If everyone did this, he wouldn't have a thing to eat. I'm not knocking it, but it's something to think about.
But that brings us to a more important point: Why does this guy have to forage to survive without money? Shouldn't he be able to save up, buy a few acres and grow his own resources? Nope, because of the absurdity known as the property tax (er, I mean "protection racket").
There are federal levies on owning real estate? I haven't owned real estate in the US in several years, but I don't remember ever hearing about federal property taxes.
I have no problem with people having to pay to maintain ownership of their land. Land ownership is a useful farce. Every land owner is in possession of land that was "stolen", for lack of a more precise word. If we're going to protect people's right to claim land according to the "finders keepers" rule, we should ensure that the owner is making good use of that land. Property taxation helps to do that. (With many side effects, like exacerbating gentrification. That could be fixed, though.)
"A Land Patent is permanent and cannot be changed by the government after its issuance except in case of fraud, clerical error, or failure to pay taxes." (emphasis mine)
If everyone in the world was an investment banker, no one would have anything to eat. Ditto hackers, unless they were hackers with an eye towards agriculture.
I don't think this is valid in the context of what the parent was saying about this guy; hackers and investment bankers are specialized professions which contribute to society in their own specialized way and specialization makes life better for everyone overall by enabling civilization.
The subject of the article is hardly a specialized professional and while it's minimized to some extent, he even admits he sometimes mooches off of friends for meals and is basically a scavenger. He's contributing nothing to society and leeching off of its resources despite being able bodied and intelligent.
Some might argue that his commentary on culture is useful in an artistic sense by pointing out flaws in our society, but there are better ways to do this without being a bum living in a cave. I don't like getting worked up over things in a "Something is wrong on the internet!" sense, but articles about guys like this make me kind of angry. There's nothing noble, nothing ideal here. This guy isn't worth praising.
In the article, it says, "He moved to Moab and worked at a women's shelter for five years. He wanted to help people, but getting paid for it seemed dishonest—how real was help that demanded recompense?"
Looking at his blog, it sounds like he still does that kind of thing, doesn't it? He wouldn't have to work many shifts to compensate for the resources he draws from the rest of society. Also, he writes things that other people enjoy reading, which has traditionally been considered productive work, and he's presumably performing some kind of minimal service just by diminishing the waste stream.
So I don't think it's quite true that he's contributing nothing to society.
You write, "Articles about guys like this make me kind of angry." Well, that's not surprising. His value system is clearly very different from yours, and anger is a normal human reaction when you're confronted with someone behaving according to a different value system. It takes a lot of maturity to get past that point.
Perhaps not the end-all be-all of moral reasoning, but certainly very influential (and there's a mammoth body of analysis and discussion around it), and personally I find that it's always a worthwhile perspective to consider.
Comments
If everyone did this, he wouldn't have a thing to eat. I'm not knocking it, but it's something to think about.
But that brings us to a more important point: Why does this guy have to forage to survive without money? Shouldn't he be able to save up, buy a few acres and grow his own resources? Nope, because of the absurdity known as the property tax (er, I mean "protection racket").
Property tax rate in Moab: 0.00%
Effective tax on a $100,000 property in Moab: $0
Effective tax on a $500,000 property in Moab: $0
Effective tax on a few acres to grow his own resources: $0
Sound of another anti-government nutjob scuttling back to the drawing board in search of a new red herring: priceless
http://propertytax.utah.gov/taxrates/taxarearates2008.pdf http://www.moabcity.org/business/index.cfm
Yes, let's all pretend that there are no federal levies on property.
> anti-government nutjob
Cavalier assumptions coupled with ad hominem FTW.
There are federal levies on owning real estate? I haven't owned real estate in the US in several years, but I don't remember ever hearing about federal property taxes.
Could you elaborate on what taxes are levied on property at the Federal level? I was not aware there was such a thing (I've never owned real estate).
Right! It's impossible to own land in America. You merely rent it from the government.
But also, he uses the library for internet access. I wonder if he considers that "government dole."
I have no problem with people having to pay to maintain ownership of their land. Land ownership is a useful farce. Every land owner is in possession of land that was "stolen", for lack of a more precise word. If we're going to protect people's right to claim land according to the "finders keepers" rule, we should ensure that the owner is making good use of that land. Property taxation helps to do that. (With many side effects, like exacerbating gentrification. That could be fixed, though.)
Not entirely true, If you own patented land then I believe that is tax free forever; at least under current US law.
From the Wikipedia article cited by Jonah:
"A Land Patent is permanent and cannot be changed by the government after its issuance except in case of fraud, clerical error, or failure to pay taxes." (emphasis mine)
Wow thanks. I had to look that up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_patent
If everyone in the world was an investment banker, no one would have anything to eat. Ditto hackers, unless they were hackers with an eye towards agriculture.
I don't think this is valid in the context of what the parent was saying about this guy; hackers and investment bankers are specialized professions which contribute to society in their own specialized way and specialization makes life better for everyone overall by enabling civilization.
The subject of the article is hardly a specialized professional and while it's minimized to some extent, he even admits he sometimes mooches off of friends for meals and is basically a scavenger. He's contributing nothing to society and leeching off of its resources despite being able bodied and intelligent.
Some might argue that his commentary on culture is useful in an artistic sense by pointing out flaws in our society, but there are better ways to do this without being a bum living in a cave. I don't like getting worked up over things in a "Something is wrong on the internet!" sense, but articles about guys like this make me kind of angry. There's nothing noble, nothing ideal here. This guy isn't worth praising.
In the article, it says, "He moved to Moab and worked at a women's shelter for five years. He wanted to help people, but getting paid for it seemed dishonest—how real was help that demanded recompense?"
Looking at his blog, it sounds like he still does that kind of thing, doesn't it? He wouldn't have to work many shifts to compensate for the resources he draws from the rest of society. Also, he writes things that other people enjoy reading, which has traditionally been considered productive work, and he's presumably performing some kind of minimal service just by diminishing the waste stream.
So I don't think it's quite true that he's contributing nothing to society.
You write, "Articles about guys like this make me kind of angry." Well, that's not surprising. His value system is clearly very different from yours, and anger is a normal human reaction when you're confronted with someone behaving according to a different value system. It takes a lot of maturity to get past that point.
Some might argue that his commentary on culture is useful in an artistic sense
He's selling magazines. Just ask the reporter/publisher.
Hackers are more likely than investment bankers to come up with a mostly automated agricultural system.
What is the basis for your comment?
The first principle you mention is, more or less, Kant's idea of the categorical imperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative)
Perhaps not the end-all be-all of moral reasoning, but certainly very influential (and there's a mammoth body of analysis and discussion around it), and personally I find that it's always a worthwhile perspective to consider.