"How to Drop Out"

[zbigi]

Apicious, a famous cook of the time who squandered most of his wealth and poisoned himself at the end, concluding that the remainder of the wealth would not afford him the expensive lifestyle he deemed necessary for a life well lived

That's a cool example. Might be a precursor for the wave of FIRE suicides a couple decades down the road, if stocks don't grow as people planned.

[7Wannabe5]

There’s also a short story ( can’t remember title or author, but think he was famous 19th century German) which describes the anguish of a young man who chooses an annuity over the opportunity to actively invest in business, and then regrets his decision when he falls in love with a woman whom he believes he can’t woo given his modest income.

OTOH, I know plenty of 21st century drop-outs who have no problems with wooing. Anger is number 1 red flag for most dating females, and drop-out guys tend towards being more relaxed.

[prudentelo]

imagine killing yourself because your 50 year vacation turned out to be 21 year vacation

[chenda]

There’s also a short story ( can’t remember title or author, but think he was famous 19th century German) which describes the anguish of a young man who chooses an annuity over the opportunity to actively invest in business, and then regrets his decision when he falls in love with a woman whom he believes he can’t woo given his modest income.

What happened in the end ? Did love triumph or did he overdose alone in a opium house out in the colonies ?

[7Wannabe5]

What happened in the end ? Did love triumph or did he overdose alone in a opium house out in the colonies ?

As I recall, the story ended with state of anguish unresolved. I think the moral of the story was something like the passive life is not in alignment with the romantic masculine spirit. I've seen similar theme of "annuity coupon clipping is only for old widow ladies and young men should be engaged in bold ventures" in other 19th century works.

[chenda]

I've seen similar theme of "annuity coupon clipping is only for old widow ladies and young men should be engaged in bold ventures" in other 19th century works.

7w5 you might enjoy The Africa House by Christina Lamb, about the son of a financially failing aristocrat who goes out to Africa in the 1930s and, with his modest trust fund income, builds himself a feudal estate and lives it up in very low COL Rhodesia. He was a interesting character, who beat his servants but also believed in racial equality.

[theanimal]

Regarding Thoreau, there's a very large difference between someone who builds their own cabin (with a majority of secondhand materials, items from the forest and then hauled on his back to the building site) as well as encompassing furniture and someone who buys a sprinter van or equivalent and renovates it with power tools and materials from Home Depot. I always find the critiques of Thoreau interesting as they don't seem to concern what he was trying to prove. He never said he was going to be a hermit. And the notion that laundry at his mother's house is the deal breaker is kind of comical. It is 1845. They are not using laundry machines. Perhaps he just wanted the company instead of doing it in the lake by himself.

Proenneke espouses many of the same principles, if not more so. Yet, I've never seen or heard any critique of Proenneke that he has nearly 100% of his groceries flown in. Holding people to an absolute standard kind of misses the point of these examples and the lessons that can be learned from their experiences.

[7Wannabe5]

@chenda:

Thanks for the recommendation. I am currently rereading the first book in the mid-20th century Travis McGee houseboat dwelling drop-out unclaimable property salvager series by John D. McDonald. I originally read it in my early teens, so may have been an influence.

I am wary of the whole dreary deadening structured mess we have built into such a glittering top-heavy structure that there is nothing left to see but the glitter, and the brute routines of maintaining it.

[classical_Liberal]

Thoureau was a Harvard graduate in the early XIX century. That alone probably put him in top 1% in terms of privilege and opportunity

Thoreau is some interesting history. While I fully recommend we understand a persons personal history to understand their content. I also think a person who comes from a privileged situation can provide great thoughts. It's much easier to "Maslow-up" when not focused on just feeding and sheltering yourself and/or family. In this respect, often times the best insight comes from those in the highest privilege positions.... or in modern US Hollywood, sometimes not.

The bottom line is not the high privilege, rather the personal arc their life took. In this case I think people like Thoreau, or Marcus Aurelius have something important to say.

they just showed up for an ad posted on the door. There are billions of people who can do that.

Right. In my case a friendship (social capital) made up for my middle aged man body. My point is more for those in Western countries where minimum wage jobs, combined with smart ERE skills can actually do what Keynes predicted, live off of 10-15 hours a week of low skilled labor.

After traveling a bit I found low skilled workers from less developed countries are amazed at this opportunity. What waste, so few with this privilege use it. Instead they buy ford f150's or teslas, depending on their politics.

and then regrets his decision when he falls in love with a woman whom he believes he can’t woo given his modest income.

Sounds like smart story writing. The thing is, everyone has regrets. This is why it's important to try to understand the human condition. Listen to those who have gone before, and understand the pitfalls of choices. Yes, in every choice one possibly is given up to open other opportunities. However, most choices are not irreversible if someone changes course.

Two years ago i never thought I'd work for someone else again. Today, even as an active investor who spends 5-10 hours a week enjoying reading and trading. I'd go insane without a little "work" here or there. I'm not particularly educated or intelligent. So I get it where I can and when i enjoy it. I think most people who want to retire before 50 will find themselves in the same circumstances. That's experience talking.

[AnalyticalEngine]

It's less if Thoreau is personally worthy or not (I think we're all guilty of "Mom washes the laundry"-type flaw at least somewhere in our life) and more if 19th century American Transcendentalism (Thoreau's main ideology) is still relevant in the 21st century.

Most notably, Transcendentalism was a part of modernist counterculture, and like all modernist countercultures, was concerned that the advent of industrialization was cheapening the value of human life. This is why so many Transcendentalists champion nature and individualism, as it's a counter to industrialization and mass production.

Since we now live in the information age, worries about industrialization can seem antiquated because there are new problems to go with our new technology. But this same counterculture is relevant because it feeds into later countercultures. That's why you see so many similarities between Thoreau/the hippies/contemporary FIRE/etc.

[classical_Liberal]

@AE

Nicely worded and agreed

For something that people can comprehend more easily.... The movie (it was a book, i know, but people don't read anymore) Fight club is something that clearly shows Gen-X values, but a millennial or Gen-Z will watch the same content with different initial assumptions and still see value in it. Despite the huge cultural changes, this content has value across generational value systems. The exact message to each generation may slightly change, but not enough to render it insignificant.

[Ego]

Two years ago i never thought I'd work for someone else again. Today, even as an active investor who spends 5-10 hours a week enjoying reading and trading. I'd go insane without a little "work" here or there. I'm not particularly educated or intelligent. So I get it where I can and when i enjoy it. I think most people who want to retire before 50 will find themselves in the same circumstances. That's experience talking.

I believe this is true for everyone, not only those who retire before fifty. The only people who can completely drop out and do nothing for long without going insane are those who where already there.

A goldilocks level of insecurity provides an impetus to accomplish things and fend off insanity, but not so much that it drives one to self-harm or self-neglect in the name of success. The person who has no concerns is at least as fragile as the one with more concerns than they can handle. This is true at 25, 55 or 95.

[AxelHeyst]

I've had this stuck in my head for a few days, quoting from memory:

There is no [real/deep] community among people who don't need each other.

He's talking in the context of the idea that money gives us the illusion of not being dependent on other people, or on nature, and so the myth of money tends to isolate us. It is the sense that we need others, and others need us, ie that we are interdependent, that gives us a sense of belonging. I thought the quote germane to the topic of financial independence.

[ertyu]

I disagree completely. If I need you, I have to stifle myself. I have to limit myself, make myself smaller, not be assertive so as not to rock the boat, and let tradition and public opinion dictate my life. I can't not, I need you for survival.

If instead I don't need you, I can be who I choose to be and spend time with you because I like you and I want to. Or because I find myself enriched by your thinking and I enjoy you. I help you because I care for you, not because social mores oblige me, or because faaaaamily, or because that's what I need to do to "purchase" a reciprocal favor. I can thus help wihile letting go of expectation. When you help me in return and I know you didn't have to, I know you must have wanted to, and that makes me bond with you much more authentically than "need."

"Need" is also not necessary for me to recognize and respect my interdependence with others and nature.

[zbigi]

In practice, people who are dependent on others are trying much harder to be social and likeable. And conversely, people who think they don't need anyone else are often the biggest assholes - there's no one harder to deal with than archetypical rich person, or grumpy pensioners - if they decide they don't like you and don't want you to be part of their circle, they just have no incentive to even try to be nice. Quite often, they pretty much exclude everyone and are super-lonely. At large scale, you get societies like US, Western Europe or Japan (rich, but very lonely) vs Mexico and similar (poor in money/resources, but people's lives can actually be richer there).

[ertyu]

In practice

i wasn't speaking theoretically. I will never not be grateful that money allows me to separate from a deeply dysfunctional family of origin, and I do not wish on anyone a situation where poverty means they must remain in relationships of abuse which erode their sense of personhood on a daily basis. I wish everyone could have the chance to choose self-determination and find a chosen family away from misogynist, stuck-up, anti-LGBT+, traditional societies. Interdependence bred from poverty isn't some idealized Noble Savage situation where everyone is happy holding hands and singing kumbaya. It comes at the expense of subjugation of some groups - genders, castes, ethnicities, etc. - to others. It's no coincidence that societies keep choosing personal autonomy as soon as they can afford to do so. If that results in loneliness, the solution isn't being trapped by poverty, it's actively embracing self-actualization and seeking out the people with whom you feel whole. May everyone have the chance to experience what it's like to be cared for without that being at the cost of your authentic self

[zbigi]

There is a lot of truth to what you wrote. Some families or other support groups are simply disfunctional and being dependent on them can be hell. In your case, I wonder how much of the disfunction was started by older members of the family being already "FI" (having a perpetual, guaranteed state pension), and thus being in a position where they can be inflexible assholes if they want to. In societies without state pensions, the elders had to be in good terms with the kids or else risked being booted from the house.

[ertyu]

especially in developing countries, even if the pension is there, it might be too low, and salaries for such jobs as exist might be low, too, so that families don't have other choice but to live together and pool income

[jacob]

...I wonder how much of the disfunction was started by older members of the family being already "FI" (having a perpetual, guaranteed state pension) ...

Perhaps "FI" in social capital, as in "SI", the top of the power structure. Pater Familia can essentially do what he wants by telling the rest of the family what to do. This structure creates an interdependence that people are afraid to leave because life outside the valley is presented as a scary place. Home is best and only by staying in the community can one remain safe. This closed structure is maintained by traditions, rituals, and family bonds.

There are a few ways to leave. A teenager (physical capital) might run away from home because "I'm gonna do what I want" and if they're strong enough, they succeed. In modern times, individuals are tempted away by "jobs in the city" or "jobs abroad" with the market with financial means replacing the interdependence. Meanwhile, the resulting city politics promotes individual rights, etc. which completely undermines the idea that the head of the household gets to tell everybody else what to do and so it is resisted fiercely by traditionalists.

More romantic voices, likely having failed playing the individualist money games, think they can have have all the good things above: A community, warmth and trust, a place, loyal friends, spiritual protection, and less selfishness w/o any of the "bad qualities" emerging, by moving back to the land and forming an intentional community where everybody looks out for each other. I think that's rather optimistic.

[AxelHeyst]

"Need" is also not necessary for me to recognize and respect my interdependence with others and nature.

My bad for lobbing a quote without context, but Eisenstein was using the word "need" to in fact mean "those people we're actually interdependent with for continued existence". He wasn't talking about the psychological/emotional "needs" we think we have with people that we're not actually dependent on for our survival. None of us need our families of origin, as evidenced by how we can move away and never talk to them again. And they can be real assholes to us because.... they don't need us either, do they?

I'm guessing some examples of interdependence would be a group of people in a unit in combat, groups of neighbors who come together during a local disaster, etc. In those brief circumstances they need each other in a very real, non-social-constructy kind of way, and they experience deep bonds, even if under normal circumstances they don't really like each other.

Interdependence bred from poverty isn't some idealized Noble Savage situation where everyone is happy holding hands and singing kumbaya.

I assume you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks otherwise? Or am I just in a bubble? Like who actually idealizes poverty? One of Eisenstein's points is that the financial/social/governance system that creates this illusion of separateness is also a behemoth that creates, among other things, poverty. Which is bad. But, while poverty does exist, it's great that at least some people can get some money to break out of their poverty, as individuals. Of course.

Anyways, my point in bringing that quote up was to wonder if there's some connection between the pursuit of independence and the common story we hear around the campFIRE that finding and engaging in real community is difficult. While we all live inside this behemoth, doing what we gotta do to become independent from The Machine is necessary. But once we've escaped It's evil clutches... are there steps we should be taking to pump the brakes on our sense of individual independence?