4 ms·

So he have nothing, no home, no more belongings that a suitcase and a laptop, the ideal SLAVE of the modern time, someone who exists until he can produce for so

by kkfx 3y ago

So he have nothing, no home, no more belongings that a suitcase and a laptop, the ideal SLAVE of the modern time, someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him, then can only die since he have no more option to live. And the article seems to be a spot for this kind of existence "hey, it's cheap"... I'm actually curious how many really have stopped a minute to imaging what does it means be homeless and not owning anything. OF COURSE IT'S CHEAP.

andy99 3y ago
> what does it means be homeless and not owning anything. Freedom?
- k1ck4ss 3y ago
  so, living in a home I own makes me lack some sort of freedom? If yes, what would be it?
  - bosie 3y ago
    If money is of no constraint I guess nothing. Otherwise moving is not easy anymore
  - ZaoLahma 3y ago
    The freedom to decide one day to just leave. In my mid 20s I maintained a not-too-extreme minimalistic life style where I could pack literally everything I owned into my car. I could decide to just leave and lose at most some months' worth of rather cheap rent. I never actually did use the opportunity, but it gave me a lot of comfort knowing that I wasn't stuck somewhere, that I could at any moment just leave.
- protomolecule 3y ago
  Hunger, exposure to the elements, illness, death.
  - andy99 3y ago
    I missed that part of the article. What are you talking about?
    - protomolecule 3y ago
      I'm talking about what it means to be homeless and not owning anything.
dmos62 3y ago
Is a home and belongings enough to emancipate a slave?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- kkfx 3y ago
  No, but you have to define slavery and freedom. My definition of freedom is "being able to do something at my will" PLUS "without dramas". If I own a home I can't relocate as easy as if I rent, of course, that's a slavery. BUT the home it's under my control and I can sell it. I have insurances if something goes wrong, and I can choose between many of them, the home is inside a State, I can't have the same home in multiple States but the State is formally a Democracy (not much in reality, but that's another broad topic) and it's stable enough, so I can sell the home and change state before being trapped in a harsh dictatorship. On contrary if I live on trains I have not much choice if a train get canceled let's say because of a storm and that's happen while I'm in a mountain area only with bank cards and no connection and no hotel nearby. As a simple example. We are all a bit free and a bit slave, the point how much freedom we have and how dramatic is exercise it or not.
gaiagraphia 3y ago
Nothing wrong with young people spending a bit of time to 'hack the system', 'get out there', 'do new things', etc. As long as this is strictly a personal project, with a goal, and an exit strategy, it's absolutely fine. He'll probably grow up to be quite a successful person, and no doubt will have learnt a fair bit this year, as well as being humbled. Being homeless is grim, but it's nice to have perspective sometimes and a heightened sense of empathy, and not constantly live life on ezpz mode.
quickthrower2 3y ago
The opposite? Isn’t the person who needs to maintain a home and have lots of possessions more of a slave?
- kkfx 3y ago
  Slavery is the absence of choices. Yes, owning a home means being slave of that to keep the home up, but you control it, it's an asset you depend on and you have full control on it. You typically live in a State with a certain level of stability established laws to protect private properties and so on. Meaning you have choices and backups. Now try to imaging you works on YT, your revenues came form Alphabet for the video you publish. You produce them with a laptop in a rented office and on the go. Well, you have non backups, YT have your videos and your audience. A ban and you have no choice but to restart nearly from the ground, no insurances, laws, asset under your control and so on. Then you are a slave of YT. I've choose to live the big city for the mountains, so I'm slave of a car to move. But I have three cars, of different brands, two moderns connected so potentially risky "not fully mine", one classic, so risky only in mechanical terms. Having choices I'm slave of "a car" but not on one in particular, so I'm free. I have desktops and homeservers, WFH if one break my data are locally available and locally usable on another, no slavery to wait for a new system get delivered of the nearest shopping mall to open to buy one in person. I have fiber and mobile with a good enough 4G/dummy 5G (700MHz, in France, it's both 4G and 5G) and no data cap issues. I'm evaluating if buying a Starlink base service might be a wise choice, so I'm not slave of a specific ISP to work/live BUT for instance to access my bank I'm slave of my mobile carrier, due to the mandatory OTP via SMS, no banks here allow classic RSA OTP or using a smart card or something else not connected anymore. That's a BIG slavery even if 99% of the time works issueless. The difference between slavery and freedom it's not the mere presence of a choice but both choice and backups that allow you to choose without dramas. In freedom terms I can even took my life, but that's not a wise choice without drama, if I work on YT as described above I can formally change tomorrow but if it's my sole source of income it's not a choice without drama and so on.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him You're falsely equating ownership with exchange. He can do stuff for people, who can do stuff for him. He can choose who to do things for, and who does things for him. That's the opposite of slavery.
- kkfx 3y ago
  Allow me to depict a small game: living on trains means needing trains with nigh services, what you do if your train is canceled? You pay with a credit card, what to do if a train is canceled for bad weather and you have no working internet connection? You work on a giant platform what you do if a day that platform, who store essentially your digital life since you just have a laptop, decide to ban you for some reasons and you can just write a message in a form to them and wait days? A small anecdote: due to a storm the mobile service where I live drop. I still have fiber working, and I WFH so no issues apparently. Well, no. I've needed to access my bank and I couldn't because to login I need an SMS OTP... I couldn't login on my mobile carrier WebUI where I can read SMS independently of the phone, because to login I need an OTP via SMS. I'm the customer or a slave of their services? When you have alternatives there is no slavery, you can pick many options all the time, you have backup between them. When you depend on single entities you are their slave, no matter how "formally free" you are. Now I'm slave of my home to live in it, to continue this "strange journey", but the home is mine, I control it, I'm a citizen of a state with certain rights and laws and so on. I have then alternatives and backups. So the slavery from my home it's not much oppressive. I have three desktops at home, two homeservers and some spare parts, so if something breaks I can switch immediately not waiting for a spare part to come by the mail or a shopping mall to open to buy it ASAP. If I depend on a laptop I have no backup and if my data are all in someone else hand I depend on them, no backup. If I have no assets I own, I depend on my source of revenues CONSTANTLY meaning I have no backup to hunt for another job if I live paycheck to paycheck. That's slavery de facto, even if formally I'm free to go. That's is.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    That's just an overly broad definition. You can call anything anything if you like, but it's not helpful. Slavery is buying and selling humans. You're describing instead a world in which everything isn't available for free, and so you have to make choices on how the resources you receive are deployed. And sorry - I couldn't make out what the game was from your text. I don't think it particularly helps either way. It's easy to construct a game that misses an important component of reality.
pjc50 3y ago
He's 16. > someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him, then can only die since he have no more option to live. Congratulations on spotting what "wage slavery" is only 150 years after Marx. > really have stopped a minute to imaging what does it means be homeless and not owning anything. OF COURSE IT'S CHEAP It's more often appallingly expensive, especially since many jurisdictions take it as a license to destroy your property.
flohofwoe 3y ago
He's 17 and at that age it's just an adventure. Not everything needs to happen in the context of Marxist class struggle. Also, 10k Euro a year for living expenses isn't actually cheap, he would spend less money with a more traditional lifestyle and renting a small flat (outside big cities at least).
evilos 3y ago
He's a teenager going on adventures and working small jobs in between. His parent's house is a train ride away. It's likely just a phase. Young people have been doing this since time immemorial. I think you are overreacting a tad.

by kkfx 3y ago

andy99 3y ago

> what does it means be homeless and not owning anything. Freedom?

k1ck4ss 3y ago
so, living in a home I own makes me lack some sort of freedom? If yes, what would be it?
- bosie 3y ago
  If money is of no constraint I guess nothing. Otherwise moving is not easy anymore
- ZaoLahma 3y ago
  The freedom to decide one day to just leave. In my mid 20s I maintained a not-too-extreme minimalistic life style where I could pack literally everything I owned into my car. I could decide to just leave and lose at most some months' worth of rather cheap rent. I never actually did use the opportunity, but it gave me a lot of comfort knowing that I wasn't stuck somewhere, that I could at any moment just leave.
protomolecule 3y ago
Hunger, exposure to the elements, illness, death.
- andy99 3y ago
  I missed that part of the article. What are you talking about?
  - protomolecule 3y ago
    I'm talking about what it means to be homeless and not owning anything.

dmos62 3y ago

Is a home and belongings enough to emancipate a slave?

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
kkfx 3y ago
No, but you have to define slavery and freedom. My definition of freedom is "being able to do something at my will" PLUS "without dramas". If I own a home I can't relocate as easy as if I rent, of course, that's a slavery. BUT the home it's under my control and I can sell it. I have insurances if something goes wrong, and I can choose between many of them, the home is inside a State, I can't have the same home in multiple States but the State is formally a Democracy (not much in reality, but that's another broad topic) and it's stable enough, so I can sell the home and change state before being trapped in a harsh dictatorship. On contrary if I live on trains I have not much choice if a train get canceled let's say because of a storm and that's happen while I'm in a mountain area only with bank cards and no connection and no hotel nearby. As a simple example. We are all a bit free and a bit slave, the point how much freedom we have and how dramatic is exercise it or not.

gaiagraphia 3y ago

Nothing wrong with young people spending a bit of time to 'hack the system', 'get out there', 'do new things', etc. As long as this is strictly a personal project, with a goal, and an exit strategy, it's absolutely fine. He'll probably grow up to be quite a successful person, and no doubt will have learnt a fair bit this year, as well as being humbled. Being homeless is grim, but it's nice to have perspective sometimes and a heightened sense of empathy, and not constantly live life on ezpz mode.

quickthrower2 3y ago

The opposite? Isn’t the person who needs to maintain a home and have lots of possessions more of a slave?

kkfx 3y ago
Slavery is the absence of choices. Yes, owning a home means being slave of that to keep the home up, but you control it, it's an asset you depend on and you have full control on it. You typically live in a State with a certain level of stability established laws to protect private properties and so on. Meaning you have choices and backups. Now try to imaging you works on YT, your revenues came form Alphabet for the video you publish. You produce them with a laptop in a rented office and on the go. Well, you have non backups, YT have your videos and your audience. A ban and you have no choice but to restart nearly from the ground, no insurances, laws, asset under your control and so on. Then you are a slave of YT. I've choose to live the big city for the mountains, so I'm slave of a car to move. But I have three cars, of different brands, two moderns connected so potentially risky "not fully mine", one classic, so risky only in mechanical terms. Having choices I'm slave of "a car" but not on one in particular, so I'm free. I have desktops and homeservers, WFH if one break my data are locally available and locally usable on another, no slavery to wait for a new system get delivered of the nearest shopping mall to open to buy one in person. I have fiber and mobile with a good enough 4G/dummy 5G (700MHz, in France, it's both 4G and 5G) and no data cap issues. I'm evaluating if buying a Starlink base service might be a wise choice, so I'm not slave of a specific ISP to work/live BUT for instance to access my bank I'm slave of my mobile carrier, due to the mandatory OTP via SMS, no banks here allow classic RSA OTP or using a smart card or something else not connected anymore. That's a BIG slavery even if 99% of the time works issueless. The difference between slavery and freedom it's not the mere presence of a choice but both choice and backups that allow you to choose without dramas. In freedom terms I can even took my life, but that's not a wise choice without drama, if I work on YT as described above I can formally change tomorrow but if it's my sole source of income it's not a choice without drama and so on.

robertlagrant 3y ago

> someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him You're falsely equating ownership with exchange. He can do stuff for people, who can do stuff for him. He can choose who to do things for, and who does things for him. That's the opposite of slavery.

kkfx 3y ago
Allow me to depict a small game: living on trains means needing trains with nigh services, what you do if your train is canceled? You pay with a credit card, what to do if a train is canceled for bad weather and you have no working internet connection? You work on a giant platform what you do if a day that platform, who store essentially your digital life since you just have a laptop, decide to ban you for some reasons and you can just write a message in a form to them and wait days? A small anecdote: due to a storm the mobile service where I live drop. I still have fiber working, and I WFH so no issues apparently. Well, no. I've needed to access my bank and I couldn't because to login I need an SMS OTP... I couldn't login on my mobile carrier WebUI where I can read SMS independently of the phone, because to login I need an OTP via SMS. I'm the customer or a slave of their services? When you have alternatives there is no slavery, you can pick many options all the time, you have backup between them. When you depend on single entities you are their slave, no matter how "formally free" you are. Now I'm slave of my home to live in it, to continue this "strange journey", but the home is mine, I control it, I'm a citizen of a state with certain rights and laws and so on. I have then alternatives and backups. So the slavery from my home it's not much oppressive. I have three desktops at home, two homeservers and some spare parts, so if something breaks I can switch immediately not waiting for a spare part to come by the mail or a shopping mall to open to buy it ASAP. If I depend on a laptop I have no backup and if my data are all in someone else hand I depend on them, no backup. If I have no assets I own, I depend on my source of revenues CONSTANTLY meaning I have no backup to hunt for another job if I live paycheck to paycheck. That's slavery de facto, even if formally I'm free to go. That's is.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  That's just an overly broad definition. You can call anything anything if you like, but it's not helpful. Slavery is buying and selling humans. You're describing instead a world in which everything isn't available for free, and so you have to make choices on how the resources you receive are deployed. And sorry - I couldn't make out what the game was from your text. I don't think it particularly helps either way. It's easy to construct a game that misses an important component of reality.

pjc50 3y ago

He's 16. > someone who exists until he can produce for someone else, who effectively own him, then can only die since he have no more option to live. Congratulations on spotting what "wage slavery" is only 150 years after Marx. > really have stopped a minute to imaging what does it means be homeless and not owning anything. OF COURSE IT'S CHEAP It's more often appallingly expensive, especially since many jurisdictions take it as a license to destroy your property.

flohofwoe 3y ago

He's 17 and at that age it's just an adventure. Not everything needs to happen in the context of Marxist class struggle. Also, 10k Euro a year for living expenses isn't actually cheap, he would spend less money with a more traditional lifestyle and renting a small flat (outside big cities at least).

evilos 3y ago

He's a teenager going on adventures and working small jobs in between. His parent's house is a train ride away. It's likely just a phase. Young people have been doing this since time immemorial. I think you are overreacting a tad.