau is not appreciative or thankful for the society he lives in. I think the last paragraph sums it up well.

>Granted, it is sometimes difficult to deal with society. Few things will thwart your plans to live deliberately faster than those messy, confounding surprises known as other people. Likewise, few things will thwart your absolute autonomy faster than governance, and not only when the government is unjust; every law is a parameter, a constraint on what we might otherwise do. Teen-agers, too, strain and squirm against any checks on their liberty. But the mature position, and the one at the heart of the American democracy, seeks a balance between the individual and the society. Thoreau lived out that complicated balance; the pity is that he forsook it, together with all fellow-feeling, in “Walden.” And yet we made a classic of the book, and a moral paragon of its author—a man whose deepest desire and signature act was to turn his back on the rest of us

I think this same sentiment is what is expressed elsewhere in this tread. "how dare you be ungrateful for what society has given you, and how dare you not care for your fellow man". I think some people will never understand the desire of others to simply be left alone.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder what the motivation is here, I've heard this sentiment expressed many times. I think it's the fantasy of having complete autonomy, of being completely free in the sense of never having to do anything that you don't want to do[1]. At least, that's that's the aspect of it that resonates with me. But it's only that -- a fantasy. Much like other things that we fantasize about, it's impossible as conceived beca…

I think it's more nuanced than that. As it's currently ordered society is a forced participation regime. I don't get the option to say "no." to a great many things. This is due to a loss of security, I don't get to refuse work at a job or in general, and in the case that I do it becomes a compromise, and this compromise is largely arbitrary because there are really very few actual social distinctions in the world cur…

> As it's currently ordered society is a forced participation regime

Yes, as long as an entity owns the land they want to get paid for it - either to live on it, game, cross

I’d say the free life doesn’t scale but maybe it doesn’t have to for those that can find their own corner of Earth

Do Bedouin tribes pay taxes or tariff ?

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

#300
post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't watched the video, but paying off implies owning a title to the land which means paying taxes on it.

The topic of how he got or paid for the land actually doesn't come up in the video. I found the whole thing pretty fascinating though, also in terms of what he believes about us here in Europe (we're not free anymore) or that USA government is moving towards making the Bible illegal, yet also having a lot of beliefs and knowledge that I consider exceptionally good, like not eating meat or animal products. I don't man…

> The topic of how he got or paid for the land actually doesn't come up in the video.

It does get mentioned. He loaned the money from his father and he's repaying it back slowly.

Post reply on HN