Its almost a given that most of the people on this forum are in varying degrees into the voluntary simplicity thing. We write and read things here that extoll the virtues of that lifestyle and offer advice to those who aspire to that life style and we justifiably beat up on mindless materialism. Yet we live in a capitalist society that seems to be DEPENDENT on it to grow. Its not a consumer society. Its a consumption society.

What if the whole nation opted for the voluntary simplicity lifestyle? Would the economy come to a screeching halt? How many jobs would be lost? What kinds of jobs would be lost? What would we do with or for the numerous unemployed? The banking system would be in a shambles. How would we as a nation handle that kind of thing? What would the nation "look" like after fifty years of voluntary simplicity? What would businesses have to do to survive? What businesses would survive?

Food for thot.

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), October 27, 2000

Answers

Well, think about what WE as homesteaders buy with our cash. People would still need to buy coffee, sugar, flour, pots, pans, canning supplies, wood stoves and cookstoves, clothes, linins, shoes, furniture, paper, pencils, books, tractors, trucks, gas, auto parts, feed, hay, animals, lumber, nails, tools, fishing and hunting supplies, fruit trees and seeds (more?) Items would have to be at a much lower price or they wouldn't get sold. Companys would have to change to the demand or go out of business. Like plain Jane stock Pick-Up trucks instead of SUV's. No more NIKI, just shoes worth wearing.

It's an interesting question, really. Back to the days of allot more thriving smaller towns with a butcher, baker, sawmill, dry goods and clothes etc. I would imagine the ones hit hardest would be the BIG toy companies, Auto Makers, Cell phone industry, and all that electronic video game garbage. I believe TV's, Satallites, regular phones and Computers would stay, I just do, I think people would still want to stay in touch with the rest of the happenings of the world and nation. (right, wrong?)

Our long term goal is to have a sawmill up here on the hill. We think about these things, we should think. Right now today or even if this actually happened, a sawmill would boom. And there are more down trees here in Kentucky than can be used by far. Lumber and firewood and furniture is what we see ourselves doing, Lord willing.

This thread should be interesting reading everyone's ideas! Homesteaders have to think about 5 or 10 years from now, not worry, just think what trade would survive.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), October 27, 2000.

Did you ever think about the pioneers of the late 1700s and early 1800s? They had to make everything. Candles for light, spin for thread, cook soap etc.

I've visited some of those historic places where life in that period is demonstrated, as I'm sure a lot of you have, but that would have been a little tough, I think. Imagine moving to the prairie of Nebraska and looking around and knowing that you had to start from stratch and make eveything. House, clothes, everything.

I'll take Wal-Mart any day. I"m a softie.

-- Shooter (jcole@apha.com), October 27, 2000.

This should be a fun thread...

CINDY: I agree with all you said except cell phones. They are to the emerging 21st century what copper wire telephones were to the 20th century. Electronic highways in the sky without thousands of miles of wire. So, they will stick around. In emering 3rd world countries, they are going straight to cell phone technology and bypassing the telephone pole. Transmission towers, powered sometimes by gas or diesel generators.

SHOOTER: Even the early pioneers starting from scratch, carried with them the "stuff" needed to start from scratch. Any iron goods they purchased. Saws, hammers, sickels, plows. And lead to make bullets. And gun powder. And probably their hunting rifle. Maybe they "grew" their horses and oxen and maybe they bought them. Commerce goes back to the very first days of Adam and Eve. "What 'cha give me for an apple?"

Oh, and what aisle in Wal-Mart are the fishing lures?

(:raig

-- Craig Miller (CMiller@ssd.com), October 27, 2000.

I would like to hear what JD has to say about this. How about it JD?

-- bwilliams (bjconthefarm@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Life without Wally world. What a wonderful and unrealistic thought. The store literally makes me sick-chemical poisoning.

Recently someone one on the forum said (it might have been Craig) the pioneers used what was available to them. I guess that's what modern homesteaders do. Would I want to live without all the conveniences? Yes, but I'd have to be educated. What's wrong with this picture? Have to be educated to live without. If the world suddenly had to do without what they're used to, we homesteaders would definitely have the advantage.

-- Cindy (atilrthehony_1@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

Just a couple of thoughts. For a small percentage of the general population voluntary simplicity works just fine. If you extended it to the entire nation (how I have no idea) it would fail or revert into involuntary simplicity. 1) Voluntary simplicity. No one paying taxes, or very little, equals a very small government inculuding the military. If history is a predictor, a land rich country with no defence would bring either a home grown or externally imposed dictortatorship, which would lead to: 2) Involuntary simplicity.

-- JLS (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), October 27, 2000.

Homesteading is the kind of lifestyle that will function best when not only compared to the modernized one, but also drawing and utilizing facets of modernization that can be of benifit. Kinda like stock investing, a great way to make a living, as long as other less fortunates lose money and are forced to work as they are not successful investors. Homesteaders, invest instead in the lifestyle, not the stock market. I have even told the goy I work with that I consider my "Countryside skills" as part of my retiremement plans, right up there with savings plans and investments.

-- Jay Blair (jayblair678@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.

john, your question is really a tough one! Did you expect to get any responses? :)

Off the top of my head, I would have to think that if we all chose voluntary simplicity, our economy would come to a screeching, crashing close. That is not to say that I won't continue to move toward it as an ideal, nor that I won't keep preaching it from the rooftops.

I think human nature tends to move toward that which is immediately easier, and not that which is immediately harder. For that reason, I don't think the economy will ever move directly toward voluntary simplicity. If "hardships" are to be encountered, it won't be without people kicking and screaming about it.

Big question: Does this then mean we are all parasites on the successes of non-homesteading capitalist nation-mates? If so, it's not an easy thing to consider. If we admit that, then we have to also admit that we are doing what we want to do at the expense of someone else. In other words, we get to play homesteader (it hardly seems like play when we are all working so hard) while the economy grinds on, based on someone else's labors. Homesteader welfare!

You are right in that this is food for thought. However, with my value system, I don't know what else to do except to do what I am doing, and share the bounty when I can. I am very open to suggestions....you have a good mind....what do you think?

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 27, 2000.

Sheepish, I don't understand "at the expence of someone else". I think I do, but I am not sure. Do you mean others working to make the things WE need? Or am I way off? Allot of us homesteaders work off the homestead, my husband does construction 40 hours a week, and he is helping accomplish someone else's need. And when we have a sawmill we will be helping supply other's needs by working. A good friend is a nurse, and we went and did their roof for them all last week just to help. If we are part of the community around us then we should help where help is needed, right? Tell me if I am way off of what you were trying to say.

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), October 27, 2000.

Well, Cindy, this is hard for me to understand, so I'm not being very articulate. Sorry. I think I am trying to explore whether or not being outside the capitalist economy means that we get to use the benefits (i.e. whatever income generation, based on that system supports) without directly producing/participating in it. Do we benefit from (sheesh, I dunno what??!) new pharmacological products, computers, defense inventions, without contributing to the basis of the economy that drives the engine(s) that produce them?

Mind you, this is nearly a rhetorical question, because I think we all do participate monitarily in some way, anyway.

I really am not clear on this myself. Should we need to participate as consumers to gain from the benefits (if any, and I suppose there are some)of living in a capitalist society?

Anyone who can take this rambling and make some cogent thought out of it, please do! Feel free to answer it,too, if you can frame a question.

-- sheepish (rborgo@gte.net), October 27, 2000.

Sheepish, I think you are correct. However, we must first answer the question "What is a homesteader?" If it is living a semi urban lifestyle while working and paying TAXES, then I see no difference. If a homesteader withdraws from the system, makes his own living, and does not contribute to the government, then your comment is indeed correct. It was: "In other words, we get to play homesteader (it hardly seems like play when we are all working so hard) while the economy grinds on, based on someone else's labors. Homesteader welfare!"

-- JLS (stalkingbull007@AOL.com), October 27, 2000.

OK, I get ya. One major thing we contributed to this day and age is the children we carried, birthed, and brought up. That's gotta count for something. My son is in college, Computer Major, surly he will do something I can take credit for. And we pay our share of interest at the bank that brings 'new money' into the big pot. 2 small steps for homesteaders, one giant leap for mankind!

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), October 27, 2000.

Nice thought, but c'mon it'll never happen, at least not voluntarily! I fear we are the few, the proud, the volunteers!!! Of course if everyone was forced into it, we would all be able to handle it a lot better than the others. We could be deluged with request on how to live simply, teach us, we're starving!! WE live in a throw away society, and that wasn't the case prior, remember it was use it, use it again, use it somemore, never throw it away, so products weren't in such high demand, but I agree we would still need some things, by buying or tradeing. Hey maybe not, lets just glean the dumps, storage buildings, barns, attics, etc, should last a few 100 yrs. I think there is enought STUFF stored or thrown away for us all to have plenty without anyone ever making another pot, or nick nack. In the face of a war or economical crisis, there will allways be the have's and have not's, there will just be fewer have's, like during the depression, my Grandmother sd it really didn't effect them to bad because they live on a farm with livestock, they didn't have money but few people did, they had plenty to eat, Great-Grandad sold a hog or something to buy shoes for the 8 children, they only had 1 pair of underwear they washed out every night, and 2 dresses. How simple can you get, they took in boarders, they weren't hungry and were happy. I'd love to see the day where I didn't see a Nike swosh, or a Wal- Mart sign. Well I've said enough. Good night

-- Carol (cwaldrop@peoplescom.net), October 27, 2000.

I'm thinking maybe the question should have been re-phrased into "Can capitalism survive and thrive without mindless materialism?"

That said I think since we climbed out of the trees or ate the fruit something akin to a trading system has been in place. And it really does take all kinds to make the world work.

Taken to the extreme I described in the initial question, I agree with Sheepish that the system as we know it would crash but of course it wouldn't happen overnite. I also agree that we homesteaders who are used to living on the cheap, making do, bottomfeeding, self sufficient etc would be better equipped to weather the transitional storm.

Before the industrial age the wealthy were able to afford the frills and non essentials that the unwashed masses aspired to. I watch the tube and marvel at the period pieces, say from the 16-18th century. Look at the clothes the rich wore back then---so ornate and material intensive it boggles the mind at the hand labor involved in merely clothing royalty or the wealthy. Or look at Cathedrals and think about how they were built. Even a simple wooden house was no small feat considering all the manual labor that went into cutting the trees down, making the lumber etc. To me thats amazing.

As physical beings its obvious we need "stuff" to survive. Is mere survival "living"? I dunno. Is a luxury cruise "living the good life" as the ads would have us believe? I kinda doubt it.

As a dedicated bottomfeeder and scrounger times have been good the last several years. Rich folks throw alot of good stuff out because they don't like the looks of it any more or maybe its got a scratch or a ding or needs some simple repair.

And what actually is materialism? Just because you have and need "stuff" doesn't necessarily make you a materialist does it? If so we all are. If not, then what?

-- john leake (natlivent@pcpros.net), October 28, 2000.

John, the Bible teaches us to "store not up treasures on earth, but store up treasures in heaven", and "to give is better than recieve". I do not need nor want new furniture, fancy clothes, new fancy truck or the like to be completely content. It's all a brainwashing mind thing, to keep up with the Jones. And quite a few of us never did fall for it. Yes, we are living, not just surviving. And homesteaders have ALLOT of stuff, it's just a different kind of stuff!

-- Cindy in Ky (solidrockranch@msn.com), October 28, 2000.

Really good question!

I think we do support and contribute to the industries and manufacturers that support a homestead lifestyle (wood stoves, solar panels, wind generators, tractors, etc). Just like those whose lifestyles seem to require 50 different pairs of shoes, by buying those shoes they support and contribute to their lifestyle. By the simple act of buying you are contributing.

There isnt really an monolithic economy, that is mainly just a convenient fiction. The economy actually consists of thousands (maybe millions) of sectors that produce goods and services for segments of the population, a manufacturer may produce goods targeted for one, many, or all of those population segments. Homesteaders when considered in that light are really just another segment of the population, one that doesnt consume much, but just another segment. Homesteaders dont support or contribute to those sectors of the economy that have very little or nothing to do with them, mainly service sectors or luxury sectors.

Even if homesteaders (and I have yet to hear a really good definition of a homesteader) could put a magic wall around themselves and require absolutely nothing from the world around them they wouldnt really be considered a parasite, since they arent taking anything away from the surrounding world, unless there was something inside that magic wall that the surrounding world required to function.

Just my opinion, I could be totally off base since this is from a guy who has only vague memories of high school economics. I just read a lot.

Dave

-- Dave (Ak) (Daveh@ecosse.net), October 28, 2000.