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

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

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 493 posts

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

#271

Post by beedeebeedee »

ethanbond wrote: post #236
beedeebeedee wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they might be better than the current place? I think you are agreeing with me. People leave communities when they are not prospering within them.

> Only recently have we stopped because, frankly, there is no place to go This is what I was disputing. We haven’t stopped, and to the extent that we have, it’s not because there’s no place to go.

Yeah, I think I'd mostly agree with you then. I think we are not moving around as much as we used to, and to many people, it feels as if we cannot move; either because we lack the funds to survive there if we do, or because it will just be more of the same. That is obviously a biased view on my part, because there are migrants moving from "developing" countries to the US and EU all the time- clearly, they believe they have some place to go that will be better.

My agenda in replying to the original comment is that this desire to move is not abnormal. It is as much a part of human history as building community is. I wanted to point that out, because I am familiar with many well-intentioned and well-off people not understanding (and even feeling contempt) for people who wish to leave their community. If you are not happy, and not prospering within a community, why would you want to stay? I don't know if understanding the roots of that dissatisfaction will help us achieve a kinder gentler society, but at least it might help them no longer refer to those people as loners or losers (and have a little empathy and understanding).

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

#272

Post by supertofu »

dimal wrote: post #259
btbuildem wrote: post #157

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…

> 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 organization.

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

#273

Post by ryandrake »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #260
btbuildem wrote: post #157

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…

> Personally, I'd much prefer to live in society, and contribute part of my efforts towards sustaining it. A lot of people are stingy and don't want to contribute unless they're getting the bargain. If someone else is getting the better end of the stick, they view this as a loss, and it makes them miserable. Essentially, they view taxation and society as a zero sum game, rather than a positive sum game. I think polit…

Yea I think we all know That Guy like you describe: I have an acquaintance who is pretty far down this same rabbit hole. Anti-government, anti-taxes, he has actually gone and spoke at some kind of Public Comments thinggy at the county to complain that he should get an itemized tax bill that shows who each dollar is going to, so he can pick and choose and not let a single dollar of "his money" go to someone he thinks doesn't deserve it. Obviously not a big believer in "society" or "community".

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

#274

Post by brnaftr361 »

JohnFen wrote: post #238
btbuildem wrote: post #157

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…

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 currently because the undergirding has overwhelmingly been hijacked by this weird captive environment that has been engineered to support the dominant status quo. However, it is not necessarily the case that this is the "final solution." but the level of ossification presents a substantial challenge. I think this is particularly salient in the American domestic politic, but as the reigning sovereign of the world that has very significant geopolitical impacts globally. Not to mention the fact that we're also the largest consumer market and the most profound conglomerate of companies the world over.

To the question of saying "no.", It's questionable that all but the elite suffer from such stricture. For instance if I were to purchase in full some allotment of land which I inhabited, the government would still extract taxes from it, taxes which I would be obliged to pay, and thus I would necessarily require some income. That's without considering the more likely case of mortgaging a home in the suburbs, taking a loan for a car, the myriad bills necessary to sustain a "functional" life, all the sundry little accessories that invariably set up a treadmill of break and replace... Factor in a family and the manifold complications it inserts - viola - no options available.

This is, of course, not actually the natural course of things and all of this is malleable. Overcoming the massive inertia of the antiquated systems and their underpinning ideas is a huge challenge though. This itself largely due to the overwhelming coherent mass.

But I think anyone would be insane to say they support things as they currently are at any level. But very few are positioned to refuse. It's indenture, but structured in such a way that "society" can point its finger and place blame on the individual.

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

#275

Post by pauldenton »

huytersd wrote: post #199
beedeebeedee wrote: post #169

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.

Depends on the time period. Single individuals crossed the Atlantic on the Mayflower. Single individuals helped colonize the new world.

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

#277

Post by unflxw »

caskstrength wrote: post #215
unflxw wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this sentiment expressed often, but I don't quite get it. Is the implication that if you personally enjoy a high standard of living through capitalism, it is therefore hypocritical to advocate for everyone to enjoy a high standard of living through socialism? How come? (I am asking this question in good faith. Note that at no point I am stating that socialism would or could actually achieve a high standard of l…

> I am asking this question in good faith. I appreciate and will honestly try express my point of view on this issue in good faith and without being too snarky. > I am neither interested in having that discussion or claiming that position. Please don't reply with a Wikipedia copy-paste about the great famine Actually I come from a Ukrainian family that was affected by Holodomor, so I don't need Wikipedia to reason ab…

I appreciate your answer. It's hard to have these conversations online without it quickly devolving into a shouting match, hence my disclaimer.

Not that I have any intent to defend this abstract group of people, but I don't generally get the impression that wealthy people who advocate for a greater social security net do so without understanding that it would necessarily be funded by their taxes. If they do, though, it's certainly a nonsensical and unrealisable position.

That said, I don't get how this eleven-dimensional chess play to have the peasants pay for their healthcare costs during their retirement would be worth the effort. If that's their end goal, wouldn't it be much easier to advocate for less public services and less taxation on the rich, pocket the difference into their investment plans, and use _that_ to fund their private healthcare plans?

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

#278

Post by ryandrake »

keiferski wrote: post #110
Larrikin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they purposefully misinterpret or was the original comment poorly thought out dismissal of modern life that ignores, very real things like medicine and clean water?

No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made.

> No, I’m pretty certain it’s just nitpicking and uncharitable interpretations that quibble over irrelevant details and miss the bigger point being made.

Welcome to the Hacker News comment section.

I've lost track of how many times I've posted three paragraphs of thoughts and ideas and maybe some nuance, only to have someone leave a drive-by reply of "Ahh, but in paragraph 2, sentence 8, you said 'all' when in reality it's 'most'. Gotcha! Your entire comment is flawed!" I do this too though once in a while, so I guess nobody's perfect.

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

#279

Post by catlover76 »

velcrovan wrote: post #234
safety1st wrote: post #211

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 take exception to your insulting of cats

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

#280

Post by chongli »

keiferski wrote: post #127
chongli wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thems…

Do they claim to be truly independent? Or just to operate in the way they want to inside the same system as everyone else? The relevant comparison here is to other citizens, not to other states.

I don't think it matters what they claim or don't claim. The way to evaluate the position is to imagine what the US would be like if 100% of its population lived in Amish communities, with an Amish lifestyle and religion+ideology.

Yes, this hypothetical country would be peaceful and immune to the (justified) criticism the US receives over its intervention in foreign wars. However, think of all it (and the world) would lose. The rest of NATO would have to invest way more in defence in order to hold off Russia and China. The rest of the world would have to invest a huge amount in R&D for things like medicine and technology. And the only thing keeping this hypothetical "Amish United States" from being invaded are the oceans.

It's hard to take these sorts of counterfactuals too far though. On the one hand I might say "then the drug cartels in Mexico could invade the Amish United States and enslave everyone" but then it would also be equally valid to say the cartels would never exist in the first place if it weren't for drug prohibition and the demand for illegal drugs in the US. Still, I don't see how one big Amish nation would defend itself from gangs moving in and stealing everything they've got and enslaving people.

Post reply on HN