• LillyPip@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Search off-grid properties. They exist.

    For the downvoters, here are some in the US:

    https://www.landsearch.com/off-grid/united-states

    Plenty of gorgeous listings.

    And in Australia:

    https://www.realestate.com.au/news/for-sale-australias-best-offgrid-properties/

    Some very beautiful places, and also some very cheap.

    Or Iceland:

    https://www.bluehomes.com/buy-secluded-Iceland/ISL/10AL/AL/en/theme3.html

    Or Siberia?

    https://farmlands-agency.com/

    • Deceptichum@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      Off grid in Australia is a joke.

      You’re still located within a council who have bullshit laws and won’t even allow you live in a tiny home on your land because it’s not up to code that only allows for McMansions.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        But you never have to pay for utilities, rent, taxes for schools or roads or services … obviously it wouldn’t be completely free to purchase the land.

        • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          2 days ago

          Ok, but if your plan is to live solo forever and not interact with society, you’d basically need to pay for it upfront. That means you need a lot of money all at once, otherwise you’ll still need income, which limits the ability you have to be separate from society.

          • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Yes, that would need to be the plan. One upfront payment then never paying for utilities or other things forever. That’s the only way this works. You don’t need income, because you live on rabbits and fish and your garden. If your house burns, you put it out with buckets from your stream. You build your house yourself by cutting down trees.

            If you get sick, you either die or you don’t.

            I think this is madness, but that’s how you do this.

            • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              2 days ago

              Right, and you get why this is impossible for most people? That was my original point. Most people, even if they want to do this, can’t. It’s unaffordable.

              The point is that your suggestion that someone is free to do this is just very much not the case.

              • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Of course I do. And again, that’s my point.

                People romanticise this, but it’s impossible for many reasons. You can easily try, but we have societies for a reason.

                Everyone is free to do this, but good luck in practice. It’s not just hard, and it’s not just stupid, but why the fuck would you want this? It’s insane, and we’re not geared for this.

                Life in the wilderness is not a Disney movie. It’s so ruthlessly difficult, that’s why society exists. We are stronger, safer, and happier together.

    • papalonian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      People aren’t down voting because they don’t think the properties exist, they’re down voting because your argument doesn’t really make sense. People that are saying, “I’d rather just live in the wilderness” are not the ones that can afford to just purchase land. You almost will certainly have to pay taxes on the land as well.

      Saying you can not participate in society by participating in society very hard so you can afford to participate a little less and a little further from society isn’t what these people are looking for, they want to hop in a truck with some tools, drive into the woods, never to be seen again. Without a million dollar piece of paper saying they’re allowed to.

      • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        I like how your dream of self-sufficiency starts with there being g a road you can drive on. Or do you think most woods are reasonable places for driving trucks? You’d be better off buying a donkey or mule. Worst case scenario, you’d have a bit more meat to eat before you starved.

        • papalonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          I was speaking figuratively, but if you want to be literal, I never said anything about a road, and there’s many kinds of trucks that can drive over many types of terrain.

          • GreyEyedGhost@piefed.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 hours ago

            The kind of truck that can handle any kinds of undeveloped forest are more expensive than the land you say is too expensive for the people who would want to do what you’re saying. So, unrealistic expectations all around.

            • papalonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              many kinds of trucks that can drive over many types of terrain

              truck that can handle any kinds of undeveloped forest

              Again, not what I said. A second hand F150 or Tacoma will get you damn near anywhere you want to go that is not heavily forested and is certainly cheaper than a plot of land. You’re trying to pick minute details of my comments and blow them up into the most literal sense of the words yet somehow failing to actually read what I’m saying.

              At this point the conversation is a day old and the chance of actually interesting dialogue coming from it is practically zero, so any further misreadings will have to be done on your own.

      • LillyPip@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well yeah, I get that. But there are plots for really cheap, but they don’t have any kind of access to water, sewage, or whatever. Plots for like 10,000 or less. That sounds like a lot, I suppose, but it isn’t. I think it’s more that people don’t understand how money works,