Welfare dependency, alienation, unemployment, cultural dissolution, THE CURE!
By urbandekay
@urbandekay (18278)
November 23, 2012 3:50pm CST
When William Beveridge released his report that lead to the creation of the Welfare state in UK, one of the aims was to free people from what has become known as welfare dependency. But one of the problems with any system that deals with people is that it changes the people involved, or rather they change to take advantage of it, to manipulate it to their ends. (Incidentally, the same is true of free markets, the very understanding of the concept that free markets are self regulating due to the individuals acting in their own self interest to maximise profits while reducing risk is exactly what caused people to trust the free market and that rectification of the abstract concept based on individual action led people to take risks they would not otherwise have done.)
Now I do not propose that what I am about to suggest is a perfect solution or even one that is completely worked out, only that I think it might solve some fundamental problems in modern society, ok here goes.
Imagine a law such that every person between such and such age or one person from a family had to cultivate an area of land for food production or, in certain circumstances, could employ someone to cultivate it for them
What benefits to society do I see this providing?
1. Reduction in food imports
2. The rich may choose to pay someone to cultivate land for them, thus creating employment and distributing money from city rich to rural poor
3. The unemployed could be paid money, if necessary, to subsidise the money they earn cultivating land
4. Would discourage city living, leading with the benefit above to a regeneration of rural economy and create and/or strengthen rural communities
5. Set aside land could be used, in 2006 there were approximately 500,000 hectares of land in set-aside this is 5,000 million m2 or the equivalent of 20 million allotments or 40 million half allotments. There are also nearly a third of a million existing allotments
6. The potential saving in benefit could be used to buy land that might otherwise go for development
7. Reduction in transport, food produced locally requires less transport.
So, criticisms, comments if you please
all the best, urban
4 people like this
4 responses
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
24 Nov 12
Some of these points are quite good, except for the moving to the country. It would not work if half the year the climate is very cold, such as here in the prairie provinces in Canada and also in the border states of North Dakota, Montana, northern New York, etc. However it would work everywhere else. I am thinking of poor people not being able to afford a car and the bus service being very slow. You have to cut the unemployment checks to a reasonable time for people to find work and not two or more years. I would also suggest a system such as in Habitant Humanity where people can work on the land and can be paid for so much cultivation so that they eventually use it. It would be sort of like a mortgage for land rather then for houses.
Food produced locally would work where there is a variety of food - I know what I am talking about. I have in-laws who produced their own food locally only what they produce was pigs, wheat, potatoes, carrots, peas, onions, hardly any lettuce and salad stuff. That lead to a high risk of strokes. So in the central and warmer states where the growing season is longer, and you can get more fruit, it would work, but not in the north.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
24 Nov 12
I think we Brits are made of sterner stuff, we manage with old cars in the country and laugh in the face of bad weather.
I think a scheme whereby those that work the land became owners eventually is very good one, people take more care and put more into that, which they own
all the best, urban
1 person likes this
@urbandekay (18278)
•
25 Nov 12
I don't understand, we already have years when it starts raining in November and finishes in March, with heavy soils where I live this makes cultivation hard but we manage. We already have snow, but none of these prevent cultivation 250m2 is sufficient to grow enough food for a family of 4 but I am not advocating subsistence farming only that food grown could reduce costs
all the best, urban
2 people like this
@suspenseful (40192)
• Canada
24 Nov 12
And I suppose in Great Britain, being somewhat similar to the climate on the west coast of British Columbia, the danger would be flooding, and cooler weather in the winter, plus a lot of rain. And if the climate is getting cooler, the chance of frost and snow in the winter, also being very slippery. So that would also limit what you can grow there.
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
27 Nov 12
well, the idea certainly has merit-- something like our original Homestead Act-- which we don't have any longer. If it were designed like the Homestead Act, then of course, there would be abuse on a small scale, but it would be a good thing, on the whole. Getting our government to part with the land, however, would be very difficult. They have the land, of course--but between the bureaucracy and the environmentalists, we don't use it as it should be used. I currently am arguing with the local tree hugging nuts again, as I did last winter, due to their tunnel vision and extraordinary denseness concerning the local deer and coyote problem. Here in the good old USA, we would have to get the tree huggers under control and get them to see common sense for it to work in areas like mine. We have a lot of wild life here still, in many parts of the country, that would be impacted--but the environmental crowd are so obsessed with their own skewed view of reality (I doubt any of them have ever lived with their food, veggie or animal) that strong steps would have to be taken to deal with them.
I am assuming the allotment holder would get ownership of the land after a period of time, as we did it here--with ownership comes responsibility and an increased sense of prosperity. Of course the downside of ownership, I believe (at least here) is people would sell up and move back to what was left of the cities--or perhaps they would hire share croppers. Allotment size would also vary wildly here, as in some parts of the country you can't get much out of the land, and other are a bread basket waiting to be cultivated. On the whole, I wouldn't mind being involved were such a thing made available.
@urbandekay (18278)
•
27 Nov 12
I'll have to look at the Homestead Act, am unfamiliar with it. I like the idea that people would come to own the land but it has the downside that the land might be split and left to different children and the size of land I am talking about is so small that, that would make it useless. Also, as you say, provision would have to be made to prevent sale of the land or pretty soon the scheme would die out.
all the best, urban
@urbandekay (18278)
•
27 Nov 12
Interesting, I never knew any of that. Do you get much gold from your land?
all the best, urban
@chrystalia (1208)
• Tucson, Arizona
27 Nov 12
When we opened the west, it was surveyed into sections, and each section had 40 townships. In each township, a certain amount of land was put aside for building state universities and agricultural schools, and the rest was divided into 40 acre plots (16.18 hectares or so). Every person over 21 could claim a plot, and had to build a house on it, live there 9 months out of the year and improve the land, and pay a fee for 7 years-- then they owned it, and could do as they wished for it. That's why the western half of the country is all laid out in grids--even today. We settled the west and Alaska that way, and the land that wasn't taken became government land-- which they now lease for grazing, for logging, for mining and things. I have several gold mining claims myself on federal land, that I pay a small fee to keep and work--but I can't live on them, nor to they ever become my property-- the government doesn't allow that any longer. It worked well, because a married couple could get one allotment each, and any adult children could claim one each--put them together you have a large farm, and with much of the Midwest being unsuitable for ordinary agriculture at the time, due to lack of rainfall, it worked.
@JohnRok1 (2051)
•
23 Nov 12
There is no point to set aside as now implemented, but rotational set aside (but no more than 14.28571428571%) has its value, especially if we're going to go organic.
Better be sure the land is fit for cultivation. Some land is only fit for animal husbandry (which means less bliss for VeganBliss). Other land is too polluted (though this is less than it used to be, thanks to the sterling efforts of the late Prof Derek Bryce-Smith).
Pray have me excused - I have magenta fingers!
@urbandekay (18278)
•
24 Nov 12
Set aside land no lounger has to be rotated it can be designated permanently. What is unsuitable agriculturally for animal husbandry makes good allotment land, the logistics change with smaller scale production.
all the best, urban
@urbandekay (18278)
•
24 Nov 12
Yes, originally set aside had to be rotated but that rule was subsequently abolished. Even on the small scale of allotments rotation is commonly practised and there is no need, agriculturally, to rotate set aside land. Perhaps there is a confusion her3 between the EU policy of rotation of set aside land and the agricultural practice of rotation, the later for husbandry benefits and the later, presumably, for some arcane reason known only to EU mandarins
all the best, urban
@robspeakman (1700)
•
24 Nov 12
My first reaction when reading this was one of shock and dread of another mad idea from the lentil munchers.....
However I thought about and in theory it is a brilliant ideas - In theory.
Communism is a wonderful idea in theory.
The plan has flaws in it -
The first flaw being people, I cultural change would need to take place, a massive change. Most people are lazy and selfish. I can not see the mindset of people changing with one generation. Can you honestly see people doing it for themselves?
Next - this scheme would be huge, impossible to police. Why grow your own when you can steal somebody elses. Any form of local protection and security could lead to vigilante group handing out summary punishments... That is a step back.
Another point that seems valid, especially this year in the UK would be the weather. Off the top of my head I can not say the percentage of crops that have failed this year following the rains and subsequent flood - A plan would have to be in place to provide food and income on a national scale if there was future crop failure.
Then there is corruption - we are corrupt, the crops will end up be provided to the highest bidder.
Not all negative though - I think there is a seed of a wonderful idea there.
I think a plan like this needs to be start slowly and in test areas, then build it up gradually - Set a reasonable time frame, say 25 years. this would allow any problems to be ironed out of the scheme. This will also give the general public a chance to absorb this scheme into everyday life. We can also use the time to introduce the scheme into the school program and teach the next generation.
I also think that it would only work if done on a community basis, Have the land assigned to a village or a group of families - A co-op if you like. The co-op could own a share of land and yield. Any surplus could be sold locally.
A chnage to planning laws would also need to occur - Time to stop allowing supermarket to build where ever they want. A supermarket should be limited to city centres and large towns. This would encourage the return of local shops selling local fare.
Co-ops would be easier to police and monitor than individual plots.
Just a few ideas.
Keep the faith
@urbandekay (18278)
•
24 Nov 12
Well there are thousands of allotments already that don't suffer from excessive theft and the weather also seems to be less problem on small scale.
The gradual introduction I agree would be the way to go
all the best, urban
@urbandekay (18278)
•
25 Nov 12
Regarding theft that is a good point but perhaps rather cynically I would suggest that those that are engaged in such theft are those unemployed, that is a generalisation of course but may hold some truth. Engaged in work or employed cultivating others land they might find less time to thieve? Some might identify with those from whom they steal since both they and the victim are engaged in horticultural pursuits, which might reduce the tenancy to steal.
I see the scheme operating in a communal manner, I have looked at allotment associations here, drawn from a diverse spectrum of the local population. People start to cooperate finding that makes the makes their tasks easier. They have a communal shed with tea making facilities.
Of course I recognise such progress would not be universal but even a low success rate would have, I believe, a beneficial effect on society and in the long term would engender a seed change in society as a whole
all the best, urban
@robspeakman (1700)
•
24 Nov 12
True, but we are proposing doing this on a much grander scale.
The weather would play a part on a grander scale, theft is on the increase in allotments. Making it a nationwide scheme would increase this. The is also a growing number of livestock theft from farms and small holdings for food and the black market - The problem is already there.
Good post - makes you think
