However, could he still do it if he had kids? The article seems to suggest this is a good way to live, but if you can't live this way, and have kids too, then meh.
He's not just an ordinary homeless guy - he wants a life without property (not money, any property), i.e. he's homeless guy with a principle.
So I evaluate the principle: is it a good one? So far, it seems no, it's not.
If he could have kids, then, interesting, maybe it's not for me, or for more people, but at least it's interesting. But if you can't live that way, and have kids too, then it's forgettable.
PS. I did not say if he could/couldn't. My initial post was actually a question, worded a little short asking if it was possible. Especially in light of the ending of the article, where it talks about natural selection. If you are really committed to this, then have kids too.
It's a principle which currently has little visibility in society. What makes that less important than spending your effort on the same work literally billions of other people are already doing?
No, homeless people usually don't want a life without property; at least not the sane ones who aren't on the run from the law. Homeless people do have property of some sort; they push around a shopping cart full of their items and they usually have "spots" where they sleep at night. Even under bridges, tunnels, and underground homeless areas; every one of them has a little corridor to himself.
P.S. I am deliberately ignoring the much large population of working, "normal", homeless people. See "Persuit of Happyness".
Comments
Very funny :)
However, could he still do it if he had kids? The article seems to suggest this is a good way to live, but if you can't live this way, and have kids too, then meh.
He's not just an ordinary homeless guy - he wants a life without property (not money, any property), i.e. he's homeless guy with a principle.
So I evaluate the principle: is it a good one? So far, it seems no, it's not.
If he could have kids, then, interesting, maybe it's not for me, or for more people, but at least it's interesting. But if you can't live that way, and have kids too, then it's forgettable.
PS. I did not say if he could/couldn't. My initial post was actually a question, worded a little short asking if it was possible. Especially in light of the ending of the article, where it talks about natural selection. If you are really committed to this, then have kids too.
It's a principle which currently has little visibility in society. What makes that less important than spending your effort on the same work literally billions of other people are already doing?
"He's not just an ordinary homeless guy - he wants a life without property"
Isn't that what homeless means?
No, homeless people usually don't want a life without property; at least not the sane ones who aren't on the run from the law. Homeless people do have property of some sort; they push around a shopping cart full of their items and they usually have "spots" where they sleep at night. Even under bridges, tunnels, and underground homeless areas; every one of them has a little corridor to himself.
P.S. I am deliberately ignoring the much large population of working, "normal", homeless people. See "Persuit of Happyness".