In case you missed it, yesterday’s New York Times offered a profile of “freegans” — people who live as much as possible, and relatively well, off other people’s garbage, which they get for free by combing through dumpsters and the like.
That’s fine, if it’s how you want to live, but the article gets really good when the freegans offer their political views:
Many freegans are predictably young and far to the left politically, like Ms. Elia, the 17-year-old, who lives with her father in Manhattan. She said she became a freegan both for environmental reasons and because “I’m not down with capitalism.â€
. . .
Some claim to hold themselves to rigorous standards. “If a person chooses to live an ethical lifestyle it’s not enough to be vegan, they need to absent themselves from capitalism,†said Adam Weissman, 29, who started freegan.info four years ago and is the movement’s de facto spokesman.
Of course it is only because of capitalism that people (even college students!) are so wealthy that they can simply throw away such miraculous products as television sets and computers when they’re done with them, and bums (let us call freegans what they are) can live relatively well off them for no money. These people have not “absented themselves from capitalism” — they’re among its least productive beneficiaries, the participants who truly do not “give back to society.”
I suppose it is yet another benefit of capitalism that it produces people like these to amuse us. I just hope they’re too busy dumpster diving to engage in another far-too-costless activity — voting.
{ 45 comments }
It is a good thing we produce so much waste for these bottom-eaters to enjoy. See, no matter how low you go, you’re still better off than without a free market. =)
Freeganism suffers from the fact that it is unsustainable. But that much is obvious.
The real story here is that these people are well intention and trying to be ethical to the best of their ability. In practical terms they are doing their small part to reform an imperfect system.
By the way, I would hardly way these people are “bottom eaters.” They are as happy, or more happy, than the “well off” typical support of the Mises Institute.
Another crusade against the unspecific “imperfections” of Liberty.
Humans, like all animals, are born into poverty. No “system” can create wealth, only individuals can.
Tragically, the sort of redistribution systems that I have no doubt you favor steal wealth from the people that created it in the first place. This destroys incentive to do the one thing that takes men out of their natural state of poverty, produce.
“They are as happy, or more happy, than the ‘well off’ typical support of the Mises Institute.”
Happy, maybe, but stupid nonetheless. And being “well-intentioned” doesn’t make their ideas any less destructive.
They strike me as typical followers, jumping on the bandwagon without ever holding their philosophy (so-called) up to any critical examination.
“In practical terms they are doing their small part to reform an imperfect system.â€
I wonder what those reforms might be all about? Please enlighten us. We might have missed something.
“They strike me as typical followers, jumping on the bandwagon without ever holding their philosophy (so-called) up to any critical examination.â€
True if they did they would abandon their “philosophy†which is only a flight from reason.
Björn Lundahl
Steven: “The real story here is that these people are well intention and trying to be ethical to the best of their ability.”
How do you know they have good intentions? They could just be lazy. No lazy bum will tell you he’s lazy. He will alwyas invent lofty intentions for himself while demeaning the intentions of others, such as capitalists.
Steven? “They are as happy, or more happy, than the “well off” typical support of the Mises Institute.”
Again, how do you know? Libertarians seem like a happy lot. Besides, who made happiness the measure of all things good? You should read Hayek’s “The Fatal Conceit” in which he shows that socialists enthroned happiness as the measure of goodness after they overthrew traditional morals and purpose. But the choice of happiness is purely arbitrary. They could have chosen anything. They chose happiness because socialists worship pleasure, especially the physical pleasure that comes from freeing one’s instincts for any kind of restraints.
Here’s a relevant quote from Hayek in “The Fatal Conceit,” page 64, with my comments in brackets:
“Much of the ‘alienation’ or unhappiness of modern life stems from two sources, one of which affects primarily intellectuals, the other, all beneficiaries of material abundance. The first is a self-fulfilling prophecy of unhappiness for those within any ‘system’ that does not satisfy rationalistic criteria of conscious control [i.e., socialism]. Thus intellectuals from Rousseau to such recent figures in French and German thought as Foucault and Habermas regard alienation as rampant in any system in which an order is ‘imposed’ on individuals without their conscious consent [as in traditional morals and capitalism]; consequently, their followers tend to find civilisation unbearable – by definition, as it were. Secondly, the persistence of instinctual feelings of altruism and solidarity subject those who follow the impersonal rules of the extended order [capitalism] to what is now fashionably called ‘bad conscience’; similarly, the acquisition of material success is supposed to be attended with feelings of guilt (or ‘social conscience’). In the midest of plenty, then, there is unhappiness not only born of peripheral poverty, but also of the incompatibility, on the part of instinct and of a hubristic reason, with an order that is of a decidely non-instinctive and extra-rational character.”
You may have to read the passage several times to get its meaning because Hayek wasn’t the simplest of writers. Also, much of the terminology depends on explanations in earlier chapters, so you may need to read the whole book, but it’s short, just 140 pages. It won’t waste your time, but will bend you mind!
RogerM, I think that we Austrians can offer others valuable services by exposing faulty and inconsisten t economic logic.
But we cannot objectively argue against value judgements made by other people because in that case we would be imposing our (arbitrary) value judgement s to other. Socialists do that all the time and we must be betters than that group of people.
Adi
Hallo! I hope you are fine.
It is a little odd for me to defend RogerM as he defends his views so well, but who has said that he is “only†an Austrian? He might believe in some ethical principles as well. I think he does.
Some ethical views are surely arbitrary. For example Rothbard has pointed out regarding unemployment and wages that:
“In a free market, wage rates will tend to adjust themselves so that there is no involuntary unemployment, i.e., so that all those desiring to work can find jobs. Generally, wage rates can only be kept above full-employment rates through coercion by government, unions, or both. Occasionally, however, the high wage rates are maintained by voluntary choice (although the choice is usually ignorant of the consequences) or by coercion supplemented by voluntary choice. It may happen, for example, that either business firms or the workers themselves may become persuaded that maintaining wage rates artificially high is their bounden duty. Such persuasion has actually been at the root of much of the unemployment of our time, and this was particularly true in the 1929 depression. Workers, for example, become persuaded of the great importance of preserving the mystique of the union: of union solidarity in “not crossing a picket line,” or not undercutting union wage rates. Unions almost always reinforce this mystique with violence, but there is no gainsaying the breadth of its influence. To the extent that workers, both in and out of the union, feel bound by this mystique, to that extent will they refuse to bid wages downward even when they are unemployed. If they do that, then we must conclude that they are unemployed voluntarily, and that the way to end their unemployment is to convince them that the mystique of the union is morally absurd.â€
In other words, if actions are irrational in point of view of the person doing the actions and even if they are voluntarily undertaken, persuading the person of this fact might do the trick and might be a very good thing. This is also very “Austrian†as Mises himself often pointed out essentially regarding government actions, that they in many cases do not lead to the ends which were intended in the first place or leads to other unintended and undesired ends.
You have also confirmed this view by writing:
“I think that we Austrians can offer others valuable services by exposing faulty and inconsistent economic logic.â€
Now then if this point of view is correct and rational, surely it is also correct and rational to criticize a philosophy that disregards reality and is contradictory. If someone “talks about reforming an imperfect system†without telling what those “imperfections†might be or are unable to do so, certainly this is alright to condemn. Even if the person still disregards this, other people might want to know.
Something that I cannot stand is nihilism.
To be “neutral†is not the same thing as being objective and it is also very dull.
Björn Lundahl
Swedish National Anthem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlHaschCX2s
Carola -Du Gamla Du Fria (Swedish National Anthem):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaNZGUW6eVU&mode=related&search=
Göteborg-We love you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOsme0cTgcw
adi: “But we cannot objectively argue against value judgements made by other people because in that case we would be imposing our (arbitrary) value judgement s to other.”
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how I was trying to impose my values on other people. I was attempting to discredit the idea that happiness is the measure of all good things. If someone wants to believe that, fine, but don’t ask me to go along with it.
Adi
“But we cannot objectively argue against value judgements made by other people because in that case we would be imposing our (arbitrary) value judgements to other. Socialists do that all the time and we must be betters than that group of people.â€
By the way, you are doing a value judgement yourself here.
Björn Lundahl
“By the way, I would hardly way these people are “bottom eaters.” They are as happy, or more happy, than the “well off” typical support of the Mises Institute.”
They are bottom eaters in terms of not producing anything, but they are also not bottom eaters in terms of, they are not really taking anything either.
They feed off of waste and so cost the producing class nothing.
The true bottom eaters in society are that of the political class. They truly produce nothing and consume everything. We Agorists don’t call them the parasitic class for nothing, y’know.
Björn and RogerM;
I think that you are both right that when someone makes an argument by using clearly faulty economic logic we can explain why this is wrong.
But suppose that someone wants to have a lifestyle with minimal consumption then we cannot say that it’s his duty to participate in consumer society. Of course it’s true that these Freegans couldnt have their lifestyle without production of modern society. It’s their error to say that all people could do same as they are doing..
Adi
“But suppose that someone wants to have a lifestyle with minimal consumption then we cannot say that it’s his duty to participate in consumer society.â€
Yes, of course I agree! We are libertarians! We love individualism!
If people generally changed their values and would therefore be happier to not increase material production anymore and instead preferred more leisure, as Austrian economists we would not either believe that this would be a bad thing. Increases of production would stop and leisure would increase. Leisure is also consumption!
What a “high living standard†is composed of is entirely a subjective value.
Björn Lundahl
Nice Miseian references. But simply, libertarianism allows voluntary “communes”, communism does not allow libertarian free trade. Why is that?
Björn Lundah: “If people generally changed their values and would therefore be happier to not increase material production anymore and instead preferred more leisure,”
So sorry, that would by definition be an increase in material production (leisure), increased material wealth. (You would not act, or not act in that way, unless it by definition increased your subjective *material* value.) Another fundamental Austrian failure, along with the ABCT.
Moving along …
Adi: “But suppose that someone wants to have a lifestyle with minimal consumption then we cannot say that it’s his duty to participate in consumer society.”
I agree completely. If people want to live by recycling junk, I actually think that is very noble. It’s far better than getting on welfare. And I admire their work ethic. I was trying to criticize the socialist assumptions behind the statement that the Freegans have 1) good intentions, 2) are moral people and 3) that individual happiness is the chief goal of society.
Thomas Jefferson changed the standard formula that had existed for centuries that stated all men have the right to life, liberty and property, to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He had probably been influenced by French rationalists. As Hayek writes, socialists/rationalists abandoned traditional morals and needing something to replace them, arbitrarily chose happiness.
As for good intentions, if their goal is to destroy capitalism, not through their work, but through their teaching, that ain’t good. And their morals are socialist ones, which isn’t moral either.
I wonder how Freegans would react if they realized what a significant contribution to the working of capitalism they make? They actually are taking something that others place no value in and transforming it into something of value. That’s very honorable and very capitalistic!
Finally, based on what I know about American socialists, they are probably most concerned with what American socialists call a consumer based economy. They get that from Keynes. They think that if Americans quit consuming so much, the economy would collapse. So they believe capitalism forces everyone, against their will, to become overconsuming materialists, which destroys our spirits and the environment. By using the junk other materialists throw away, they’re saving their own souls from the destruction caused by materialism and saving the environment, too. This may seem a lot to gather from one article, but it fits the pattern of the socialist/environmentalist nexus that I have observed over the past 30 years.
This is off the subject, but they might also be interested to know that their efforts are not recorded in the GDP stats. No sale of used property, such as used houses or cars or junk, is included, which shows that socialists don’t appreciate the effort of Freegans as much as capitalists do.
It is not an increase in material production. The word material denotes a physical substance, i.e. something composed of matter. The American Heritage Dictionary defines the adjective material as “Of, relating to, or composed of matter.” The English word is descended from the Latin word mÄteria which means matter. Material production, by definition, does not include the “production” of leisure which is not a physical substance but is more of a subjective state-of-mind.
Can you define what you mean when you say “subjective material value”? Google returns one result for the phrase “subjective material value” (a result entirely unrelated to economics), so I suspect the phrase is something you made up.
rtr, I also want to know why you are claiming that every action increases our subjective material value. I had always assumed that you were using the broader sense of the word ‘wealth’, without having it tied to physical things.
great info
“So sorry, that would by definition be an increase in material production (leisure), increased material wealth.”
Please, before spewing all sorts of nonsense, do yourself a favour and educate yourself in economics. Both neoclassical and Austrian economics differentiate between leisure time (which is by NO means necessarily material – it is a psychic reward) and productive activities. This is in no way a “failure” as you term it.
Hmmm, I envision a world in which everyone lives solely off of the refuse of others.
Now, what is wrong with this picture?
Who constitutes the greater threat – those who find a livelihood in making use of the refuse of others (are there any industries that do this?), or those who are actually parasitic and seek to use the state to extract rents from others?
Clearly, the ragpickers are the REAL problem, so let’s keep mocking them.
TT
Tom,
We mock them because they deserved to be mocked; and not because they choose to live off of garbage, but rather, because they they think they are abstaining from capitalism. They are delusional.
No one is saying they are a “REAL problem”. I think most of us think them amusing and harmless, at least as long as they don’t try to coerce others into their lifestyle.
rtr, do you have an answer for the posts aimed at you above?
Who constitutes the greater threat – those who find a livelihood in making use of the refuse of others (are there any industries that do this?), or those who are actually parasitic and seek to use the state to extract rents from others?
Clearly the latter are the more dangerous, although the former can spread their ignorance violently through the political system.
Are you making a claim that Mises.org blog posts need to be restricted to highlighting only the most immanent violent threats? Why can’t an author point out the “freegan idiots” and their amazingly off-base economic ideology? And where did you get the idea that the blog author thinks that freegans are the “REAL problem”?
There was a story in the NYPost a couple years ago about millionaire kids living as bums in NYC. They got free clothes from the Gap, free cell phones from the city (in case they need to call police or EMTs), food vouchers from restaurants, and tickets to movies. Plus they could earn at least $50 a day (tax free) panhandling. One girl said a stockbroker gave her $500.
Freegans are increasing the demand for waste. Evil capitalists can carelessly toss their garbage secure in the knowledge that it will warm a freegan’s heart!
Panhandling? Why not get paid to squat by becoming a security guard.
When tax time rolls around, I should write off my garbage as a charitable donation.
Kevin B,
Or, at least, count the Freegans as dependents.
Freegans are playing a legitimate role by exploiting opportunities created by our economic system. They cannot be analytically distinguished from other recyclers, including manufacturers that recycle and that make efforts to turn their wastes into profits.
Is only the because they can live with so little apparent effort that the absurd “holier than thou” rhetoric of a few of them galls those here who know they that are actually superior.
“Hmmm, I envision a world in which everyone lives solely off of the refuse of others.
Now, what is wrong with this picture?â€
Not many humans would survive though. The rest would live in poverty.
Björn Lundahl
This one is better:
“Hmmm, I envision a world in which everyone lives solely off of the refuse of others.
Now, what is wrong with this picture?â€
Not many humans would survive though. The rest would starve.
Björn Lundahl
They cannot be analytically distinguished from other recyclers, including manufacturers that recycle and that make efforts to turn their wastes into profits.
And insofar as they are keeping to their own peaceful activities and lifestyle, that’s fine. To each his own.
However, legitimate companies that recycle don’t usually advocate the destruction of the system that makes their line of work possible. It’s the freegan’s romantic delusion that their lifestyle would be possible without capitalism that makes their beliefs noteworthy, if only to point out the irony.
Out of curiosity, why does any critique of these people on the blog bother you so much, TT?
When Bastiat writes:
Do you respond: Leave Robinson Crusoe alone, Bastiat! Can’t you see that he enjoys his life of extra labor (there are benefits to more work, after all — some might say it is a superior life) and leave him be? Crusoe is performing a legitimate function, is pursuing his own lifestyle, and doing so peacefully; you shouldn’t be wasting your time criticizing him!
“Hmmm, I envision a world in which everyone lives solely off of the refuse of others.
Now, what is wrong with this picture?â€
Well the fact that the existence of refuse requires production – if no one produced, refuse would slowly diminish, until none were left.
I think that this quote highlights the idocy of their anti-capitalist ideology:
Does anyone here think that these people would have problems negotiating very low–maybe free prices, since waste disposal is a service–for substandard food from grocers if not for the state’s interference? They see irrational waste and blame capitalism, when the true culprit is the state. That pretty much sums up the left-wing schizophrenia and blindness that permeates such movements.
DC, thanks for the reference to Bastiat. Are you sure you’re reading him correctly? I don’t see that he is criticizing Crusoe, but those who would say: “It is too bad that the sea has cast up on the shore of the Isle of Despair useful articles, boards, provisions, arms, books; for it deprives Robinson Crusoe of an outlet for his efforts; he is poorer.”
Also, it seems that you missed my agreeement with critisms of the the absurdity of the “holier than thou” rhetoric of some of the freegans.
Past that, I am simply contrary. It is interesting to observe the levels of self-satisfaction that goes into some of the comments about the delusion of the freegans. Even those like Scott, who would argue that freegans “see irrational waste and blame capitalism, when the true culprit is the state,” then conclude that freegans are not simply ignorant or confused, but schizophrenic.
Am I wrong to find all of the amusement amusing?
Regards,
TT
In the name of Justice:
Yancey Ward: “Hmmm, I envision a world in which EVERYONE lives SOLELY off of the refuse of others.
Now, what is wrong with this picture?â€
Björn: “Not many humans would survive though. The rest would starve.â€
Anthony: “Well the fact that the existence of refuse requires production – if no one produced, refuse would slowly diminish, until none were left.â€
Anthony’s statement is more correct than mine as Yance Ward wrote that “he envisioned a world in which “everyone†lived “solely†off of the refuse of others.†This would, naturally, lead to everyone’s death.
Björn Lundahl
TT: Are you sure you’re reading him correctly? I don’t see that he is criticizing Crusoe, but those who would say. . .
I agree, and the Freegans have a similar mindset. The French that Bastiat critiqued thought such hardship for (France, but in this analogy) Crusoe made him wealthier; the freegans think that they are bypassing capitalism somehow. Neither understand the nature of wealth; both advocate a lifestyle that seeks to maximize their values, without realizing that it doesn’t accomplish this.
Past that, I am simply contrary.
Am I wrong to find all of the amusement amusing?
I suppose not. Keep in mind that all Mises.org was doing was finding “all of the amusement [of the freegans] amusing.”
But now I’m finding your amusement at the amusement with the amusement amusing, and you likewise seem to be finding amusement at my amusement of your amusement at the amusement. . .and so on. I guess I don’t see *too* much of a point to your objections, beyond simply being contrary, but if that’s your goal then go for it, by all means. Let the amusement continue. . .
Tom,
Schizophrenic in the figurative sense of holding ideas that are incompatible. They advocate a non-productive lifestyle while decrying waste. They criticize “sweatshop labor” while bemoaning the plight of the very poor. It’s all “fair” and “unfair” and of course there must be a damned scheming capitalist behind it all.
DC and Scott, I agree that some of the freegans have their rhetoric wrong, but otherwise, based on the quote I cited, it seems to me that Bastiat would stand against criticism of them. They can determine how they wish to live and if the flotsam and jetsam of moder markets makes it easy for them to live unconventional lives that are to their satisfaction, the more power to them (as long as they are not stealing). We can both dismiss and understand their self-rationalizations, which are essentially harmless even as it reinforces their own choice of livelihood.
Same goes for the Amish and others, like the Hutterites, who are proving to have a very successful model for life on the high plains: http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=510. Are these groups also deluded by religious belief and other groupthink?
Yancey, these are the dangerous folks that I prefer to be mocked and excoriated, compared to whom a focus on freegans seems like a frivolous distraction:
“Reshuffling the Deck Chairs on the National Review cruise. Titanic”
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20070702&s=hari070207
Talk about dangerous self-delusion, one whoes legacies include increasing hostility, suspicion and despair, alsong with a trillion $ tax on our children but is making rent-seeking elites and politicians (sometimes one and the same) quite rich.
Tom
While the freegan lifestyle is extreme i believe that its great, things dont go to waste if its usable then right on by all means USE it. I rather that the garbage make someone happy then see it rot in some large dump but freegans cannot completly put down those who partake in the capatilist system because in the end those are the very same people who are putting food on your freely obtained table. Freegans can only survive in this type of economy, its fine that they feel this is one way to fight The Man but dont bite the hand that feeds you.
Well….I just had quite the run in with the “Anti-Capitalist Freegns” from NY and wow!, are they ate up with the hate for anti-capitalist. I dumpster dive, but make well over 100k per year and have gone to Law School and have a Masters an am working on another one. So it isn’t out of necessity and hating anything, but rather out of getting some pretty cool vintage stuff out of the waste stream and keeping it out of the landfill. I run and own a FreeCycle group in my area and moderate 6 others and moderating means simply keeping spam off the boards (i.e ‘penis enlargement herbal remedies†and such), but the NY freegan board actually engages in a dictatorship and will abolish and block any messages not in line with their fundamentalist thinking. So, what to do?
Well, I put a wiki together on various types of Freegansim and asking people to add to it and feel free to openly discuss and topic on freeganism they wished. It is after all a WIKI and the whole point of a wiki (http://freegansunited.wetpaint.com/) is for anyone to add to it. So if you feel like it, go ahead and add. And there is not mission about anti-capitalism at all. I own and operate businesses and according to them I am an evil capitalist. Whatever….but I think they are all patients in a mental hospital because no one I know is more extreme than that group.
And one guy who is beyond nutso actually proposed that I am some green liver hired by some corporations to “infiltrate the Freegan group†for the FBI conspiracy theory malarkey. Now, that kind of thinking IS twisted!
Not many humans would survive though. The rest would starve.
I think this is a great way for a Mexican like me to send money back home so that I could save on both food and rent. I can sleep on the job as a night security guard and not only get a free place to sleep but get paid to squat by merely wearing a uniform. Then during the day work a regular day job where people know me as a truck driver
Comments on this entry are closed.