331–340 of 493 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
Not in any magnitude comparable to today, which even brings several qualitative and technical differences.
>The loners, the hermits, the "self-sufficient" seem to be outliers, doomed for a hard, brief life
Those were much more common that you seem to think, and even a lot of otherise "community" life included much more "alone" time (e.g. whole weeks or months away from the village).
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 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…
If one is OK with the downsides, it's completely possible, and a lot of people have done it for extended periods of time, even whole decades...
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…
> and always used some form of debt to manage the social fabric and facilitate the exchange of goods and services. This is the capitalistic narrative since the agricultural revolution, thousands of years ago, but it's not true of most of human history. During pre-agriculture we coexisted with many species, all living off the fat of the land, resources were plentiful for hundreds of thousands of years. A delightful co…
Debt in that context was more of a social obligation - but served a similar purpose as what we understand debt to be today: to compel someone to do something. It engendered bonds of trust and interdependence, helping ensure the survival of the group. Food sharing was often obligatory: today's hunter who shares his catch with you becomes tomorrow's recipient when you make the kill.
You're right to note that the agricultural revolution was special -- in that the accumulation of surplus allowed people to store it, and lend it out. This lead to wealth being quantified and introduced the concept of interest.
"Capitalism" - as characterized by the drive to continuously reinvest in order to generate more wealth - doesn't come into play for another ten thousand years. The different prerequisites (wage labour, financial systems, property relations) arrive at different times - but we could say, ballpark, around the 16th century, with the advent of the chartered companies (eg, East India)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you notice anything missing from that apartment?
What's missing?
This is one thing I’ve learned to look for in photos of online apartments. We’re looking at places at this price level.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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; a…
Unless you have found the cure to death, it's enough that that holds for 5-6 decades for most of us here.
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…
Where do I sign up? I'm already in line with wearing a few of the same clothes, having books for entertainment, no car, and eating the same 5-10 things repeatedly.
I still have a few electronics though, but I could make do with just a computer with internet access (don't really need a smartphone) - not even constant one, a few hours per day would be enough.
I wouldn't easily give away running water and heating though.
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…