It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Free Land Act of 2011

page: 3
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
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.
edit on 19-6-2011 by IPILYA because: (no reason given)


There wouldn't be a mass removal of trees. People already live in houses, and just because there is a free land act, doesn't mean people have to move out of their homes. The mortgage corporations wouldn't last long under the free land act, and there would be nobody to enforce foreclosures and the homes that people are already living in would be free.

There are methods to prolong a growing season via artificial light and heat as in a greenhouse. There are irrigation systems already in place everywhere.




posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
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.
edit on 19-6-2011 by IPILYA because: (no reason given)
Just because you could not do it does not mean it is impossible. Food? aquaponics/hydroponics/greenhouses. Water? well, cistern, evaporative condensation etc... Electricity? Biomass incinerators, solar, wind, hydro etc...
Think outside of the box. With 3 acres I could be mostly self sufficient.
edit on 19-6-2011 by sonofliberty1776 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by IPILYA
 


OP has a nice dream,it would be great,but your post says it all.
I live on 3 acres.
If i planted it out to self sustain i would run out of water.
I run sheep,they need to rotate paddocks too,if i planted out i would have to move stock.
Rotation is a big big part of farming,the smaller the farm the harder it is.
So we have a vegi garden that does us for a few things,then friends swap with us,we have chooks eggs are a great barter item.
If you had a community where they could all farm something different it would work out much better.

In oz it like this - 1 sheep per acre.1 cow/beast per 2 acres.
This is in general and may change with the fertility of the land.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


I'm sorry but I don't remember saying I could not do it. I am fully capable both physically, mentally, and financially as well as the knowledge however I am a Minority in this, But it still remains that even if you did not put a house on it you still would not have the grazing area for livestock especially if you put a green house up. You would have to become a vegetarian or your livestock could only be poultry, but hey I could be wrong, so those of you who have land, take 3 acres and give it a try. I'm saying you must build a community of multiple 3 acre areas to do it and that is not self sufficient.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


I'm sorry but I don't remember saying I could not do it. I am fully capable both physically, mentally, and financially as well as the knowledge however I am a Minority in this, But it still remains that even if you did not put a house on it you still would not have the grazing area for livestock especially if you put a green house up. You would have to become a vegetarian or your livestock could only be poultry, but hey I could be wrong, so those of you who have land, take 3 acres and give it a try. I'm saying you must build a community of multiple 3 acre areas to do it and that is not self sufficient.


More than being self-sufficient, this is about taking the power that we give to the greedy elite few and giving it back to the people. We could still work together as communities under the free land act and help each other out on the terms of the community rather than governments that force things on us.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I do realize what it is all about and I am all for taking our freedoms back from Government and big business please do not get me wrong. I just don't think this is a plausible possibility. Sorry I did give you a Star and Flag for using the brain to find an alternative, its just this one is flawed.
edit on 19-6-2011 by IPILYA because: wording



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


I'm sorry but I don't remember saying I could not do it. I am fully capable both physically, mentally, and financially as well as the knowledge however I am a Minority in this, But it still remains that even if you did not put a house on it you still would not have the grazing area for livestock especially if you put a green house up. You would have to become a vegetarian or your livestock could only be poultry, but hey I could be wrong, so those of you who have land, take 3 acres and give it a try. I'm saying you must build a community of multiple 3 acre areas to do it and that is not self sufficient.
You are still thinking inside the box. Please research aquaponics and urban homesteading to see what is possible. Thanks.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 



I am fully capable both physically, mentally, and financially as well as the knowledge however I am a Minority in this,



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 



I am fully capable both physically, mentally, and financially as well as the knowledge however I am a Minority in this,



But it still remains that even if you did not put a house on it you still would not have the grazing area for livestock especially if you put a green house up. You would have to become a vegetarian or your livestock could only be poultry, but hey I could be wrong, so those of you who have land, take 3 acres and give it a try. I'm saying you must build a community of multiple 3 acre areas to do it and that is not self sufficient.
I am saying that that is not true. While we would consume more vegetables(not a bad thing), eggs, chicken(and/or duck) and fish could all be easily done in 3 acres.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by IPILYA
reply to post by smithjustinb
 


I do realize what it is all about and I am all for taking our freedoms back from Government and big business please do not get me wrong. I just don't think this is a plausible possibility. Sorry I did give you a Star and Flag for using the brain to find an alternative, its just this one is flawed.
edit on 19-6-2011 by IPILYA because: wording


Perhaps my plan is incomplete, but I think part of what I'm saying should and could happen, maybe not in the manner in which I presented it, but something to do with free land.

What do you think we could do? How would you improve the Earth?



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I don't think anyone mentioned expansion and what that does to such a tightly regulated society?

It will tear civilizations apart... as your population grows, you need more land and resources.

Who decides whose resources have to be taken from to sustain the new population growth? My land or yours?

Hmmm... war is usually how that works out, just look around today.

OP has a nice idea, but it is not clearly thought out.

To sustain, we have to make technology work with nature and understand how we consume resources in order to streamline their production and make it efficient for the whole world to prosper rather than just a few. We consume carelessly and without (much) regard to the impact it has on nature and as a result, we are getting the "squeeze" from nature in a hostile way. We use technology to distract us and further disregard the natural world and how we interact with it. We can not get around nature, and scientists and other elitists have to stop thinking that they are gods amongst men who can control weather and manipulate the planet.

Eventually, one way or another, nature will always win. Until we start learning to stop building hugely populated cities on top of fault lines and along tsunami-prone coastlines just because someone can make a huge profit from the location of the land (which is no different than the land not on a coast other than what we say it is), and use technology to better understand nature so that we can learn to work alongside of it instead of trying to be above it, we are doomed to extinction and it is only a matter of time. We should be learning how to create life and respect it so that we can help foster it, and if there is a God/Creator, I firmly believe that this would be what we are destined to do if we are to survive as a species.

Give people free land? Sure, that is a great idea, but not everyone wants that land and the work that goes with caring for it, and not everyone wants to work.

Imagine this instead... technology that tells you the most efficient plants to grow together in soil and exactly how to grow them with the best nutrients and equipment to detect problems in the soil or water. This would increase food production exponentially. Using that together with vertical growing, we could feed the entire planet for the next 500 years. How about technology that can tell you based on location, what animals and plants would thrive best without disturbing the ecology so that you could maximize the use of cattle, sheep, etc? This would allow you to create ecosystems for animals to thrive in while understanding exactly how much more cattle would be needed to feed people.

This is not expensive to do and is in fact very simple from a technological standpoint. The money is not in the cure, it's in the treatment, and that is why we don't have this yet. Once TPTB start seeing us as humans instead of sheeple, only then might we begin to see the changes we need in the world today.

Either that, or when they are all dead!


~Namaste
edit on 19-6-2011 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: typo



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 05:49 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


yes this would be awesome. but its too good to ever come true. :/



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:34 PM
link   

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.


You don't own any land.

No one does.

You pay Property Tax on it to the Govt.

That means RENT.

The Govt Owns ALL the land. Every Inch.

That's why you cannot call your house "my own independent nation". Because you don't own anything. You are merely leasing the rights to use it temporarily.

Ain't that a real knee slapper?


That's why the OP's idea is better than the status quo, in his world there are no property taxes and you actually get to own your land 100%.

So the government wouldn't be taking any land from anyone. They would just finally be giving the land away that they had conquered and stolen over the centuries and forced us to lease from them through Taxation (with the threat of jail or violence to enforce it).



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   
cant help thinkin wen im reading all thes posts n threads that instead of being sat behind a screen righting the world of all its wrongs and not actually gettin noware, why the hell dont everyone get off ther arses and put their words into action???

only takes 1 person to start a revalution



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Not too mention much of that land may actually be uninhabitable (mountains,swamps,desert..) or has infrastructure in place on it (military/government buildings and installations,dams,power plants, graveyards,toxic waste dumps,CITIES,TOWNS, you know..?).

Then there's the whole matter of water availability and distribution. This thing you're talking about isn't easy to do at all.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Family has 2000 acres in the Dakotas, and we are not giving it up.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash

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.


You don't own any land.

No one does.

You pay Property Tax on it to the Govt.

That means RENT.

The Govt Owns ALL the land. Every Inch.

That's why you cannot call your house "my own independent nation". Because you don't own anything. You are merely leasing the rights to use it temporarily.

Ain't that a real knee slapper?


That's why the OP's idea is better than the status quo, in his world there are no property taxes and you actually get to own your land 100%.

So the government wouldn't be taking any land from anyone. They would just finally be giving the land away that they had conquered and stolen over the centuries and forced us to lease from them through Taxation (with the threat of jail or violence to enforce it).


Wow you sound like the typical American that want something for nothing,

I knew someone that has nothing would comment how no one owns anything.


give everyone 3 acres and within 2 years my family would own 2000 again because most would not know how to work the land and sell it.

Just as you give everyone a million dollars within a year the rich would be rich again and the poor you know will be poor.

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



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   
i would take my 3 acres of land and make it a toxic waste landfill.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 08:56 PM
link   
I found THIS THREAD a really good read.



posted on Jun, 19 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Meatman
 



Wow you sound like the typical American that want something for nothing.



Heaven forbid. Now if we could just think of a way to implement that idea...
edit on 19-6-2011 by hederahelix because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join