How come the Concept of Living Without Income was Ridiculed?


My aim in this and subsequent articles should be to demonstrate that there is support for any notion that people, even with people, can give up money fully without having to suffer the indignity faced with doing it in appropriate which are either unlawful (such as being homeless, dumpster diving) or otherwise unconventional; in other words, to help renounce money in such a means that people around you won’t perhaps know you have done the item, and this notion is maintained over 5 years of exploration into law, economics, as well as a whole host of different subjects which have some enduring the on this subject.

I had by now begun my quest to respond to the question ‘is that possible for me to give up funds altogether? ‘ years just before I discovered said names previously mentioned, and in fact, had possibly begun my quest after I was still a youngster living at your home. However, the greatest challenge I actually faced in answering this specific question was how to take action without breaking any laws and regulations, because if I could answer this specifically, then I would find a way to obtain with children. Let’s be honest, the 3 names above do not deal with the problem of having young children.

Our real journey began following my parents winning the Gruppo (over half a million dollars) simply to end up bankrupt 4 yrs later. Upon this unhappy happening, I subsequently found that 19 out of 20 lotto winners end up the same way as my parents did, i. at the. they lose more than they won. As shocking as this statistic sounds, it was a lot more shocking to then find that 19 out of 20 organizations ultimately fail, 19 away from 20 people struggle for a few days to a week, and 21 out of 20 will move with insufficient funds. Any coincidence? I hardly consider so. It is very apparent and then that 19 out of something like 20 people are slaves to funds whereas the 1 away from 20 is the master.

After first discovering this I actually believed at the time that if this specific statistic is true then our job was to learn how to come to be one of those 1 in something like 20, which I attempted to do for pretty much 4 to 5 years until finally I crashed and used up. I quickly came to know that 19 out of 30 exist not because they are laid back or stupid, but because they’re too honest and supportive. It has nothing to do with having ‘hard work’ but with ‘hard selling’; i. e. people that succeed in money do so because they’re the best at convincing you actually that you need to buy their services or products irrespective of whether you need it not really. Put another way, digging 75 holes in the ground may look like hard work (and in physical form it is), but it isn’t worth a squirt connected with goat urine unless you can certainly convince someone out there that they must buy 100 holes inside the ground, and once you can tell this poor sucker in this, you can point to 100 by now dug holes and then obtain the cash.

Honest people confront two problems, first that they find it hard to sell everything and second they come across it hard to say no any time being sold to. Now contemplate this from a mathematical perspective; in the event that success relies on you having the capacity to convince others to buy your merchandise and at the same time being able to say zero when being sold to, subsequently is it mathematically possible for anyone on earth to succeed all at the same time? Naturally, it is not.

So this brought us to the following question. If mathematically impossible, then precisely why on earth have we established society in such a way that it becomes virtually criminal, or at least immoral along with repugnant, if you are not seen being out there risking your neck and throat and playing the game involving economic pursuit? Where does this whole concept result from? A century or more ago, men and women rushed into cities simply because they fancied their luck in playing the game of financial pursuit lured by the possibility of riches and wealth, instead of slugging it out on a grind for no other reason compared to self-sufficiency. Nowadays, unless you are located pursuing wealth and engaging within commerce, you are seen as ‘not doing your bit’.

To make this particular more ridiculous, not only tend to be we now forcing everyone into this game of financial pursuit, whether they want to or not really, we then whinge as well as complain when those who are much better at it (i. electronic. those who are better at selling) keep whipping us. Exactly how immature are we? In case anything, the richest on the planet do not want us available to compete against them — if they did then the reason why would they go to this kind of lengths to support and main receiving area those political parties who will tip the balance associated with politics in their favor? The issue has become extremely obvious to me. The game of financial pursuit, which includes everything from dicker, trade, and exchange, to the build-up of wealth, is completely as well as utterly over-crowded.

Now, We are not here to recommend every person give up their uses, and in fact, I treatment not what others are performing, whether you pursue cash and wealth or not, is actually irrelevant to me; what it is actually I have found to be next to legal is the suggestion that simply because you have decided that money, as well as wealth, is important to you indicates we all have to treat it similar to the way.

To return to my question over which is, if I have kids, how do I renounce money completely without breaking the law, however, had to ask myself, the reason why people who do renounce money or economics, generally end up facing the prospect to be homeless, or at least not co-existing in society as regular, and this question led me personally to realize that the necessities within, such as housing, clothing, foodstuff, water, education, etc, are actually placed under a new label, in which being ‘human rights’ containing completely masked if not obliterated the very real nature involving human needs.

The term ‘right’ is very misunderstood, and I merely know this because I’ve been studying law for the last five years or so. The term, coming from a legal perspective, means that an individual somewhere owes you a thing, i. e. a duty. Zero rights can exist without having a corresponding duty. So, once we then say ‘housing’ can be a human right, then who owes the duty to provide in which housing? Obviously then this is usually sheer nonsense because you can not access housing today if you are willing to play the game involving economic pursuit, even if meaning through welfare, which is on its own nothing more than an undignified variation of economic pursuits. To increase this nonsense we subsequently say clothing is human-appropriate; so who owes you this kind of duty? Now, I care for anyone to take off their garments and walk around naked and discover how long it is before you are detained.

Human needs are ‘not’ human rights, to which someone else owes you a duty, in saying this, it does not likewise suggest that human needs are generally something I should have to pay intended for unless I have openly expressed my intention to treat these people as commodities, which is the things I am doing if I honestly engage in the game of monetary pursuits (and which is precisely what most people are doing). Human demands are not someone else’s duty on which I have a right, human requirements are my own duty that I owe society. Indeed, you read right, We are saying that I have a responsibility to meet my human requirements lest I breach a few laws as a result of not having entry to them, and therefore, this makes an entire mockery of the idea that through renouncing money (which is exactly what many religions and sages over millennia have known as many to do) can simply be done by breaking regulations. Put another way, if I possess a duty to society to become housed, clothed, etc however should have a choice as to whether We treat those resources because commodities or not, which means I ought to have a choice as to the lawful and ownership structure of these resources so I am in a position to treat them as requirements and not commodities, and hence after that have no need to engage in financial pursuits or money.

Read also: