A Victoria man has gone two decades without money

Re:A Victoria man has gone two decades without money by noduerme on Sunday July 25, 2021 @04:36PM (#27952694)

But it's not just about economic benefit. Most people don't work to afford toys for themselves, they work to support others. At the end of the article, this guy expresses sadness that he's estranged from his two children as a result of his choices, but then attempts to justify it by saying he's not going to let having children keep him from making a better world for his children - a world in which there is no money. I would think his kids would probably prefer having a father who was present for them than one who couldn't see them because he'd deluded himself into thinking that a complete lack of effort was his way of saving the world.

If you can't take part in your children's lives as a result of your choice not to take part in the economy, then you're sort of failing at both moral standards aren't you?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Victoria man has gone two decades without money by Retric on Sunday July 25, 2021 @04:47PM (#27952783)

> If you can’t take part in your children’s lives…

That’s a question without an objective answer. For example some people are better off in the foster system. It’s an oversimplification to assume some kind of standard life for other life choices.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A Victoria man has gone two decades without money by noduerme on Sunday July 25, 2021 @08:26PM (#27954219)

But by the guy's own standard, the most important thing for him is to make the world better for his children. Even at the cost of actually knowing his children. Subjectively or objectively they may be better off with him not in their lives, but I fail to see how that bolsters his moral argument for how society should work.

[ Parent | on HN ]