Self Sufficiency (/fit/ here)

I'm here to ask you a simple question, Holla Forums
Is self sufficiency possible?

youtube.com/watch?v=GKVlEBLWGkY
I mean if I want to live off my own products of labor, but not as an always hiding bunkerfag, can I do it in your ideal society?

Taxation is theft, and it doesn't become "not theft" just because a person gives up trying to fight the establishment and just pays it.
I don't care what you can give me for tax (blood) money. I want the option of being on my own. I will fund a defensive army if you can show me transparency for it and that my money doesn't end up funding incursions into foreign lands that benefit no one except the corporations.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=35evUNOOkoQ
who.int/topics/obesity/en/
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

In totality for anyone here? It depends on what you mean by self sufficient and or what degree etc

Most people here or now wouldn't survive without an internet connection long without going mad so it's hard to say in this way if its possible in general.

I think its safe to say people are reliant more on each other than themselves

If you don't want to get taxed, then don't work. It's voluntary.

One cannot be completely self sufficient because he is always reaping the rewards of whatever society he is born into. You would have a much different level of education and social standing than you do now if you were born into some hut in Central Africa.

I think their should be anarchist free zones bordering my ideal state-socialist society. Anyone can live in the socialist society off a UBI of sorts, and if you want to leave you'll be given a backpack filled with supplies and you can go live outside society.
if you don't want to pay rent, just get off our civilizations property (all the land is owned by The People Corp tm, everyone's an equal shareholder)
jk we won't have taxes because there won't be money

Considering the commie endgame relies on automation, then this is possible
property as a whole is theft

Nice.


I owe nothing to the government.


Paying for what you use (by choice) is acceptable.


Thank you. I know property as a whole is theft, but until that society is reached I will not let myself starve and go cold.


I'd love to hear more.

You owe what you have not to the government, but to those who have paid for everything you enjoy. Whether that's video games, the Internet, computers, health, etc. All funded and developed by society. Even if you truly wished to be self-sufficient, after removing all of these things from your life, you still have been moulded in them since birth.
The only human that is truly self-sufficient is a child born in the wilderness and raised by animals. He can rightfully claim he owes nothing to anyone.

...

pleb

But then I have to ask

If you can't totally cover one aspect of self sufficiency how does it not call into question the greater whole itself? What aspects of a human can survive on its own?

These are more interesting questions than a blanket answer, because you'll find humans do better among one another than isolated

That's a nice argument but most of the things that give me life come from the Sun, the Earth, the animals and the plants of this planet.
You are missing many steps from even beginning to prove I owe anything to a (government) group of people that call themselves government.

That's a nice no true scotsman fallacy. Same as above.

Self sufficiency is compatible with paying for what you use. This is the basis of trade and social interaction.
Being robbed and told what you need is entirely a different set of interactions.

Under capitalism for most? No. Property laws prevent you from being self-sufficient unless you inherited a shit load of money or property and even then the state can take it.


Sure.

Nope, just grown-up.

youtube.com/watch?v=35evUNOOkoQ
Then consider me your ally.

No, you have to exploit others and/or be exploited to survive. That's just life.

And yet it does not answer the questions arisen nor do people behave in a way they otherwise would claim they are.

inb4 OP becomes individualist anarchist or egoist anarchist and starts shitposting with Stirner

who.int/topics/obesity/en/

Oh woops I dropped my dick

oh woops wrong tab wrong thread

Eat or be eaten is not the only way of life.


I admire stirner and his ethics. (is admiration a spook?)


There is no problem with interacting with society if you are self sufficient, it is not exclusive.

Says living organism that eats to survive. Regardless, that was not the point of my post.

I don't see how it could be.

Your entire question is delusional. The isolated individual does not exist; humans are always dependent on one another.

How are you self-sufficient if you must interact with others to exist?

What you want sounds a lot like Mutualism.

Mutualism and individual anarchism seem to go together pretty well.

Yeah, they're both retarded.

I am open to further discussion.
I am also a multitude that lives due to the benign existence of millions of distinct organisms inside me.
Kill my bacteria off entirely, I am dead within 48 hours or less.
Cause my body to be sterile to bacteria but not immediately in danger of death, I will starve within the week.


How am I not self sufficient when I can choose not to and go on living?

Needs and wants are different. Chosen and forced interaction are different.

Indeed.

You can't. You need to be locked in a cage and starved until you beg for mercy then you will see just how self-sufficient you really are.

I like how you elaborate on your argument.
Your hypothetical torture scenario has nothing to do with how self sufficient someone is in the real world.
It seems your definition of self sufficiency requires godhood, thus a no true scotsman for any human being.

No shit. He's right. It is impossible to be "self sufficient" outside of your fantasy world.

OP, there are no taxes in socialism. Cuba, USSR, China, Yugoslavia… none of these socialist states had taxes. Look it up.

It depends on what you mean by self sufficiency.
To be trully self sufficient you can't rely on anyone. So you may only obtain from others, things you don't really need to survive. If you buy your food you are already relying on the people who grew it.
In our "ideal society"(be mindfull we have a wide array of diverging socialist opinions here) your self suficiency depends on your living standards, and capacity you will have to build your own house, grow your own food, make your clothes. The quality of these products will be worse than the average.

But in the, end in our "ideal society" you won't have to be worried with taxes or buying anything anyway, and you will probably have to work way less than what you would need to be self sufficient.

Thanks, I am a stronger believer in teaching through examples

Technically, yes, but you would be giving up virtually all standards of living.
We agree. We aren't liberals.

>self
'no'

Except that it isn't.

Unfortunately you can't teach people to submit when they reject your premise. Better luck with the weak minded.

Why do you think the quality would be lower?

If you are to be self sufficient, tell me how are you going to find shelter on land that has not been claimed by other men, how are you going to feed yourself without acquiring livestock or seed from your fellow man, how are you going to do anything that addresses the bare minimum necessities of life without interaction with others?

Sure lets break down your dissapointing arguments.

Saying you own land doesn't magicaly make it an interaction with you when I take it by force. Government claims many lands that it has not set agents to.

Acquiring objects from others doesn't mean you are not self sufficient. Am I not self sufficient if I take the fur from a bear? Think before you make careless arguments. Humans are animals too.

Interaction does not exclude self sufficiency.
You can be self sufficient and still interact. By your logic it is a priori impossible to be self sufficient. But then you aren't actually making an argument, just redefining words and saying you are right and your definitions make sense.
It is like saying that everything humans do is artificial.

You can't erase the truth, you momfucker

taxation is theft
imprisonment is kidnapping
execution is murder
Ron Paul 2020

Well I believe in central planning, so no, you won't need to pay tax… So to speak.

Only God is self-sufficient, and even that is debatable. Do you want to be a faggot God or a real man?

another no true scotsman