*Author

Kael Hate

  • Guest
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355605#msg355605
« Reply #48 on: June 23, 2011, 09:27:32 pm »
Sorry, I had to travel to work.
I don't expect some morralistic rich folk to feed me if I cannot feed myself.

Offline Essence

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
  • Country: us
  • Reputation Power: 57
  • Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.
  • Voice of the Oracle -- Jezzie's Pimp -- Often Gone
  • Awards: 2nd Trials - Master of Water1st Trials - Master of WaterFG Deck-Designer - The OutcastsShard Madness! Competition WinnerEpic 3 Card Design Competition WinnerElder Recruiter
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355609#msg355609
« Reply #49 on: June 23, 2011, 09:34:24 pm »
Have you ever been unable to feed yourself?  (Postpuberty, I mean)
If something happens and you think it deserves my attention, feel free to PM me. Other than that, I'm probably here if you want to shoot the breeze.

Kael Hate

  • Guest
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355610#msg355610
« Reply #50 on: June 23, 2011, 09:36:34 pm »

I fear somehow I agree that humanity as whole does indeed deserve a wipe-out.
... Or at least a "reset" of biblical proportions.

Then again, we are in the situation we are in and being realistic about it probably
carries further than abstract theory.

All I am saying is that the "weak" ones are weak for a variety of reasons.
Not many of those reasons can be traced back to the doings (or non-doings)
of the weak ones themselves.
For the most part, they seem to be weak because others became strong
while riding on their back. Then those strong ones gave birth to even stronger
ones who got to flourish under most favourable conditions while taking further
advantage of the weak ones.
Generations later all that is forgotten ... the "American self-made man" has
indeed done everything himself it seems. He has "no idea why black people
are at a disadvantage when they have all the rights I do." He is happy about
a 20% increase of his stock-portfolio. Okay, most of that portfolio comprises
petrol-firms and arms-producers but "why is it my problem that those diaper-
heads in Iraq and Iran had to bomb Manhatten and now they're stuck in a war?"
He spends 140$ dollars on a "business"-lunch and responds to the beggar in
front of the restaurant asking for a buck: "Get a job!"
... The beggar is the son of a factory worker who worked in a factory of the
rich mans father for 20 years, who then got fired when the place shut down
and who forced himself onto his wife numerous times while being drunk.

Society, in some countries, tries to care about the "unfortunate" in the form
of programs and welfare ... a drop of water on a hot stone, or "ineffective"
as some might call it. I prefer the term "insufficient".
Those who are fortunate, all too often forget whom they owe it to when
questions like "Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?" arise.
Nice Story.
Have you ever lived in Poverty?
You get over it or you die.

Kael Hate

  • Guest
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355611#msg355611
« Reply #51 on: June 23, 2011, 09:38:45 pm »
Have you ever been unable to feed yourself?  (Postpuberty, I mean)
I've lived in Poverty.
I made an effort to get out of it.

How about you?

Offline Essence

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
  • Country: us
  • Reputation Power: 57
  • Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.
  • Voice of the Oracle -- Jezzie's Pimp -- Often Gone
  • Awards: 2nd Trials - Master of Water1st Trials - Master of WaterFG Deck-Designer - The OutcastsShard Madness! Competition WinnerEpic 3 Card Design Competition WinnerElder Recruiter
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355614#msg355614
« Reply #52 on: June 23, 2011, 09:46:41 pm »
Are you kidding?  I'm the American Dream, mother****er.  I lost my job right as the Great Recession hit, was unemployed and relying on the church to house me, studied up online, started my own business, and now I pay my own bills on my own time with no boss and no corporate hegemony watching over me.

But if you've been there, you know as well as I do -- when you're starving, you might not expect some rich douchebag to feed you -- but you damn sure take advantage of any and every program that comes your way that provides food.  If you don't, you go steal some from someone, which is the same damn thing: taking from someone who 'has' because you don't want to suffer and die.
If something happens and you think it deserves my attention, feel free to PM me. Other than that, I'm probably here if you want to shoot the breeze.

Offline OldTrees

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 10297
  • Reputation Power: 114
  • OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.OldTrees is a mythical and divine giver of immortality, one of the Turquoise Nymphs.
  • I was available for questions.
  • Awards: Brawl #2 Winner - Team FireTeam Card Design Winner
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355650#msg355650
« Reply #53 on: June 24, 2011, 12:04:34 am »
DNA is irrelevant, and that's the entire point I'm trying to make.  The selfish gene is a MYTH.

You and I are part of at least one social group -- these boards.  If an outsider came into our group and started attacking you (flaming), I would be heavily inclined to jump to your defense despite almost certainly being completely unrelated to you.
Slight correction said in passing:

BR-C<0 is the test for whether an apparently altruistic act would reduce total reproductive success of the apparent altruist and thus be selected against.
B=increase in reproductive success of the other [0 in this case]
R=relatedness of the two members (but only out of the base pairs that vary in the population) [unknown and irrelevant. see B.]
C=cost in reproductive success of the apparent altruist [0 in this case]
The example you gave did not disprove or even relate to the theory of gene based evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene) but rather related to the evolution of specific memes about morality in cultures.

Those who are fortunate, all too often forget whom they owe it to when
questions like "Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral?" arise.
Is there any debt incurred when receiving a gift? If so when, why and how?
"It is common sense to listen to the wisdom of the wise. The wise are marked by their readiness to listen to the wisdom of the fool."
"Nothing exists that cannot be countered." -OldTrees on indirect counters
Ask the Idea Guru: http://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php/topic,32272.0.htm

Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355664#msg355664
« Reply #54 on: June 24, 2011, 12:34:31 am »
I would argue that it is immoral to live a life of luxury regardless of whether anyone is starving.

The moral thing to do is take what you need and nothing more.
I would like to take this moment to expound upon my opinions.

First, a point of clarification.  I do not presuppose to dictate to anyone else what they need and what they do not.  But it is one thing for someone to tell themself "i need a break from writing this paper so that i can express my thoughts more clearly" (necessity) versus "i have been working hard i deserve a break" (luxury).  If you are able to justify your 32 cars and 5 personal jets to yourself as necessary then i may in my own mind judge you as delusional but i would not denounce you as immoral.  But if you own a personal fleet "just because you can", well hereabouts is where i would draw the line.

In response to
I agree at least that past a certain point the excess itself becomes immoral because of the harm being done to the one living in luxury.
There is the harm dealt to oneself through indulging in luxury, including addiction to unsustainable consumption and the eventual withdrawal effect.  I would like to add that there is also the affect on the environment and on future generations.  By taking more than we need now, we leave less for later.

I would like to pay homage to the great J.R.R. Tolkien and our little hobbit friends, the picture of morality.  If there is but one lesson to be taken from the LoTR, i think it is this: that sometimes the ability to abnegate one's own will to power is the greatest power of all.  (I stole this idea from some book called the philosophy of the lord of the rings or something like that.  I read it about 10-15 years ago and i don't know the author or anything so i can't really cite my source, but it wasn't my idea to begin with).  If everyone could just live like hobbits i don't think there would be so many problems.

In response to
an interesting thing. What do we need? Electricity? We lived without it. Tv? Internet? What about the jobs related to it? We need those dont we? Buying a 65" tv is the reason someone has a job. If you talk about only on an individual level what we need, then many jobs in society would be obsolete as it would no longer be needed.
I don't think we do need those jobs.  If the person who bought the large screen television spent the time he would have spent watching tv and got together with the people who lost their jobs making/selling the tv, they could start their own business doing something devoted to something more necessary and less luxurious like providing food and shelter.

There is the argument people who work harder should be rewarded and there are a lot of counterarguments like people are just born into it or shouldn't society (well maybe some societies do, i don't know) have a better system for distributing work-time among its citizens instead of making it a grab-bag arms-race-of-ambition, but i'm not here to argue.


I don't think i need to argue, becase i think that those who forgoe luxury will themselves be happier for it.  I offer that it is more pleasant to share together what everyone can have than to indulge oneself and look upon those that cannot.

My final thought: experience is the only teacher and to understand indulgence in luxury it is necessary to indulge in luxury.

Offline coinich

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1557
  • Reputation Power: 19
  • coinich is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.coinich is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.coinich is a Blue Crawler starting to think about his first run.
  • Old to Elements
  • Awards: War #5 Winner - Team Aether
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg355888#msg355888
« Reply #55 on: June 24, 2011, 10:48:25 am »
I finally get to tackle this big one; sorry for the delay.  I'll start off by saying my perceptions are colored by reading The Social Contract by Rousseau, which I appreciated.

The Just World Fallacy (http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/06/07/the-just-world-fallacy/), along with a thorough reading of the works of Malcom Gladwell, have led me to the firm conclusion that luck, and your parent's social status, far more than hard work or even talent, are what lead to a 'life of luxury'.
Perhaps thats the trend these days, but progressing your family/personal wealth isn't dead; my father's paycheck has sextupled since we were below poverty level 18 years ago.  Obviously I won't say we were the norm, but luck never had anything to do with it, nor did social status.  My father was a lowly enlisted comm tech in the Air Force; there's not much social status that goes with that, and both of my parents came from the mountains of New York, the middle of nowhere.  I will agree that we need more advancement and a shrinkage of the gap between the rich and the poor, but I refuse to believe its totally dead or completely dependent on luck and social status, whatever that is.

Then question, then, is "is there a moral imperative to share the results of your good fortune with someone less fortunate than you?" 

The answer, in my opinion is "if the less fortunate person is going to perish without your assistance, there is."

Fortunately, the general consensus among civilized populations is that I'm right, which is exactly why most governments have some form of social service wherein they use legitimately collected taxes to give the poorest people what they need to have in order to keep them from dying.
Of course there's a moral imperative to aid the less fortunate, but I prefer to do it through charities.  It doesn't mean that all governmental programs are morally wrong, but I do think alternatives should be pursued constantly.  The fact that the moral imperative exists however has nothing to do with the original question of whether owning material goods is immoral.

However, we come to the tax issue.

Quote
There is no authority on earth that can morally determine what someone does with their material goods.
Bullsh!t.  You live in a country, you accept as part of your citizenship that your government has some authority over all aspects of your life, including what you do with your material goods.  Period.

The real moral problem is when people who take advantage of that same government's other services think that they're entitled to keep money that the government is owed simply because that money is being used for something that they're unhappy about.  Get real -- EVERYONE'S tax money gets used for things they're unhappy about.  Lord knows I have no desire to help fund the American military whatsoever, but it doesn't keep me from happily paying my taxes.  I know just how critical the government is to my life, and I want them to have enough money to do everything that I need them to do.  If they happen to send my friends and family overseas to shoot foreigners along the way, well, you have to take the bad with the good.
First of all, there is no RIGHT to taxation by any government on this earth.  There is only the privilege of taxation granted by the consent of the governed; the mass of citizens that control (and are controlled by?) each government.  Any government that attempts to assume the power of taxation, which is simply a seizure of goods with the promise of further services from those goods, immediately dissolves the bond between it and the governed, becomes a corrupt government and should be destroyed by any means necessary.

However, on the practical end of things, you and me are both citizens of our countries (sorry, I can't remember if you are American or Canadian :( ).  We are signators to this grand social contract by virtue of being citizens, and here's where I agree with you; we all get taxed and those taxes will go to things we don't support.  It doesn't invalidate our social contract because we both recognize the need for taxation for the survival of our governments and its services.  I won't agree that this social contract grants the government GENERALLY to any control of myself outside of protecting others, or controlling goods I own.  That would be a violation of our social contract unless legally done so through our respective Constitutions; the legal and physical manifestation of our social contracts.

Quote
There is no authority on earth that can morally determine what someone does with their material goods.
I think that stands for itself, if viewed with what I've typed above.  The government itself is an amoral construct; one without inherent morals either way, closer to a machine or a corporation or union.  Granting it the power/privilege to determine the use of people's goods is in itself an amoral choice, but one subject to the whims of those who run the government.  The end result, the seizure and direct control of goods and services and taxation can easily become immoral by the actions of those in the government.

Quote
Owning material goods is the same thing as not aiding a dying person?


No -- but voting yourself a tax cut at the expense of programs that help keep people from dying is totally the same thing as not aiding a dying person.  Abso-f***ing-lutely.
The problem, on a technical level, is that the original question did not present two options that are mutually incompatible.  Someone who owns 30 Lexuses can save plenty of lives over the course of his, including but not limited to saving drowning people and donating other funds to charities and paying taxes while advocating more social welfare programs.  If I wanted to be particularly asinine, I'd point out that 30 Lexuses aren't cheap, and that anyone who owns them has paid a tremendous cost to gain those goods, much of which would go to supporting the companies and jobs that poorer people need to sustain themselves.  I think that the original question should have been "is allowing others to starve while not acting morally wrong or not" but since thats a pretty cut and dried question (only Kael doesn't care?  I've skipped anything past your reply to me.) he substituted material goods to see if he could concoct a moral conundrum.  Neopergoss' original question was fundamentally flawed.

I hope I wasn't writing too stringy again, and I hope you see where I'm coming from here.  I love the theories of limited government, but I'm not so short sighted that I ignore the need for social welfare programs (which might've saved my cousin and his family) and taxation.  I simply think they are a band-aid to the solution, which would create a more volatile economy where a large percentage of families would see their wealth fluctuate over a generation or two.  I think we can both agree that stagnation of the poles is undesirable.  Also, to recap, I object to the idea of taxation and governmental power as a right of the government; the day we think that an amorphous organization has rights over us is the day we've collectively manumitted those rights.  We've simply collectively granted the privilege of those powers, subject to the consensus of the will of the people (note, Rousseau makes a distinction between the will of the people and the general will of all).

If you reply, I'm going on vacation this weekend, perhaps without my computer.  I'll certainly try to remember to respond if you do, and I hope I cleared up some of your questions.  If I'm being inconsistent in some way, please call me out.  My opinions do vary from day to day, so some, like taxes day :P I might be more libertarian than others.  ;D

Offline Essence

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4340
  • Country: us
  • Reputation Power: 57
  • Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.Essence is truly a Titan, worthy of respect and acknowledgement.
  • Voice of the Oracle -- Jezzie's Pimp -- Often Gone
  • Awards: 2nd Trials - Master of Water1st Trials - Master of WaterFG Deck-Designer - The OutcastsShard Madness! Competition WinnerEpic 3 Card Design Competition WinnerElder Recruiter
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg357129#msg357129
« Reply #56 on: June 26, 2011, 11:44:36 pm »
I refuse to believe its totally dead or completely dependent on luck and social status, whatever that is.
So your father didn't get any of his improved positions because happened to meet the right person at the right time?

For example, Mel Gibson used to install home audio/visual equipment.  He wasn't anyone until he happened to install a TV for a man named Steven Spielberg.



Quote
Of course there's a moral imperative to aid the less fortunate, but I prefer to do it through charities.
Unfortunately, charities don't produce nearly enough money to even to the bare minimum of keeping people alive.


Quote
First of all, there is no RIGHT to taxation by any government on this earth.  There is only the privilege of taxation granted by the consent of the governed; the mass of citizens that control (and are controlled by?) each government.
Tell that to Prince John, any given 3rd world dictator in mid-Africa, or the IRS.  They have the right to tax you because they have the undeniable ability to punish you if you don't pay.  Your consent in the matter is 100% optional -- your payment is not.  :)

Quote
Quote
There is no authority on earth that can morally determine what someone does with their material goods.
I think that stands for itself, if viewed with what I've typed above.  The government itself is an amoral construct; one without inherent morals either way, closer to a machine or a corporation or union.  Granting it the power/privilege to determine the use of people's goods is in itself an amoral choice, but one subject to the whims of those who run the government.  The end result, the seizure and direct control of goods and services and taxation can easily become immoral by the actions of those in the government.
Well, then, riddle me this: where does moral authority abide?



Quote
Neopergoss' original question was fundamentally flawed.
Agreed. :)

Quote
I love the theories of limited government, but I'm not so short sighted that I ignore the need for social welfare programs (which might've saved my cousin and his family) and taxation.  I simply think they are a band-aid to the solution, which would create a more volatile economy where a large percentage of families would see their wealth fluctuate over a generation or two.
Largely agreed.  The ultimate solution IS a small government -- but it's a small government that has the authority and physical capability to oversee those industries prone to causing large-scale movements of money around within the economy.  Housing, banking, food production, etc -- especially banking. If anyone wants to know where all the money actually literally went, a little research will show that it went into the hands of a few hundred thousand bankers who are suddenly very very rich.


Quote
We've simply collectively granted the privilege of those powers, subject to the consensus of the will of the people
In an ideal world, true -- but America has, since the early 1970s, almost completely left the Will of the People on the table and instead run entirely with the Cash of the Corporations.  The politicians only nominally need us to continue to thrive; 90% of the money that moves around Capitol Hill is funded by big business, no matter which side of the aisle you look at.
If something happens and you think it deserves my attention, feel free to PM me. Other than that, I'm probably here if you want to shoot the breeze.

Offline NeopergossTopic starter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Reputation Power: 8
  • Neopergoss is a Spark waiting for a buff.
  • New to Elements
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg357147#msg357147
« Reply #57 on: June 27, 2011, 12:25:00 am »
The problem, on a technical level, is that the original question did not present two options that are mutually incompatible.  Someone who owns 30 Lexuses can save plenty of lives over the course of his, including but not limited to saving drowning people and donating other funds to charities and paying taxes while advocating more social welfare programs.  If I wanted to be particularly asinine, I'd point out that 30 Lexuses aren't cheap, and that anyone who owns them has paid a tremendous cost to gain those goods, much of which would go to supporting the companies and jobs that poorer people need to sustain themselves.  I think that the original question should have been "is allowing others to starve while not acting morally wrong or not" but since thats a pretty cut and dried question (only Kael doesn't care?  I've skipped anything past your reply to me.) he substituted material goods to see if he could concoct a moral conundrum.  Neopergoss' original question was fundamentally flawed.
I would opine that the fact that paying for 30 Lexuses (I actually said supercars, but either way) stimulates the economy is a non-sequitur. Giving money to the impoverished helps the economy as well (some would say more). You can say that poor people are helped by the car companies, but car companies are helped when people can get out of poverty and buy cars.

I don't see how the question is flawed; it's not a given that any of us are entitled to keep what we have given the enormous need out there. If you're paying for anything you don't need, then by definition you are allowing others to starve while not acting to prevent it when you could help to prevent it without losing anything you need. Sure, you can help people and own 30 Lexuses, but it's kinda like in Schindler's list when he has that moment where he's looking at his car and his watch and stuff and saying "that's another Jew I could've saved."

Offline BluePriest

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Reputation Power: 46
  • BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.BluePriest is towering like an Amethyst Dragon over their peers.
  • Entropy Has You
  • Awards: Slice of Elements 5th Birthday Cake
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg361141#msg361141
« Reply #58 on: July 05, 2011, 02:26:18 pm »
If you're paying for anything you don't need, then by definition you are allowing others to starve while not acting to prevent it when you could help to prevent it without losing anything you need.
So what do we really need though? Do we need a transportation of some sort? Do we need television? Internet? Computers? Is there a difference between, for example, owning a supercar, and using your friends supercar all the time? Are you advocating them being immoral if you are willing to use someone elses luxuries.
This sig was interrupted by Joe Biden

Astrocyte

  • Guest
Re: Is living a life of luxury while others starve immoral? https://elementscommunity.org/forum/index.php?topic=27852.msg361408#msg361408
« Reply #59 on: July 05, 2011, 11:55:59 pm »
If you're paying for anything you don't need, then by definition you are allowing others to starve while not acting to prevent it when you could help to prevent it without losing anything you need.
So what do we really need though?
I guess it depends on the value one places on access. You don't NEED anything but food, water, clothing, and shelter -- but in most industrialized countries, living without electricity, transportation, telephones, etc. pretty well excludes you from participating in normal society. You won't be able to hold most jobs and will have a lot of difficulty moving to find one, most people are not going to want to socialize with you, you won't be able to live in places that are generally considered safe or secure, etc. Are all of these points of access things that one "needs" ?

 

blarg: