(Report comment)

Look, if you really feel that what you’re doing is harming the planet, then stop doing it. If you don’t, then continue doing what you’re doing, but don’t bother preaching something to others that you yourself don’t practice.

(Report comment)

If I can do something you can’t (for this example, let’s say build a safe home), how are you going to compel me to help you out? Do you just assume I’m a nice and generous person, or will you instead try and make a trade, give me something that I want in exchange?

In a capitalistic society, that thing is, more often than not, money.

Money itself is completely amoral. It’s nothing but what you and someone else have decided is a fair measure of your work and a fair trade for the thing you want. We could go back to sheep and fruit, but the latter spoils, and the former takes up too much space in an apartment. And neither do anything to curb greed, which would still exist, even in the construction of buildings, as money itself is not the cause of this deadly sin but rather a recipient of its excess. Blaming money for any evil in the world is like blaming a scantily clad woman for her attack, except in the harm caused to the person blamed, as money isn’t sentient.

Directly relating the seller to the consumer provides a greater incentive to provide a safe and wanted product, especially if the seller is greedy, because the consequences for not doing so mean huge financial penalties in courts of law and in loss of future revenue.

Capitalism directly punishes greed when it is the cause of harm to a consumer, but this is only true when governments do not intervene.

I’d also like to note that there is no such thing as free Internet here either. Coffee shops over here also do not provide you with a computer. The only place someone can use the Internet without making an immediate payment is a public library, but libraries aren’t free. Unlike a coffee shop or a mall, I’m forced to pay for my local library whether or not I ever visit it. That’s why I’m allowed to use it without paying an additional fee, but that’s not the same as being able to use something without any payment.

And look, I’m not at all against individuals trying to live a more simple life. There are plenty of things I’ve done in my own life to keep things simple and more sustainable. I don’t even have a problem with giving up on money altogether even though I disagree that it’s necessary or even beneficial. What I don’t like is taking/enjoying something without also in some way working to keep that thing in its same condition so that others might also be able to take/enjoy it.

I’m not at all saying Daniel is a nuisance. I wouldn’t have even noticed he was living this way if it were not for this blog. Clearly he isn’t bothering me, and really those who beg don’t bother me either. I don’t have to live like they do, and I don’t have to contribute to their lifestyle either unless I choose to.

But that doesn’t mean I agree with what Daniel is doing either. If he weren’t putting his life on display in a blog or being written about here, it wouldn’t even be my business, and ultimately except for a few comments here, it isn’t.

My basic premise is this: if you want to have something, then do your part to make sure others can have that thing too. If you eat an apple, then plant the seeds or water the tree. If you consume a resource, find a way to replace it or come up with an equivalent so that the person whose resource it was could replace it for you. Or even to use one of Daniel’s examples, reading under a street light doesn’t steal light from anyone else, but unless you live there or donate money to those who do, you’re not doing anything to keep the lamp running. You’re taking the free light and giving nothing back to those who made it possible for you to enjoy it.

If everyone did this, then our life equations would balance out, and we wouldn’t have to worry about what we’re leaving for our children.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

In all retrospect he could be living without money, but that means truly doing so. That all his food should come from the outdoors such as fish or rabbit. That he shouldn’t have access to the internet because that is a form of capitalism. Either way he has made a mockery of the hard-working citizens of this country. By proclaiming himself ‘better’ because he is a moocher.

(Report comment)

Had there not been greed for the money and power it brings, the buildings may have been built better and may not have been damaged as much (I say MAY because there would still be damage). If there were less damage, there would be less people to help. I am not belittling what happened in Haiti, but I don’t think it’s a good example for you to use when you’re trying to debunk Suelo’s lifestyle choice because in so many ways, it actually strengthens his argument.

I live in a third world country, and I see a lot of people who are living in a much worse off situation than Daniel’s. Obviously, I am not one of them as I can afford to sit in front of the computer and reply. FYI, free Internet here is nearly non-existent. Yes, there is free service in malls, coffeeshops etc, but you have to have your own device to access it.

I understand where you’re coming from, as I work, pay my taxes and live comfortably. However, whenever I see the situation the society is in — corruption, poverty, a lot of deaths just to fight for power — I wonder if it would be better if people try to adapt to a life that’s far more simple.

For example, people who live in shanties in areas that are dangerous (alongside rivers or railways). More often than not these are people who lived in the countryside and moved to the city because of their belief that life is easier here. Unfortunately, that isn’t so in many cases, thus the live off other people’s land, beg and steal to survive. Believe me, a lot of them are far more nuisances and moochers than Daniel is.

Ever had a kid come up to you and beg, then hits or insults if he thinks that what you gave isn’t enough? That happens here… a lot.

We don’t have to go completely back to how it was like in the past. I like my comforts, thank you very much, but a bit of lifestyle adjustment to make the world a better place is possible. The excess of the things we have often become just trash. If these excess would be put to good use — with or without my knowledge and not harming anyone, I’m all for it. Plus with the continuous rising prices of things, the idea of getting down to basics: planting my own crop for example, is very appealing.

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

“Why do goods flow from the poor to the rich, from the workers to the non-workers, from those who produce (laborers) to those who produce little or nothing (bankers and brokers and CEOs and landlords) as it has been ever since the beginning of money civilization.”

However, you have a good point, so I went back to the website and added “most” (”why do [most] goods”) deleted “or nothing” (”who produce little {or nothing}”], to make it more accurate. The idea I’m conveying is that our nourishment, what we know is most important, sustainer of all our life, is produced by the folks who are poorest, at the bottom.

We could argue till we’re blue what is “contributing” & what isn’t. We could argue that the Cocaine industry in Columbia, a stalwart of the Columbian economy (or the Opium/Heroine-poppy industry in Afghanistan) provide more jobs, services, and meals on the tables to many families. But does this justify the Cocaine and Poppy industries? Do they really contribute, or do they just manipulate wealth that already exists?

I would also ask, is a dolphin contributing to the world less than Donald Trump? Is a fern or a cottonwood? Do I breathe out or just breathe in? And what if we’re “contributing” too much? Maybe it’s better if we stop contributing much or most of what we contribute. These are simply questions I don’t necessarily have answers to (yet?).

(Report comment)

(Report comment)

But that’s not really the issue anyway. It isn’t about the job someone chooses (And why do you need this man to show you that you have a choice? Didn’t you know that already?) but rather the lifestyle. What this man does is his personal philosophy, not his job.

You’re comparing his philosophy to someone’s occupation, but the apples to apples comparison is to compare what he does to other philosophies on economics, like capitalism, which is sustainable even if everyone decides to participate in it.

(Report comment)