The Free Land Act of 2011

Originally posted by brindle
How about wild horses,bison...How much land did you factor in your equation for them?

They could be free to roam as well. Like I said, this is a rough draft. I did not factor in wildlife preserves. I also said that we don't neccesarily have to own 3 acres each. Anyone could live on as much of land as they wanted.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Anyone could live on as much of land as they wanted.

Yeah, that will work.

If you gave the land to the right people this would be great. But nothing is free.

reply to post by smithjustinb


best of luck to you in getting your idea/theory through the legal system and having it take place. this land called USA must have been so incredible back before people came from Europe and killed most of the people already living here.

Originally posted by daddyroo45
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Are you proposing that the government confiscate land from the people that own it and hand it out to everybody else? That sounds very socialist to me.

I'm not saying become socialist. I'm just saying free land. It's been done before en.wikipedia.org...

We could remain capitalist, but with free land, we could become much less restricted. You can choose to remain in your home if you'd like. I'm not saying demolish everything and start from scratch. I'm just saying let's take back what is rightfully ours. We still have to be dependent on a economic system, because we need electricity and water and stuff. But we don't need someone telling us we have to pay them for land. That should be free.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by smithjustinb
Anyone could live on as much of land as they wanted.

Yeah, that will work.

edit on 19-6-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)

You can build your house on 100 acres of land if you wanted, but anyone can come and build a house on an acre away from your house. There wouldn't be any legal action you could take against them, but you could still go to them and talk it out like civilized people and come to a mutual peaceful agreement.

reply to post by smithjustinb

perhaps we are at that stage and with information so available to any for advancement it is much faster, in conflict with government role. once a teen comes of age,the role of the parent in his life is less ,and is what i see with government in society ,but,the parent doesnt want to let go.

Originally posted by bumpufirst
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

perhaps we are at that stage and with information so available to any for advancement it is much faster, in conflict with government role. once a teen comes of age,the role of the parent in his life is less ,and is what i see with government in society ,but,the parent doesnt want to let go.

Good analogy. I believe we probably are approaching this stage. We have the opportunity with the information to do anything you want to just a click away, but its just a matter of unlocking this potential.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
You can build your house on 100 acres of land if you wanted, but anyone can come and build a house on an acre away from your house. There wouldn't be any legal action you could take against them, but you could still go to them and talk it out like civilized people and come to a mutual peaceful agreement.

So you want an agrarian anarcho-communist society? Like I said, that'll work.

OK...I will take my 3 acres on fertile land...say, Grass Valley, CA.
Everyone else can have the Mojave desert area, or on the Nevada test range!

reply to post by Elostone


I think I'll take my three acres in Manhattan.

Originally posted by Nosred

Originally posted by smithjustinb
You can build your house on 100 acres of land if you wanted, but anyone can come and build a house on an acre away from your house. There wouldn't be any legal action you could take against them, but you could still go to them and talk it out like civilized people and come to a mutual peaceful agreement.

So you want an agrarian anarcho-communist society? Like I said, that'll work.

You are strongly misinterpreting my vision. I didn't say anything about anarchy. This is capitalism with free land. Plain and simple.

Anarchy is still untolerable.

And my plan is just an overview. There are obviously going to be a lot of specifics to get it to work smoothly.

And it could work.

Whether you like it or not, whether you want to believe it or not, whether you believe you are independently capable or not, free land is a human civil right.

Originally posted by Elostone
OK...I will take my 3 acres on fertile land...say, Grass Valley, CA.
Everyone else can have the Mojave desert area, or on the Nevada test range!

Desert is not farmland. There are 3 acres per person of farmland. That's only about 40 percent of total land.

Originally posted by smithjustinb
You are strongly misinterpreting my vision. I didn't say anything about anarchy. This is capitalism with free land. Plain and simple.

Anarchy is still untolerable.

The only reason for governments existing is national defense and to protect the rights of the individual, allowing no form of legal action when someone takes your property is anarchy plain and simple.

This is definitely not capitalism, in capitalism you have to earn things by being productive to society. You trade the strength of your arm or the knowledge in your head for a place to live and food to eat. What you are describing is a parasitic socialist society.

reply to post by smithjustinb

Cool. Then I will raise a bunch of kids to help me farm it. Say 6 kids.
When I die, thats a half an acre for them to eke out a living for their families...
In 50 years, what then?
This is the funniest thread I have seen on ATS for quite some time



Moving on...

reply to post by Elostone


Or maybe they each get their own three acres, then if they have six kids each who get three acres, and each of them have six kids each who get three acres, etc.

Edit: You could conquer the country just by being the family that has the most kids.

All we need is free land.

There are 2,260,994,361 acres of land in the United States.
There are 922,095,840 acres of farmland in the United States.
There are 308,745,538 people in the United States.
That's enough land so that every person in the United States has about 3 acres of farmland.
That's 130,680 square feet of farmland per person. (plus 188901 sq. ft. of "other" land)

You want to strip property owners of their land and give it away, to be worked by the people?

This would be called "communism".

Read about the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, this is one of the things they proposed to do. Of course they took it one small step further by pooling this "free land" into collectives for greater efficiency.

I don't think this idea was very well thought through. Several people here have posted reasons why this could not work But I will add a few and sum.

There are not enough trees in the U.S. to accomplish it.
The mass removal of trees is what caused the dust bowl.
The removal of trees on this scale would cause massive extinctions of animals needed for the natural process.
The amount of "Livable" acreage is too small and at the very least greenhouses needed to grow food.
The locations of water sources are not compatible to irrigation in a great many locations.
The growing seasons are not compatible for a nutritionally based garden in most places.
Three acres is not enough to raise both gardens and livestock as they would be out of food in less than a month.
The non ability to rotate the crops would deplete natural minerals the plants need to survive, gardens fail in 3 years.
Etc., Etc., Etc.
End result is a contenent wide desert with a lot of empty houses on a dead nation.

What I'm proposing is an idea that no one can "own" land. People can be free to go wherever they please and do whatever they want with the land they are on. People have the legal freedom to build a house wherever they want. They would still have to answer to the people within close proximity, but who would want to build in close proximity to someone anyway when there is open land in other places. And there could be reserves. Reserves for businesses, wildlife, etc. We're not talking about free land for corporations, we're talking about free land for individuals.

When the SHTF, what do you think a plausible solution to all the problems would be anyway? I'm obviously in favor of massive reform, and I believe that the system that we currently entertain is mostly an illusion. The illusion was designed to favor an elite few for the purpose of control over the masses.

The root of our problems really is money. Money gives greed something to work with. Perhaps it would be different if the money we use was actually more than just pieces of paper, but the value we place on the dollar is just made up. It's all bs.

I don't have a solution to get rid of money, but I do have a solution to get rid of needing it as much. The Free Land Act of 2011.

Originally posted by brindle
How about wild horses,bison...How much land did you factor in your equation for them?

Plenty of room for them on the grill or in the pot. No worries.