2 ms·

> I don't get to refuse work at a job or in general... Living is work no matter where. The monestary, for example, is no different than having a job to generat

> I don't get to refuse work at a job or in general... Living is work no matter where. The monestary, for example, is no different than having a job to generate tradeable value to live. The article might really be interested in places where you can live entirely self-sufficiently, without relying on inputs that society voluntarily grants. For example, the Into the Wild guy in Alaska. He "lived" for "free", for a short time, but he still relied on an old vehicle for shelter (from society) and had a bunch of clothes and provisions. So, that fits the mold only if you include becoming a thief or outlaw and just taking things from society without trade or agreement, Not done successfully, anywhere, for any length of time.

zx8080 3y ago
> just taking things from society without trade or agreement Isn't it what some arostocratic and monarchy families do?
brnaftr361 3y ago
This is a radical aside that extrapolates my meaning to an extreme. I don't mean to say people had ought to refuse work altogether, moreso that it would be ideal if one could refuse to pay taxes to a government insistent on fueling wars, or that one could withdraw from work or more generally systems which one views as egregious. Conversely some middle ground might be acceptable. While this does exist in theory, as I said, there are significant caveats. These are largely derived from the structure. However, I argue that the function could be optimized outside of, or with modification of the system. But overall the system in and of itself is self-reinforcing so there is a substantial barrier to such improvements, and such alterations will be made against an "adversarial network" for lack of a better term.