Simple Living...

[Sphinx777]

?​

​

 

[lisah]

When I was younger I would have but as a matter of choice, not at this age. It can be rather complicated, this simple living.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Try to avoid boredom on the one hand, and overburdening oneself on the other.

 

[Algol Omega]

Would I live in a tent? No. But if I had to, then yes, as I was raised in the desert of nothwestern Arizona. I know how to hunt and kill for food.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that there is something to be said, if not for a minimalist culture, at least an attempt to live sustainably. That may entail trying to live well, yet live on less. I think that if faiths can present role models who can enjoy life whilst living simply, then that's potentially for the good. After all, who else would in mainstream culture? A am actually politically green, but we are on the margins, with less than 5% of the vote. I don't see any major businesses promoting the idea that you can live as well whilst consuming less if we all try hard enough.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have no interest in simple living. I'd rather simply live.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Algol Omega]

I think that there is something to be said, if not for a minimalist culture, at least an attempt to live sustainably. That may entail trying to live well, yet live on less. I think that if faiths can present role models who can enjoy life whilst living simply, then that's potentially for the good. After all, who else would in mainstream culture? A am actually politically green, but we are on the margins, with less than 5% of the vote. I don't see any major businesses promoting the idea that you can live as well whilst consuming less if we all try hard enough.

I don't mind people being green, but I'll be damned if anyone thinks they have any right whatsoever to force someone else to consume less.

I have no interest in simple living. I'd rather simply live.


eudaimonia,

Mark

That is the best and most efficient means of living.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is the best and most efficient means of living.

I do like a witty turn of phrase.

But maybe I should clarify. I don't see any particular virtue in simple living. What I want is focus in like a laser on my dreams (i.e., my cherished values, or ends-in-themselves), regardless of what external values they require.

Certainly, there is a kind of efficiency I'd like to strive for. I don't want to be distracted by trivial matters. I'd like to keep my priorities straight. There is a kind of simplicity in this.

But I doubt it's what people mean by simple living. Honestly, I can handle some complexity. Even though I can get "frazzled" (overwhelmed by sensory inputs), I'm not bothering by a little surfing, or Xbox, or television. I love technology. I'm a technophile. Technology is like the air I breathe. Simple living would kill me.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't mind people being green, but I'll be damned if anyone thinks they have any right whatsoever to force someone else to consume less.

Who said there was? Maybe you are frightened of a demon from your own imagination?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Maybe you are frightened of a demon from your own imagination?

I only wish that were true. There are radical environmentalists who would attempt this if given the power to do so. Even some not so radical ones who would use sales taxes, for instance, to discourage consumption.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I only wish that were true. There are radical environmentalists who would attempt this if given the power to do so.

Never knew that.

Even some not so radical ones who would use sales taxes, for instance, to discourage consumption.

I don't see a problem with that. It's not like less taxation is a more "natural, pristine" Eden like state where humanity and the planet naturally flourish (is that actually the idea?). Lack of taxation is just as much a human economic policy as taxation tself. Both are just expressions of culture. And I think that because businesses are sometimes only interested in short term profitability, rather than ethial considerations, taxes such as a carbon tax could be a progressive measure helping to promote sustainability and ecological responsibility. A parallel would be enforcing health and safety regulations, which protect worker's welfare at the expense of the bottom line. I also support a "green tax" on cars at the consumer level to dissuade people from buying high emmission vehicles and create demand for green technology. If the intervention were not at an economic level, it may have to be at an educational level instead. We have to learn responsibility somehow. Spare the rod and spoil the child, no?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I don't see a problem with that.

So you are one of them.

It's not like less taxation is a more "natural, pristine" Eden like state where humanity and the planet naturally flourish (is that actually the idea?).

Actually... that is close to my view. While low taxation does not actually guarantee human flourishing, it does favor it.

Lack of taxation is just as much a human economic policy as taxation itself.

I completely disagree. Taxation is coercive, and what is coercive is anti-flourishing, because flourishing involves rational self-direction, and what is coercive works directly against rational self-direction.

Both are just expressions of culture.

Taxation is an expression of FORCE, not culture. Taxation depends on the gun. I'm all in favor of culture as a way of influencing choices, because culture is non-coercive.

Taxation, OTOH, is basically theft. Taxation may possibly be temporarily a necessary evil, but it is an EVIL. As such, it is to be used minimally. It is certainly not to be used as a teaching tool.

If the intervention were not at an economic level, it may have to be at an educational level instead. We have to learn responsibility somehow. Spare the rod and spoil the child, no?

I find it difficult to imagine anything more evil than force used as a tool of education for adults. Okay, genocide is an exception. But wait, no. Genocide is at least an honest evil. Force used as a tool of education adds insult to injury.

Force used to "teach" is infantilizing and counter-flourishing.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Algol Omega]

Who said there was? Maybe you are frightened of a demon from your own imagination?

Either you're being naive or intentionally trolling. Which is it? Cause I can assure you of two things: anyone that doesn't think there are environmentalists that'll use the coercive state never has payed attention to current events, and that's all hardcore environmentalism is: redistribution of wealth.

Never knew that.


I don't see a problem with that. It's not like less taxation is a more "natural, pristine" Eden like state where humanity and the planet naturally flourish (is that actually the idea?). Lack of taxation is just as much a human economic policy as taxation tself. Both are just expressions of culture. And I think that because businesses are sometimes only interested in short term profitability, rather than ethial considerations, taxes such as a carbon tax could be a progressive measure helping to promote sustainability and ecological responsibility. A parallel would be enforcing health and safety regulations, which protect worker's welfare at the expense of the bottom line. I also support a "green tax" on cars at the consumer level to dissuade people from buying high emmission vehicles and create demand for green technology. If the intervention were not at an economic level, it may have to be at an educational level instead. We have to learn responsibility somehow. Spare the rod and spoil the child, no?

Eudaimonist just about destroyed your argument.

But I'll take it even further, as you want to speak of education as if humans are mere children.

What makes you think adults should be treated as mere children, that you or anyone else has any right whatsoever to affect how and when someone purchases something with their own fruits of labor? For centuries, statists have treated their fellow human beings as mere children, why? It's all for power. Environmentalism is no different.

Like I said though, go ahead. Believe that you should save the environment, more power to you though when you walk it. It is a good thing that people care about the things around them, when they act like it. And yeah, tell other people about how it's wise not to trash the environment, because it definitely is wise when people take their own advice; just as it's also wise for companies to reinvest in more efficient technology to pocket their bottom line. But talk by itself is cheap.

But don't treat adults like mere children that ought be educated or have their hands held for them; most especially when the entire premise of Global Warming (or, what is it called now? Global Climate Disruption, isn't it?) is wrong to begin with: firstly, humans are not the center of the universe (how many centuries ago did we learn that the Earth is not the center of the universe? and yet people are naive to believe we are still the center of the universe today? please), we cannot possibly affect the environment nor destroy it as bad as politicians claim; secondly, that we are actually capable of stopping it at all when what's happening is just a natural cycle of evolution.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

I prefer "don't live extravagantly". Even if you make a massive amount of money, there's no need for a family of 3-5 to have a 5000 square-foot house.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So you are one of them.

Possibly

Actually... that is close to my view. While low taxation does not actually guarantee human flourishing, it does favor it.

I am not an expert in econoimics but I don't believe it. Will need to see evidence.

I completely disagree. Taxation is coercive, and what is coercive is anti-flourishing, because flourishing involves rational self-direction, and what is coercive works directly against rational self-direction.

You sound like an anarchist. Whilst in principle I agree that it would be good to live without law (which is a form of coercion, right?), in practice I cannot see it happening beneficially withot major cultural transformation. I don't think that "lowering taxes" is the means to that end. You're not a corporate spin doctor are you?

Taxation is an expression of FORCE, not culture.

You are getting absurd now. You are saying the tax, and other laws, although they belong to the learned forms of life of certain people, are not culture? If they are not, then what is? (please don't say "going to the opera"). I am using the term "culture" in the standard anthropological and sociological sense AFAIK.

Taxation depends on the gun. I'm all in favor of culture as a way of influencing choices, because culture is non-coercive.

Is that a definition of culture jou just invented, or what? Reference please.

Taxation, OTOH, is basically theft.

Please! I suppose that you believe that people's earnings are some form of invioable God given absolute. No, that's just another human expression of economic culture (there are many you know, and some dont even involve wages or even money AFAIK), and probably you're just projecting it as an independent absolute when it is not. However, the fact that you're probably ready to die for your beliefs might make some people less willing to reeducate you. Lol, that last line's quotable!

Taxation may possibly be temporarily a necessary evil, but it is an EVIL.

I imagine you are using the American expression of culture as in "right to property, liberty and persuit of happiness" as some form of axiomatic absolute, and then putting your personally preferred spin on it. As the Americans say with a sense of dismay, whatever.

As such, it is to be used minimally. It is certainly not to be used as a teaching tool.

I am not convinced it is an evil in the first place.

I find it difficult to imagine anything more evil than force used as a tool of education for adults.

You ought to go to a county court some time, and see what "adults" are capable of. Or do you thing that reaching a certain age prevents people from doing wrong?

Okay, genocide is an exception. But wait, no. Genocide is at least an honest evil.

I am sure that you'll regret that. Please don't let rhetoric blind your moral sense.

Force used as a tool of education adds insult to injury.

You seem to thing that we can live in a world without coercive force. As it stands I think thats a pipe dream, so please don't base your voting behaviour on that maxim.

Force used to "teach" is infantilizing and counter-flourishing.

I get it. Education up till 18 than complete freedom. I think you are probably projecting your own culture (America is it) onto the world and objectifying something which is merely an expression of just one way to live.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Either you're being naive or intentionally trolling. Which is it?

Ignorant.

Cause I can assure you of two things: anyone that doesn't think there are environmentalists that'll use the coercive state never has payed attention to current events, and that's all hardcore environmentalism is: redistribution of wealth.

What? I thought it is about caring for our environment?

Eudaimonist just about destroyed your argument.

You sould like a hollywood actor. Ought I have a bust nose at this point or what?

But I'll take it even further, as you want to speak of education as if humans are mere children.

You know what, 18 is a golden number right. Ask any numerologist lol.

What makes you think adults should be treated as mere children, that you or anyone else has any right whatsoever to affect how and when someone purchases something with their own fruits of labor?

Firstly when did I draw a distinction between children and adults. Sometimes, you know, observing the world around me, I think that its a little ill advised.

Secondly what makes you think that "paychek=mine=perfecto" is some form of economic and moral absolute. Rather its just one juncture in a whole complex of possibilities of human culture. Maybe you are not geting a fair wage, for instance, in some people's eyes.

For centuries, statists have treated their fellow human beings as mere children, why? It's all for power. Environmentalism is no different.

When does a child become an adult? How? What makes you think that adults can live without coercion. Who would enforce the "no coercion" law?

Like I said though, go ahead. Believe that you should save the environment, more power to you though when you walk it. It is a good thing that people care about the things around them, when they act like it. And yeah, tell other people about how it's wise not to trash the environment, because it definitely is wise when people take their own advice; just as it's also wise for companies to reinvest in more efficient technology to pocket their bottom line. But talk by itself is cheap.

Hey, did I claim to be a millionaire?

 

[Algol Omega]

Ignorant.

So you admit it then, you are naive.

What? I thought it is about caring for our environment?

Get real. If the hardcore environmentalists were about saving the environment, as they claim, Al Gore wouldn't even step foot near a private plane; nor would he own a house that generates more 'carbon footprint' than entire neighborhoods. Nor would they have staged that so-called "green" concert a few years back, which no environmentalist ever bothered calling out for the reality of it being anything but green.

Oh, and if the hardcore environmentalism was about the environment, then where is everyone when it comes to China? A cricket can be heard, because it's always about how the United States should reduce her emissions, paying carbon footprints, so everyone else can do their thing.

You know what, 18 is a golden number right. Ask any numerologist lol.

Red-herring.

Firstly when did I draw a distinction between children and adults. Sometimes, you know, observing the world around me, I think that its a little ill advised.

Secondly what makes you think that paychek=mine is some form of absolute.


When does a child become an adult? How? What makes you think that adults can live without coercion. Who would enforce the "no coercion" law?

So you are just another Statist, another tyrannical worshipper. Oh, you don't think you're into tyranny? Let's see how many rulers in the past have agreed in some form of humans needing to be governed: Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Osama bin Laden, Pol-Pot, FDR (and most U.S. Presidents since), Margaret Sanger (okay, she really wasn't a ruler, but she was the beginning of the Feminist movement that felt blacks needed to be annihilated), Iran's Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of the Khomeini Revolution, the Shah, the Czar-Romanov (that my Russian ancestors were advisors to I ought to add), Kim Jon-Il, and that's just in the last hundred years.

Maybe I don't think most humans are adults either, and neither should it come at some surprise to you. You see, I am a cynical realist, hence why I believe in Libertarianism.

The reality is, you nor anyone else has the right to govern me until you can govern yourselves. You ask whom then can govern that coercion is impossible? Each individual is responsible for himself; it is your own obligation and, might I add, a moral imperative, to own up to a vigilant mind.

But hey, let's go by your logic, Mr./Ms. Statist.

What makes you think you or those you want, should govern the world? Is it not the place of the conqueror, to rule the world? There's a lot of people out there waiting for the days to return herein when conquering can be once again seen as the rightful thing to do.

Hey, did I claim to be a millionaire?

Whoever said you were?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So you admit it then, you are naive.

When it
comes to American politics, perhaps I am.

Get real. If the hardcore environmentalists were about saving the environment, as they claim, Al Gore wouldn't even step foot near a private plane; nor would he own a house that generates more 'carbon footprint' than entire neighborhoods.

I am convinced you are right. But are you collecting data from a brioad sample, or cherry picking in order to argue a case?

Nor would they have staged that so-called "green" concert a few years back, which no environmentalist ever bothered calling out for the reality of it being anything but green.

Maybe you are right again. But I don't know these people, and never heard of a green concert. Maybe I ought to watch Sky News more?

Oh, and if the hardcore environmentalism was about the environment, then where is everyone when it comes to China? A cricket can be heard, because it's always about how the United States should reduce her emissions, paying carbon footprints, so everyone else can do their thing.

I am a member of the Green Party of England and Wales. Although I don't agree with all of their policies, our leader has said this about a recent trade deal with China:

"Moreover, the real cost of this deal should include the environmental costs of long distance trade, and the pollution from Chinese factories and power-stations. Chinese factories produce around one third more carbon than European ones for making the same product, and around one quarter of their greenhouse gas emissions can be accounted for by the export trade to Europe and the US."

Red-herring.

Aren't you arguing 18 is a 'golden age' at which no coercive force ought to be used against a person under any circumstances?

So you are just another Statist, another tyrannical worshipper.

I gotta hear this one...

Oh, you don't think you're into tyranny? Let's see how many rulers in the past have agreed in some form of humans needing to be governed: Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Osama bin Laden, Pol-Pot, FDR (and most U.S. Presidents since), Margaret Sanger (okay, she really wasn't a ruler, but she was the beginning of the Feminist movement that felt blacks needed to be annihilated), Iran's Grand Ayatollah Khomeini of the Khomeini Revolution, the Shah, the Czar-Romanov (that my Russian ancestors were advisors to I ought to add), Kim Jon-Il, and that's just in the last hundred years.

Did I ever say that all governments were good governments? If you can't find a suitable quote, don't let that harm your pet straw man for a single moment. After all, it probably makes you feel soooo good inside.

Maybe I don't think most humans are adults either, and neither should it come at some surprise to you. You see, I am a cynical realist, hence why I believe in Libertarianism.

I am not too familiar with Libertarian politics, hence that enthymeme goes right over my head.

The reality is, you nor anyone else has the right to govern me until you can govern yourselves. You ask whom then can govern that coercion is impossible? Each individual is responsible for himself; it is your own obligation and, might I add, a moral imperative, to own up to a vigilant mind.

I don't quite follow that one. Are you saying let's have a free for all? I am sure that if we did away with government (if that's possible, after all who would enforce the anarchy I ask again?) then simply private police and security forces would emerge in it's place using, wait for it, more coercive force. Or do you think that the petrol station owners will simply sit and watch people take gasoline for free?

But hey, let's go by your logic, Mr./Ms. Statist.

My logic? Thank you, a complement!

What makes you think you or those you want, should govern the world?

Because they have policies I think are based on good principles.

Is it not the place of the conqueror, to rule the world?

If that's true of "Statism" then isn't it also true of libertarianism?

There's a lot of people out there waiting for the days to return herein when conquering can be once again seen as the rightful thing to do.

I am not sure what your angle is here. Are you saying, "lets do away with government, untill someone conquers the world, hooray"?

Whoever said you were?

Maybe I ought to practice what I preach more (you claimed talk is cheap) but what would that do about trade deals with China?

 

[Algol Omega]

When it
comes to American politics, perhaps I am.

I am convinced you are right. But are you collecting data from a brioad sample, or cherry picking in order to argue a case?
Maybe you are right again. But I don't know these people, and never heard of a green concert. Maybe I ought to watch Sky News more?

I am a member of the Green Party of England and Wales. Although I don't agree with all of their policies, our leader has said this about a recent trade deal with China:

"Moreover, the real cost of this deal should include the environmental costs of long distance trade, and the pollution from Chinese factories and power-stations. Chinese factories produce around one third more carbon than European ones for making the same product, and around one quarter of their greenhouse gas emissions can be accounted for by the export trade to Europe and the US."

Fair enough then since you're European, I don't particularly pay attention to Europe myself.

Aren't you arguing 18 is a 'golden age' at which no coercive force ought to be used against a person under any circumstances?

No. It is at whatever age one determines. It's only been in the last century or so, that we've put a number on adulthood.

Did I ever say that all governments were good governments? If you can't find a suitable quote, don't let that harm your pet straw man for a single moment. After all, it probably makes you feel soooo good inside.

I never said you said that all governments are good, only that the only people thinking like you are the historical tyrants. Where instead, the only people that have thought otherwise in history, are American forefathers and members of the Enlightenment; people that have realized liberty is worth protecting more than anything else in the entire universe.

I don't quite follow that one. Are you saying lets have a free for all? I am sure that if we did away with government (if that's possible, after all wgho would enforce the anarchy?) then simply private police and security forces would emerge in it's place using, wait for it, more coercive force.

Hardly. I am for a limited government system, though I'll take Voluntaryism and Anarchism over any government that isn't strictly a Constitutional Republic any day of the week.

The government is a necessary evil that while it ought be resisted to the highest degree possible, we must have to protect from foreign enemies, and the rights inherent to all to respect Individualism: private property, justice, and life.

Hence why America was founded as a Federalist Constitutional Republic, as while each state has its own laws, all are bound by the Constitution which for a time actually protected individualism. But since then, history has proven, we no longer have a Constitutional Republic, but one big corporation run by a shadow governance and a federal banking system.

(Just an FYI, I am a Libertarian that advocates for privatization of the police force (AKA, I believe in hiring mercenaries and letting PMCs handle the dirty work), prison system (I have certain views on how to do it) and the military's non-officer divisions.

Because they have policies I think are based on good principles.

And what if then, you're the only one that thinks the environment is worth saving, and that the state decides it is your place to do otherwise? Inherent problem with Statism: whether its Democratic or Despotic, neither respect the Individual's liberties.

If that's true of "statism" then isn't it also true of libertarianism?

Hardly. Libertarianism isn't about ruling anyone, but about each person being their own master.

I am not sure what your angle is here. Are you saying, "lets do away with government, untill someone conquers the world, hooray"?

So long as people choose statism over individualism, why not?

Maybe I ought to practice what I preach more (you claimed talk is cheap) but what would that do about trade deals with China?

Aye, practice what you preach to the best of your ability. As for China, every big thing starts small.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems like you are arguing not for the abolition of government but for the privatisation of government. The objection I have is if I can't trust elected government that much to run things, who's to say that 'Ronald McDonald' will do a better job? I think that the case of China has proven that is government (or the 'powers that be') allow big business freedom to pollute or to expose workers to hazardous chemicals, then they often will. As those things concern me, then I feel its in my interest to seek to limit their freedom, however unamerican that may sadly sound.

BTW congratulations on graduating from high school, I take it. Was defending the constitution and glorifying the founding fathers a necessary condition of release into the "adult world" comrade, or should I say "gangsta"?