Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Mark Boyle, the man who tries to live without money



I recently found an article about a man who made the decision of living without money.  What's your thoughts about his project?

A quote of him:
''What have I learned? That friendship, not money, is real security. That most western poverty is of the spiritual kind. That independence is really interdependence. And that if you don't own a plasma screen TV, people think you're an extremist.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/oct/28/live-without-money

This isn't an attack on you.

I once found these articles inspiring. Now I find them stupid. If you watch the news, you'll see they find a new one every year, and then you never hear about the dude again.

Dropping out is not an option. It leads to either (a) nullification of personal efficacy or (b) years of failure, which then justify a vigorous return to greed!

Better is to find a balance. Extremes that nullify are just more destruction.

I agree with the above post.

I also used to hear these stories and think "...what if?"  But then I noticed how frequently they pop up - the last one I saw was of some German woman who had her 15 minutes of fame a few months back.  And of course the haymaker comes when you meet these people and discover they're actually lazy slobs with an inordinate number of odd stories as a result of their parasitic lifestyle.  No thanks.

Trauco

This isn't an attack on you.

I once found these articles inspiring. Now I find them stupid. If you watch the news, you'll see they find a new one every year, and then you never hear about the dude again.

This Mark guy, however, is dead right on the issues quoted on the OP. But sadly, he went from one extreme to the other, like most humans do. The prudent man, on the other hand, will find that money is not evil, but gets misused once it becomes an end and not a means.

I agree with you on this: the wise man will try to find a middle ground for himself. The advantage of the middle ground is that it is wide - it has many choices. The disadvantage is that it's not easy to find the one most fitting to you and then practice it. Lots of trial and error ensues, but when the initial difficulties are past you, life gets much better.

He fails because he offers his lifestyle as a solution when it clearly is not. If everyone did this, no one would be producing garbage to live from, and then money would be needed all over again to be able to obtain goods. Being inspired by people like this is rather odd as he really didn't do anything unusual; he lives what seems like the typical white trash life to me, but with composting!

I think it's great, and he's above people who go to work and watch TV at night, and do some stupid shit with the wife and stupid kids on the weekend. I agree that if he intends to change the world, the reverse path would be the right one (gain a lot of money to influence the world.) But as far as a lifestyle goes, I applaud all the people who try to live like this.


In a subsequent post he's saying:

"I'm not for a moment suggesting we should all go money-less tomorrow. It's about transition. All I am trying to say is that I believe money is like oil: if we are going to use it, let's at least use it to build sustainable infrastructure for the future, and not meaningless tat. And I just wanted to show that you can live a really happy, healthy life without so much money or stuff. That's all."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/green-living-blog/2009/nov/02/cashless-man-responds

He also wrote a book about his thoughts. All the money he get is being donated to fund a real life Freeconomy community

I think it's great, and he's above people who go to work and watch TV at night, and do some stupid shit with the wife and stupid kids on the weekend.

How do you figure?

I think it's great, and he's above people who go to work and watch TV at night, and do some stupid shit with the wife and stupid kids on the weekend.

I tend to agree with Nietzsche: forget "higher" values, and pay attention to what's effective.

This guy's impact is the same as if he got an apartment, a job and an Xbox 360.

I think it's great, and he's above people who go to work and watch TV at night, and do some stupid shit with the wife and stupid kids on the weekend.

How do you figure?

It's not hard. Who's leading a better lifestyle, the guy who comes home to TV everynight or the guy who goes home to live among plants, wildlife, star filled sky, etc., and on the weekends, who leads a more adventurous life?

Conservationist: I know, hence the second part of my post. I consider a higher lifestyle if you just consider lifestyle choice. To change the world, of course it's better to get rich.

Trauco


I tend to agree with Nietzsche: forget "higher" values, and pay attention to what's effective.

This guy's impact is the same as if he got an apartment, a job and an Xbox 360.

If we're talking "effectiveness" here, how being exposed to regional and national newspapers, worldwide through The Guardian.co.uk, with a website and a blog of his own and a book coming out is non-effective? What would you suggest in this case? And here's another question: how are this forum and website more effective?


It's not hard. Who's leading a better lifestyle, the guy who comes home to TV everynight or the guy who goes home to live among plants, wildlife, star filled sky, etc., and on the weekends, who leads a more adventurous life?
The guy who sacrifices his own inane desires in order to support his family, and creates good people, over living in a self-congratulatory manner that involves consumption without production.

Who's leading a better lifestyle, the guy who comes home to TV everynight or the guy who goes home to live among plants, wildlife, star filled sky, etc., and on the weekends, who leads a more adventurous life?

Better lifestyle? Doesn't parse. I'm interested in consequences, not categories.

The guy who runs a family is good, but the guy on the news site can have a family too. In my opinion, living among the plants and wildlife is healthier for the family than living in the city, and spending time on natural places is healthier and smarter than watching TV. But I understand your posts