It seems, R0bert, that Garra is prepared to 'wear the consequences' in downshifting. Most people who put the thought into this kind of lifestyle change do.

I am now working part time hours. I'm not riding 'piggy-back' either. I now work close to home in my local community outside of the suburban sprawl. My entire lifestyle revolves around my community where I spend my money, my time and my energy. I worry whether I can continue to pay my mortgage and maintain my home (banks don't look so kindly upon part time or casual workers), but I wouldn't return to the rat-race.

Face it R0bert, the majority of people want to do the right thing - only the minority cheat or 'ride piggy-back' and they, unfortunately, will always be with us no matter what legislation is enacted. No reason to make things harder for the voluntarily less affluent.

Robert – Downshifting is fine – I have done it moving from London to Melbourne and about to make another move to the coast, however, my strategies rely on no ones subsidies.
I agree fully with your view – if I want to make the move I pay for the move.
Fortunately our strategy for relocation, has been assisted by fate, a job opportunity for my partner occurring and a business opportunity for me after we decided to make the change.
That was more luck than good planning. However, even if it had not been that way, something else would have arisen.

Garra “part of my 'downshifting' involves me forgoing personal income …… We grow much of our own food and deliberately support local producers over cheaper imports when we source our stock.”

Trinity “It seems, R0bert, that Garra is prepared to 'wear the consequences' in downshifting. Most people who put the thought into this kind of lifestyle change do.”

The great thing with Personal choice – it is a “PERSONAL” Choice or decision.

However, imposing one own personal choices onto other people or presuming there is something wrong with other peoples ‘choices’ and ‘values’, when one knows nothing about the circumstances, desires, expectations or capabilities they hold or aspire to is arrogant at best and errs toward the dictatorial on the darker end of the scale.

Ultimately, a fulfilled life is one where we live by the outcomes of our own decisions and not the outcome of decisions taken and imposed upon us by others.

Dear All

Some of the best works regarding over consumption, the needs and indeed govt. sponsorship of consumption can be found at the Centre Of Critical Knowledge.

Prof. Swarmy Gee has interviewed many western govt officials and had devised a model known as the 'judder' model to visualise our ever increasingly destructive wants and consumption patterns

garra, sorry if my post appeared to imply that your downshifting was done at the expense of others. It was not my intent to suggest that.

As previously stated I like the concept of a downshift as long as those who do it accept the consequential loss of spending power which may accompany it and do not advocate for more government services to be paid for by those who have not downshifted. Sometimes I wonder about the reality of a loss in spending power, there are also opportunities to reduce expenses as a trade off - growing more food, chasing bargans etc.

In previous threads I've floated the idea that our communal obligation should be based on units of time rather than on the choices we make about income. Should my 'choice' to work full time carry with it a greater obligation to society over that carried by someone who 'chooses' otherwise? I think not.

For me downshifting is not currently an option - trying to recover financially from divorce and C$A doing their bit to ensure that I help support someone who has been in low gear long term. Maybe one day.

Cheers
R0bert

"Ultimately, a fulfilled life is one where we live by the outcomes of our own decisions and not the outcome of decisions taken and imposed upon us by others."

All well and good. If the fulfilled life of living by the outcomes of your own decisions, however, involves frivolous and excessive consumption that depletes more than your fair share of the earth's resources, the implications of this selfishness are unfortunately imposed on the rest of us.

Bronwyn "All well and good. If the fulfilled life of living by the outcomes of your own decisions, however, involves frivolous and excessive consumption that depletes more than your fair share of the earth's resources, the implications of this selfishness are unfortunately imposed on the rest of us. "

Now what is wrong with this statement

Let us see -

"involves frivolous and excessive consumption" - such definition relies on a judgement. Since I do not recognise your "standard" as valid and you lack the wisdom to judge or qualify what is, by my standard, "frivolous or excessive", such a suggestion is meaningless.

"fair share" - please quantify what is "fair". Before you attempt to suggest any such "expectation" - I assume it is based on your own standard and not on some generally accepted measure (which has not been defined) and is thus, eaually "invalid".

"Earth Resources" - mmmm - I guess some of us find diamonds where others just see dirt - so earths resources is some meaningless motherhood measure of incalculable dimension - or I dare you - give it a try?

"selfishness" - what is more selfish -

me living my life and leaving you to live yours ?

or

you living your life and imposing your standards of consumption upon me, based on your measures of modesty (versus frivolity), prudence (versus excessiveness), "fair" (versus "unfair") or "egalitarian" (versus selfish)?

I see nothing modest, prudent, fair or egalitarian in your statement.

I see your statement as typical of all socialist mantras - something the small minded attempt to impose so as to exercise power and to curtail those of us seek to excell beyond the socialist standard of mediocre, based on what passed as values but are really motivated by envy and an overextended inferiority complex.