Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on February 3, 2013 at 7:09am

Land is available at a reasonable price, you just have to look around. After a quick search I found this land for sale at 1375$/acre. The area is 1200 acres which is plenty for a hundred families. They are offering it for 1.65 million dollars. Now the land may not be arable, it is hunting ground. This is just to show that there are opportunities.

http://www.arkansaslandforsale.com/Locket%20Mountain%20Prime%20Deer...

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on February 3, 2013 at 7:31am

Then there is this 26250 acre profitable ranch with 9500 cattle, complete infrastructure with several houses, high-end owners villa, complete machinery, airplane landing strip. 20 million USD makes it just 760 USD/acre! Find a thousand investors and each one puts down 20 thousand only. But this is in Brazil.

http://www.brazilfarmsforsale.com/real-estate/5SCHHG6TR2URYX27P5MSK...

Permalink Reply by mystery on February 4, 2013 at 7:32pm

You are exactly right Less Prone. But to find a hundred families that have the same thinking would be a hard thing to do, I think.

It would be hard to get that much money together also. Most people with a mind set like that, does not have any money put aside. That is why they want out of the system. Not all but most are pretty poor.

I have been trying for a couple of years now to get my land ready for the things that I think are to come. It is a hard job. Not to many that are trust worthy, i feel like I would sometimes like to bring others in and then I get cut off at the knees by someone I thought I could trust.

It is not some theory or conspiracy either. It is fact. You can not continue to print money at the rate the u.s. government is and expect it to hold its value. The dollar will collapse. The only true thing left with any value will be the precious metal, and maybe land if you can keep a hold of it.

Land can be bought pretty cheap around where I live still. It is good land to if you pay attention to what you are buying. Some can be bought with the option to buy more at a later date also.

If you would like to discuss this more let me know. I liked your article and your suggestion very much.

 

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on February 5, 2013 at 5:17am

I'm aware of the difficulties in having even a hundred people together. I'm presenting an idea that I believe deserves analysis and discussion. There are many kinds of situations for different groups of people where  problems put  together may result in something new. It is through ideas and discussions that people may find unknown synergies. Ideas lead to discussion and finally action. For discussion you need a forum like this one. For instance, there are people without works on one side and farmers needing work force on another side. I see here potential for moneyless business.

It is obvious that the people are being ripped off by the system at an accelerating speed. This year is the hundredth anniversary of the usury and abuse system called the Federal Reserve that in fact is neither Federal nor Reserve but is privately controlled. People are sinking deeper and deeper in debt. Jobs have been exported to Far East because "the works force is cheaper there". That, however, is not the real reason. The rulers want helpless and humble people that cannot resist tyranny.

The important point of having many people working together is that they form a community that can defend its members. Its like one for all and all for one. The push for tyranny is so obvious that it seems almost desperate. The second amendment is under fire. What are the rulers afraid of? When the society starts to ferment old structures often fall apart and new ones emerge.

Finally, when the mankind awakens from its slumber the following pieces of tyranny jig saw puzzle have to go; Privately controlled central banking, United Nations and its subdivisions, WTO, World Bank, World Conservation Bank, BIS, IMF, WHO, Tax free foundations undermining free and just society, and many more. These will come down only by the people demanding action. For that people have to come together. Ron Paul set in motion a movement that still has momentum, and there others too.

Permalink Reply by mystery on February 6, 2013 at 10:02pm

What do you consider to be the biggest obstacle for a group of people coming together and making a self sustaining community with lasting ability? Perhaps you could explain what would be in your opinion on a solution to the obstacle.

I would like to put forward that perhaps the amount of people and property could start a little smaller in an area that offers you the ability to acquire more land in the future as an option. 

As things grew and improved you could always attract more people. People with a little bit more financial ability. But I have to say that in doing this a community would have to be cautious in letting such a person in. Letting such a person in with money may make them consider their financial contribution was so large that they should have more than one vote more than us who have made a smaller financial contribution, even though our effort as far a community is large. 

Lets continue this discussion.  

Permalink Reply by mystery on February 8, 2013 at 7:27pm

Less are you around? Did you see my reply?

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on February 8, 2013 at 8:48pm

I Just came home. It's carnival time. Your idea about starting small and getting more land later is a good idea when it is possible. I think the participation should have limits, I mean minimum and maximum so that no-one would get upper hand. Every one should have the same voting rights.

Permalink Reply by mystery on March 2, 2013 at 10:23pm

If you have time you need to bring this page alive again. Time is short and thing are getting harder for all of the little people. If you have the extra time please make the effort.

Permalink Reply by T. HuMaN on February 4, 2013 at 11:36pm

LES, ALL I CAN ADD IS A PIECE I HAVE BEEN WORKING ON REGARDING ANARCHIST ECONOMICS FROM THE BOOK 'INDIVIDUALIST ANARCHISTS'. HERE IT IS:

Money, Wages and Monopoly

 

Excerpted and edited from the book: ‘The Individual Anarchists, An Anthology of Liberty (1881-1908)’, Frank H. Brooks, editor. Transaction Publishers, 1994

 

Events from the late 18^th and early 19^th century, the days of the Robber Barons, continue to haunt America today. The idea of “Government” (the use of aggression against the non-aggressive) as well as “Anarchy” (voluntary contracts between free individuals for all social needs, including defense against aggressors) are just as pertinent.

 

The cornerstone of government is compulsion, aggression, invasion and violence. The cornerstone of Anarchist philosophy is that of, “every person has a natural right to do what he wills, provided that in the doing thereof he infringes not the equal rights of any other person.” (Spencer)Or, “Anarchy is defined, not as the absence of all physical compulsion, but absence of physical compulsion of the non-aggressive. Individuals would not be left to do as they choose. They would be left to do as they choose only within certain limits – those of equal freedom. Criminals or invaders would be restrained or punished by voluntary organizations for defense, and only non-aggressive persons would be exempt from interference. In other words, Anarchy is synonymous with liberty for all, not with liberty for some…” (Yarros)

 

Obviously, then, the way to achieve economic freedom would be to eliminate the barriers to the natural wage of labor (the product) by the elimination of monopolies; especially monopolies of interest, land and profit.

 

‘All who derive income from the natural and just wage labor comes from these three – interest, land and profit. These constitute the trinity of usury and are just different methods of paying tribute for the use of capital. Capital is stored up labor that has already received its pay in full and its use ought to be gratuitous on the principal that labor is the only basis for price; that the lender of capital is entitled to its return intact and nothing more. The only reason the banker, stockholder, landlord, manufacturer and merchant are able to extract usury from labor lies in the fact that they are backed by legal privilege, or monopolies and thus the only way for labor to claim its natural wage, its product, is to strike down monopoly.’ (Tucker paraphrased)

 

“Whatever … the State Socialists may claim or disclaim, their system, if adopted, is doomed to end in a State religion, to the expense of which all must contribute and at the altar of which all must kneel; a State school of medicine by whose practitioners the sick must invariably be treated; a State system of hygiene prescribing what all must and must not eat, drink, wear and do; a State code of morals which will not content itself with punishing crime, but will prohibit what the majority decide to be a vice; a State system of instruction which will do away with all private schools, academies and colleges; a State nursery in which all children must be brought up in common at the public expense; and finally, a State family, with an attempt at stirpiculture, or scientific breeding in which no man and woman will be allowed to have children if the State prohibits them and no man and woman can refuse to have children if the State orders them. Thus will Authority achieve its acme and Monopoly be carried to its highest power. Such is the idea of the logical State Socialist…

 

“This is in contrast to Anarchism which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations and that the State should be abolished.” (Tucker)

 

‘It’s easy to see that capital has manipulated legislation whereby unlimited competition is allowed in supplying labor, thus keeping wages down to a mere subsistence level. However, almost no competition at all is allowed in supplying capital which thus keeps the rate of interest on money, of house rent and ground rent and of manufacturers profits on patent protected and tariff protected gods at as high a level as the people can bear. In this the economist has been inconsistent. They believe in liberty to compete with labor to reduce his wages, but not in the liberty to compete with capitalists in order to reduce his usury!

 

‘Instead of socializing the ownership of capital perhaps it would be better to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few.

 

‘This by the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its use down to cost. Absolute free trade. Laissez faire the universal rule rather than State protected monopolies. The destruction of the money monopoly [banks and issuers of credit], land monopoly, tariff monopoly and patent monopoly opens the door to the freest competition resting on the fundamental principal of the freedom of the individual, his right to sovereignty over himself, his products and his affairs.’

 

“The Anarchist does not want to destroy all existing institutions with a crash and then inaugurate the substituting process on their ruins. He simply asks to be let alone in substituting false systems now so that they may be gradually fall to pieces by their own dead weight. He asks the humble privilege of being allowed to set up a free bank in peaceable competition with the government subsidized class bank on the opposite corner. He asks the privilege of establishing a private post office in fair competition with the governmentally established one. He asks to be let alone in his establishing his title to the soil by free occupation, cultivation and use rather than by a title hampered by vested rights which were [are] designed to keep the masses landless. He asks to be allowed to set up his domestic relations on the basis of free love in peaceable competition with ecclesiastically ordered love which is a crime against Nature and the destroyer of love, order and harmony itself. He asks not to be taxed upon what has already been robbed from him under a machine in which he has practically no voice and no choice. In short, the Anarchist asks for free land, free money, free trade, free love and the right to free competition with the existing order at his own cost and on his own responsibility.

 

“Is there any violence in all this? Is there artificial leveling? Finally, is there any want of readiness to substitute something in the place of what we condemn? No, all we ask is the right to peaceably place Liberty in fair competition with privilege. Existing governments are pledged to deny this. Herein will reside the coming struggle.

 

“Who is the party of assault and violence? Is it the Anarchist, simply asking to be let alone in minding his own business, or is it the power which, aware that it cannot stand on its own merits, violently perpetuates itself by crushing all attempts to test its efficiency and pretensions through peaceable rivalry?” …..

 

There are two ways, and only two, of effecting the distribution of wealth. One is to let it distribute itself in a free market in accordance with the natural operation of economic law; the other is to distribute it arbitrarily in accordance with statute law. One is Anarchism; the other is State Socialism. The latter, in its worst and most probable form, is the exploitation of labor by officialdom, and at its best is a regime of spiritless equality secured at the expense of liberty and progress; the former is a regime of liberty and progress with as close an approximation to equality as is compatible therewith. All this is all the equality that we ought to have. A greater equality than is compatible with liberty is undesirable. The moment we invade liberty to secure equality we enter upon a road which knows no stopping-place short of the annihilation of all that is best in the human race. If absolute equality is the ideal; if no man must have the slightest advantage over another – then the man who achieves greater results through superiority of muscle or skill or brain must not be allowed to enjoy them. All that he produces in excess of that which the weakest and stupidest produce must be taken from him and distributed among his fellows… [S]trength and skill and intellect and superiority of every kind, must be confiscated. And a beautiful world it would be when absolute equality had been thus achieved! Who would live in it? Certainly no freeman.

 

Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labor; it will abolish all means whereby any laborer can be deprived of any of his product; but it will not abolish the limited inequality between one laborer’s product and another’s. Now, because it has not this power last named, there are people who say: We will have no liberty, for we must have absolute equality. I am not one of them. If I can go through life free and rich, I shall not cry because my neighbor, equally free, is richer. Liberty will ultimately make all men rich; it will not make all men equally rich. Authority may (and may not) make all men equally rich in purse; it will certainly make them equally poor in all that makes life best worth living. (Tucker)

Permalink Reply by Less Prone on June 5, 2014 at 7:25pm

Cut out the parasites