So I've read about these guys like Mark Boyle, Daniel Suelo, et al. who are frequently referred to as "moneyless" or "living without money." They're voluntarily houseless (not homeless, since they've made homes in caves and under tarps or whatever... I actually prefer the word "houseless" to "homeless" in general, but that's another story) and deliberately quit working, living in a conventional dwelling, or – this is the big one – spending any of their own money.
And yeah, I'm using "any of their own" quite deliberately there.
I actually find lots to admire about these guys. Their impact on the environment is zilch compared to the average human. They've completely rejected the consumerist fantasy that entraps so many people. They reuse things that other people throw away. There's lots more, but you get the idea. They harm no one and I suppose they help humanity in some small way through their example.
All that being said, they're not "moneyless." They depend on other people having money in order to live as they do.
For example, Daniel Suelo eats others' leftover food. That's great. I mean, we throw away outrageous amounts of grub at an extraordinary (and completely unnecessary) cost to the environment. And yet, people still had to (channeling the little red hen here!) get paid to till the soil, sow the seed, care for the field, harvest the grain, process the bounty, ship it to distributors, sell it to baking operations, bake the bread, package it, ship it to retailers, and run it through the checkout line.
And someone had to buy the loaf, too.
What I'm getting at is that these guys' lifestyle is totally dependent on other people working for money. The same thing applies to their health care. In the event of an accident or severe illness, would they not seek medical attention? A lot of money went into (and continues to power) our ridiculously futuristic health care system that saves people from all sorts of shit that would have killed them less than a century ago.
Do these moneyless folk ever get online? Methinks many of them do. Other peoples' money pays for public libraries and the computers that live there.
Anyway, I'm not saying that these people are frauds. I'm not saying I don't admire them. In fact, I kind of DO admire them.
But to call them "moneyless" or say that they live "without money" is folly. They simply choose not to earn money for themselves. Indirectly, they spend others' money all the time.