My aim in this and subsequent articles is to demonstrate that there is support for the notion that people, even with families, can give up money completely without having to suffer the indignity faced with doing it in manners which are either unlawful (such as being homeless, dumpster diving) or otherwise unconventional; in other words, to renounce money in such a way that people around you won’t even know you have done it, and this notion is supported by over 5 years of research into law, economics, and a whole host of other subjects which have some bearing on this subject.
I had already begun my quest to answer the question ‘is it possible for me to give up money altogether?’ years before I discovered said names above, and in fact had probably begun my quest when I was still a youngster living at home. However, the greatest challenge I faced in answering this question was how to do it without breaking any laws, because if I could answer this, then I would find a way to do it with children. Let’s be honest, the three names above do not face the problem of having young children.
My real journey began after my parents won the lotto (over half a million dollars) only to end up bankrupt 4 years later. Upon this sad happening, I subsequently learned that 19 out of 20 lottery winners end up the same way as my parents did, i.e. they lose more than they actually won. As shocking as this statistic sounds, it was more shocking to then discover that 19 out of 20 businesses ultimately fail, 19 out of 20 people struggle week to week and 19 out of 20 will retire with insufficient funds. A co-incidence? I hardly think so. It is very apparent then that 19 out of 20 people are slaves to money whereas the 1 out of 20 is the master.
Upon first discovering this I believed at the time that if this statistic is true then my job was to learn how to become one of those 1 in 20, which I attempted to do for almost 4 to 5 years until I crashed and burned. I quickly came to realize that the 19 out of 20 exists not because they are lazy or stupid, but because they are too honest and loving. It has nothing to do with ‘hard work’ but in ‘hard selling’; i.e. those who succeed in money do so because they are the best at convincing you that you need to buy their product or service irrespective of whether you need it or not. Put another way, digging 100 holes in the ground may seem like hard work (and physically it is), but it ain’t worth a squirt of goat urine unless you can convince someone out there that they need to buy 100 holes in the ground, and once you can convince this poor sucker of this, you can point to 100 already dug holes and then ask for the cash.
Honest people face two problems, first they find it hard to sell anything and second they find it hard to say no when being sold to. Now think of this from a mathematical perspective; if success relies on you being able to convince others to buy your product and at the same time being able to say no when being sold to, then is it mathematically possible for everyone on earth to succeed all at the same time? Obviously it is not.
So this brought me to the following question. If it is mathematically impossible, then why on earth have we set up society in such a way that it becomes almost criminal, or at least immoral and repugnant, if you are not seen to be out there risking your neck and playing the game of economic pursuit? Where did this whole concept come from? A century or more ago, people rushed into cities because they fancied their luck at playing the game of economic pursuit lured by the chance of riches and wealth, as opposed to slugging it out on a farm for no other reason than self-sufficiency. Nowadays, unless you are seen pursuing wealth and engaging in commerce, you are seen as ‘not doing your bit’.
To make this more ridiculous, not only are we now forcing everyone into this game of economic pursuit, whether they want to or not, we then whinge and complain when those who are better at it (i.e. those who are better at selling) keep whipping us. How immature are we? If anything, the richest in the world do not want us out there competing against them – if they did then why would they go to such lengths to support and lobby those political parties to whom will tip the balance of politics in their favour? The problem has became extremely apparent to me. The game of economic pursuit, which includes everything from barter, trade, exchange, to the accumulation of wealth, is completely and utterly over-crowded.
Now, I am not here to suggest every person give up their pursuits, and in fact, I care not what others are doing, whether you pursue money and wealth or not, is irrelevant to me; what it is I have found to be next to criminal is the suggestion that just because you have decided that money and wealth is important to you means we all have to treat it the same way.
To return to my question above which is, if I have children, how do I renounce money altogether without breaking the law, then I had to ask myself, why do people who do renounce money or economics, usually end up facing the prospect of being homeless, or at least not co-existing in society as normal, and this question led me to realize that the necessities in life, such as housing, clothing, food, water, education etc, have been placed under a new label, that being ‘human rights’ which has completely masked if not obliterated the very real nature of human needs.
The term ‘right’ is very misunderstood, and I only know this because I have been studying law for the last 5 years or so. The term, from a legal perspective, means that someone somewhere owes you something, i.e. a duty. No right can exist without a corresponding duty. So, if we then say ‘housing’ is a human right, then who owes the duty to provide that housing? Obviously then this is sheer nonsense, because you can’t access housing today unless you are willing to play the game of economic pursuit, even if that means through welfare, which is itself nothing more than an undignified version of economic pursuits. To add to this nonsense we then say clothing is a human right; so who owes you this duty? Now, I dare anyone to take off their clothes and walk around naked and see how long it is before you are arrested.
Human needs are ‘not’ human rights, to which some other person owes you a duty, but in saying this, it does not also suggest that human needs are something I should have to pay for, unless I have openly declared my intention to treat them as commodities, which is what I am doing if I openly engage in the game of economic pursuits (and which is what most people are doing). Human needs are not someone else’s duty to which I have a right, human needs are my own duty to which I owe society. Yes, you read right, I am saying that I have a duty to meet my human needs lest I breach some law as a result of not having access to them, and therefore, this makes a complete mockery of the idea that by renouncing money (which is what many religions and philosophies over millennia have called many to do) can only be done by breaking the law. Put another way, if I have a duty to society to be housed, clothed, etc then I should have a choice as to whether I treat those resources as commodities or not, which means I should have a choice as to the legal and ownership structure of those resources so I am able to treat them as needs and not commodities, and hence then have no need to engage in economic pursuits or money.
It’s time to view this whole subject through the perspective of ‘law’ itself, which is the aim of my website, and to find support in the law itself as to the legitimacy of having that choice in life to give up money completely and lawfully, whether one has children or not and without being subject to ridicule, by changing the structure of how those resources (human needs) are held… I call it the way of the custodian.