I don't see how it's trolling - the assertion is that one can be free to do things by reducing ones needs _to zero_. My assertion is that once free one needs resources (eg financial) to enable the doing of things. Boyd for example spent millions - through his job - on the development of fighter aircraft.
For me to get to the library costs ~£3 in bus fare, they don't have the book and so there is a stocking fee. They have an online order system which is also charged for which of course I need to own a computer. These things cost money to do.
My assertion is that the basic statement is absurdly false - no-one has given a context in which it is true.
Perhaps Boyd was prone to hyperbole and instead meant "reducing your needs will deplete your finances at a lower rate thus leaving you free to spend your money on doing things"; not very pithy and hardly a surprising statement.
Don't get me wrong, Boyd seems like a remarkable and insightful character but I'm calling him out on this one, at least unless someone can provide context to justify the quote.
For me to get to the library costs ~£3 in bus fare, they don't have the book and so there is a stocking fee. They have an online order system which is also charged for which of course I need to own a computer. These things cost money to do.
My assertion is that the basic statement is absurdly false - no-one has given a context in which it is true.
Perhaps Boyd was prone to hyperbole and instead meant "reducing your needs will deplete your finances at a lower rate thus leaving you free to spend your money on doing things"; not very pithy and hardly a surprising statement.
Don't get me wrong, Boyd seems like a remarkable and insightful character but I'm calling him out on this one, at least unless someone can provide context to justify the quote.