3 ms·
I understand, I was careful to say a segment, I know how easy it is to come off resentful or bitter. I largely don't have much a problem with van life or any su
by gimmeThaBeet 5y ago
I understand, I was careful to say a segment, I know how easy it is to come off resentful or bitter. I largely don't have much a problem with van life or any such lifestyles, like you say, there's plenty of people where the extent of van life is they just happen to live in a van.
The issue I take is admittedly more pedantic, sort of intellectual honesty. I know it's paradoxical, but a thought I have a lot is "I don't care if you lie to yourself, I just ask you don't lie to me."
Rejecting money as some moralistic endeavor while living in a city is to me, bluntly, pretty dishonest. I feel like that is what is arguably wrong with what he does, especially in the context of his own framework. It really is like Diogenes, if he hates society so much, why is he still here?
I'm not a fan of half measures, especially when one wants to be a modern day philosopher.
- mikem170 5y agoI guess I had a different reaction to his no-money thing, kind of putting it into the context of my own recent experiences, feeling drowned in the rat race sometimes, and seeing that happening to other people I know. Have we made things better in the last 50 years? The culture in the U.S. seems to be very focused on money, keeping the gdp growing, counting on consumers to keep consuming, etc. Isn't money supposed to be just a means to an end? So I took this guy's stance on money as making a statement. Are we hating on the guy who doesn't want to play the game so many of us feel stuck in? Is he worse then the rich who dupe the rest of us, plundering the common good for their profits? I think it's great that there's people out there dedicated to exploring different ideas. That seems to be inevitable, there's billions of us, and we're not evolved to be the same, for good reason. The majority shouldn't need to be scared of the minority, right? And we're all equal, aren't we? Also, unrelated to the idea of no money, I liked his taking a stand on allowing people to sleep in parks. Many homeless people want to work and need to be near cities, where the jobs tend to be, and have nowhere secure to sleep. Maybe lockers, porta potties, showers, cheap boarding houses, camps for the better behaved, camps for the crazies, etc. What we're dong now isn't good enough. I'd like to think if we got all opinions in a room we could work something out. They're people, too. Anyways, that's what was running through my mind when I read the article. I've also thought of stuff like this from the van life perspective, like you mentioned. In the past I've railed against welfare, but lately I wonder more about the burdens we place on the poor more than the money we give them. I don't think I've ever thought it was immoral to be poor.