Its a terrible example as not everywhere as a welfare system either for the unemployed or the infirmed.
They just die.

Reptired wrote: No...It really isn't a perfect example. Unless they are living free of the Welfare system.
If they are in the Welfare system then they are indeed slaves to it. Ask anyone on benefits about the hoops they are made to jump through. Have you missed the last Icke knows how long's worth of related developments. Once upon a time dole scrounging was an option for some. That loophole has long since been addressed. To the point that know the under 25's will very soon not even have the option of dole. They already don't get housing benefit.
Honestly, I'm disappointed you chose the unemployed as an example.
I would have cited folk like our old friend, the apprentice myself.

andyh wrote:
The situation may indeed be terrible.
The example is correct.

Reptired wrote:
And if the situation is terrible then ought it not be remedied?

No, the example is not correct. It is far from it. So far, it isn't even an example of how to live a sustainable life without a job...

andyh wrote:
Absolutely, but not at the expense of The Non Aggression Principle.

knobmeup wrote: You're just making up qualifiers after the fact though.
I haven't even attempted to prove "how to live a sustainable life without a job", not even mentioned it, this doesn't mean people are forced to work.

Oh play fair. You state that people are not forced to work and that plenty don't work. I ask you to provide examples of ways to live without working and you suggest the unemployed...Which is a shit example, end of.

So, put yer money where your mouth is and show me some real examples of how to live in this culture without a job.
And no, I won't accept disablement, studying (it's aim is ultimately a job) or being on the dole. Or owt like it.

It has to be a sustainable way of life or it just isn't an example.

Edit: In no way am I implying that disablement is not a sustainable life.

Reptired wrote:
Which is precisely what TVP does, ie no harm done or loss to any party concerned.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Boyle_%28Moneyless_Man%29

Space Bandit wrote:
After some preparatory purchases....

^ Epic fail

See, SB can do it
Other examples are available rep

My point in asking for examples is that those examples are in fact very very limited. If you own land with a permanent dwelling you can do it. If you live nomadically you can still (just about) do it. I guess you could take up some form of LETS lifestyle.

I'm all for all of those btw but they really aren't for the vast majority of people. Most would starve quite quickly without help/charity from others. That vast majority have little or no choice but to take up some form of job.

andyh wrote:
Ah right, maybe I should have looked into that one a bit before posting

knobmeup wrote:
My contention does not require me to meet those demands, my statement is correct.
Perhaps this is a language problem.
Are you forced to breathe?
Are you a slave because you choose to eat?

You're not, you may not like any of the options but if you have a choice you are not forced, not in any sense worth talking about.

You're forced into the monetary system, you're forced into the legal system, you're forced into the taxation system, if you don't submit to these demands and you aren't influential in the Pathocracy you will see force and it doesn't come in the shape of a choice, it comes in the form of Unilateral Violence.

You may think I'm playing semantic games, I'm not, language ( correctly identifying things and classes of actions ) are extremely important, as all actions are based on this process (or unfortunately almost always lack of this process) .

andyh wrote:
Yep & it can't be argued that he doesn't in some respects rely on aspects of the monetary paradigm to support him as he goes on daily dumpster dives at the supermarket!
He could have started by accepting donations for stuff for his 'experiment' but even they would have been created due to money!
Credit to the guy though..... at the end of the day he's started doing this because of the same sort of stuff we talk about & actually done something about it.

andyh wrote:
I'm not sure if that is the same as The Non Aggression Principle.

"No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation."

In response to post 34:
So, your argument really is that you aren't forced to work because you can go on the dole....
There really is no point continuing then is there.

EDIT: did you just say breathing and eating are choices?
EDIT2:Isn't that what andy and I are saying? So what are we 'discussing' again?

Reptired wrote:
Which is precisely what DOES happen under the current monetary system which btw you are defending here

knobmeup wrote:
No, that is not my argument, read it again.

knobmeup wrote: No, I did not, but eating is absolutely a choice, breathing.... I don't fancy either side of that argument...
[/quote]
knobmeup wrote:
Well now it seems like you are conflating the current monetary system with money and/or work with taxation and the legal system, I have no idea what you are discussing.

andyh wrote:
I'm not defending the current system, the rest of your statement is correct.
Can you point me to your evidence of my support for the current system?