A woman who lives without money
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
(Disclaimer [confession?]: I make more money than I need, more than I ever thought I would, and spend equally much, but definitely think about those whose broken backs my lifestyle is built on, so I am always searching for the mental strength to find a new structure]
The article addressed that Jo is not anti-money, nor anti-tech. It addressed how she handles medical treatment. More accurately, she's on the path to living without money (but still, by necessity, relies on money indirectly - understandably so).
I think the idea of a transactionless "giving" community is very powerful. It's something I'm trying to get better at - not the giving without expecting to recieve (that's easy), but the recieving without feeling obligated to reciprocate. I recently have begun to realize that rejecting a gift is also denying someone else the joy of giving. Remembering that makes transactionless recieving much easier.
This next statment may come off as rude, but it's not meant that way, rather it's meant to bring attention to why it's tough for me to envision how a valid movement like this will attain mass appeal without change: When I have interacted with, I'll say "bravely free spirited" folks, it does feel to me like being on the verge of homelessness. In this story, Jo lived in a car in someone's backyard for a year. That's not me. A little scattered, a little dirty, with smells of patchouli and compost filling the air. I don't look down on that, it's just not how I personally want to live, yet there is a sense that if I lean more into the path of communal sharing vs traditional monetary structure, then I need to change things up to be accepted by that community - forgo my daily showers or sense of style and clean/orderly/abundant living, start dumpster diving or eat/wear things out a dumpster. Never spoken aloud, it's just a vibe I get. I'm not doing that, but I also don't believe the two are intrinsically linked.
Another thing I'll raise is the idea of 'time banks' vs. money banks. If you listen to freakonomics, Steven Dubner is a big proponent. But I still think money is an amazing abstract human idea that is much more flexible than bartering, and isn't the enemy. It's like technology used for harm - the tech itself generally isn't the issue, it's how people decide to use it. Money is the same way.
I think Jo, and I agree with her, probably feels good about doing away with money, not because the idea of money itself is bad, but the fact that you can't trust the people you give it to to use their money for good, vice, say, using it to open a sweatshop.
Not one to raise problems without suggesting a solution, I'd posit that this is a potential good application for cryptocurrency. A coin use by the good 'free farmers' of the world to have a currency all their own, so they can benefit from the abstract nature of money but in a more regulated way that can help protect against exploitation of the planet's resources (e.g. I get coin for selling a 30 bags of strawberry's and use that coin for dental work, whereas before, even if the dentist was a good person, I could not trade 30 bags of strawberries for dental work because - what's a dentist going to do with 30 bags of strawberries).
That's an idea I could get behind and could envision scaling.
“I live without money by living rent free in my friend’s house that she paid for with her money and when I discovered dentists won’t accept fermented vegetables, dumpster dived food or my handwritten poetry money I started a crowdfunder asking friends and strangers to give me some of their real money. I have a phone because my friend bought one with money and gave it to me, but I don’t have a SIM card. Instead I use the wifi that my friend pays for with her money…”
It’s easy to live “without money” if you know people with money, capital, resources and a sympathy towards alternative ways of living.
I think you do have some good points.
>easy to live “without money” if you know people with money
In a world of overall abundance or prosperity this might seem like easy living, but isn't that how it's supposed to be ?
Now it does seem like the article has a lot of emphasis on the generosity of those around her who are experiencing plentiful resources, and one is not nearly as impressive without the other. But I do get the idea that her generosity in return represents an even greater personal commitment than from those owning the money, to try and overcompensate for the less-impressive nature of not having cash herself to combine with generosity when showing her appreciation for her benefactors. It is a certain kind of privilege when someone without cash can be as generous as someone who has it, or even more so sometimes.
Realistically mathematically this would probably work best if you not only know people with money, but they are routinely throwing away so much of it, and your living expenses so insignificant by comparison, that the benefactor is enthusiastic about supplying the currency difference to make it possible in an otherwise cash-conscious world. There would be no worries about whether or not you had any money at all, and regardless could very well result in the most financially stable and secure-feeling environment some people have ever been in.
Pretty unrealistic for so many people.
Speaking of cash, how about don't even try to forget about it. Go the other way. Just try to use it more.
Yup, I mean, go without credit :)
Bet you can't do it.
Go ahead, use all the cash you want, it may be a better gauge of transaction obstacles in your own world relative to a village life for someone who's not handling cash.
Just don't try it if you have negative net worth or you'll be worse off in the world of credit than a person without money is in a world of cash.
At least in a world of cash there can be a little to spare, but in a world of credit "everybody" is so far in debt that it makes generosity into an endangered species, almost extinct in many environments where it once thrived.