It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:17 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Eventually there will be too many people?

Who knows what it's going to be like in 10 years.Awesome idea though.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by IntegratedInstigator

If you would have figured his math then you would see that he took the farmland/population, not the land in a whole/population. His ideology is brilliant. Maybe the Native Americans had it right to begin with.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 02:58 AM
We don't have the freedom or liberty to live this way. Just ask any Native American
edit on 19-6-2011 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

True that sir

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:04 AM
I'll take 3 acres of the most fertile land in Beverly Hills. OP you can take 3 acres in the desert of your choice...

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:18 AM
You guys in America are lucky to have that 3 acres per person the UK, we're #ed...we've only got 0.328 acres per person of quit whinging lol

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:31 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Sounds like a little bit of communism

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:46 AM
reply to post by jeannyska1

A little bit of 'communism' goes a long way when you're hungry.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 03:50 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Nice sentiment, but who really wants the the whole countryside divided into 3 acre fenced off private grids. No more prairies etc, no more space. I know that this 'space' is already private, but at least it's open space, not 3 acre allotments, which most folk would allow to fall into disrepair and end up selling to corps to farm for us. Sorry to 'cynicize' all over your nice sentiment, but that's what'll happen...

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:04 AM
I know this is completely inappropriate for me to reply this way, but I can't help it:

This is by far the most pathetically stupid thing I've ever heard. I can't even comprehend how many drugs it takes to think of something like that.

As someone else said, who gets the unlivable mountain areas? (Note: as has been said, I understand that he supposedly took this into account with his math. Doesn't add up to me, societally, even if you make the math work.)

What happens when someone runs out of room and want more? You going to rely on neighbors not killing each other for more land/resources?

What about when someone gets the idea that his religion declares him more fit to run your three acres than you? How would you settle religious ideology when someone feels that God told them to do something?

What about all the already-developed land, that you can't just cut down trees and build houses on? That you can't farm?

How do you develop a barter system (or even just a system for distribution of goods) that allows for everything? For example, what if someone in Kansas wants fresh fish. How can they get it with no infastructure? Are you going to have some guy in Iowa trying to get corn to Maine to trade for seafood and then back home in a speedy enough way as to not ruin the food? I understand that many cultures lived for a VERY long time without having the sort of infastructure that would be needed for this type of living, but we aren't that type of society anymore, and people won't just abandon it.

What happens when people are spread out every 3 acres, but Venezuela decides to attack? How do you defend against other countries taking advantaged of what would be "American Stupidity"?

Ultimately the biggest problem with this... "idea"... is human nature gets in the way. People always want more, people always take more. Peace, Love and Happiness doesn't exist. To me, this goes beyond even "It's a nice idea, but it wouldn't ever work." It's downright ludicrus.

Again, I know I am in the wrong replying in such a negative and hostile way, when I should just hit the back key and move on with my life, but I'm just stunned anyone would seriously even present this idea.
edit on 20-6-2011 by cuthbert because: typos

edit on 20-6-2011 by cuthbert because: More typos. GOD, I'm on a roll!

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:13 AM

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
While I like the idea(S&F), it would never work. Some people are just too damned lazy to actually "work" for a living. If you do get it passed, let me know. I would happily take my 3 acres and become as self sufficient as humanly possible.

I totally agree. In fact a former classmate and friend on mine was quoted as saying "Why work when you can get on welfare?" But as you, I would gladly do that. I mean, it's simple. Not to mention, I would have me a ring of trees around my property because they are so beautiful and I love being around them.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:23 AM

Originally posted by omar.e
If you gave the land to the right people this would be great. But nothing is free.

Everything is free, it is only man who puts a price tag or value on it.

Mindsets like yours and many others I see on here is exactly why this idea wouldn't work. You feel you are better than the other guy when you are no different. It's always got to be about competition and having or owning this.

Why can't it just be about being happy!

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:36 AM

Originally posted by hederahelix
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)

Heaven forbid you or your ancestors should of jumped on it when they had the chance. Now you want the land that others have already cleared,worked and made productive.
edit on 20-6-2011 by Meatman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 04:45 AM
lol America...'I want, I want, I, me, me, me, me'...have you considered that you need 50 to 150 people in a village to avoid becoming inbred? With that 3 acres per person, you could farm whatever you could have a few cattle, dig yourselves a fishery, have enough chickens, rabbits, goats, donkeys and plenty of veg. If each new 'town' concentrated on one type of food, there'd be enough for a market? But no, cos everyone is too selfish....have fun with your own personal apocalypse...its later than you think

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:28 AM
I would just like to see all government owned land sold off. Return the land to the people who would have a vested interest in the lands.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:37 AM
what the op isn 't telling ya is that your three acres of prime farmland is gonna come with an insane property tax.....
your land will be up for auction on the county courthouse steps within a year.....and then, well, we're all gonna be poor again....

seriously, throw in a little racism, and you have the story of one of the african countries....
it didn't turn out too well for them!! the people who used to own the land knew how to farm the land, they gave to people, who didn't have a clue, and now they are hungry!!!

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 05:53 AM
The idea would work, just not for "us".
The generational/historical and mammalian brainwashing is far too great for humanity to ever hope to live this way.

I still say it's possible, there are plenty of "less civilised cultures" who would manage this to a greater extent...but not us.
We must have "stuff" and the less "we" have to do to get it the better. This is where it all falls down.
If your ultimate goal is to do as little as possible to "have" as much as possible, there is no way to win the game and you will have to try again.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:21 AM
This is a good topic. In order to answer the general idea, let me first tell you a true story, err, I mean parable. I have two relatives, let's call them A and B. Relative A has a house that is worth 1.5 million, at the time she bought it(and the reason she can afford it is because her husband won a share in his company or something.) Relative B's house is worth 250,000, at the time she bought it. Relative B looked at relative A's house, and had this idea that she would "remodel" her house to look like relative A's house. It turns out that the remodeling cost her "just" $50,000. She also added a pool for about $50000, so the total was about 100,000. When I checked out both houses, I really couldn't tell the difference. If anything, relative B's house was better, as it was bigger. When relative B had her house appraised, it was 800,000.

On a humerous note, relative A's house has ADT security, and a sign that says so in front, which we know is just smoke and mirror. Relative B, through my advice, simply bought a few handguns. I even jokingly told her that she should have a sign in front that says, "Burglars Beware: We Own Guns."

Moral of the story? You don't need to work your entire life for a dream house. You can just build it.

Needless to say, we copied relative B's idea, so the only thing we have to worry about now is the bills, and what happens when we get old. The rest of our house is filled with HDTVs, and gold(owning these things does give you a sense of satisfaction.)

Can EVERYONE afford this? Well, at first look, 250,000 for relative B's house is still a lot of money. However, that is only because it's a 4-room 2-bath house. However, you can still have two beds in each, so as long as you're not a single mom working on minimum wage with 4 or 5 kids, I think you can.

As far as the original issue, you can't have too much space among each houses(imagine all the extra wiring and roads) and too many "unspecialized people" or jobs, it would simply be too inconvenient and counterproductive. And no family needs an acre just for shelter.

The system does not need to be overhauled, people's common sense is. Money is not bad in itself. It's when people do not understand their limits and keep "extending" themselves, then it becomes a never-ending chase.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind land being completely free either. But if that happened and everything was free, then there's no motive to work, and you wouldn't have these technological advances.
edit on 20-6-2011 by np6888 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 06:39 AM
Have you ever raised a small garden?

Have you ever raised a big garden?

Have you ever worked a farm?

What happens when someone's human waste/out house is too close to your water source or upstream they piss in your creek?

What happens when someone builds a house in your empty field that has nothing growing on it...BUT, next year you were going to rotate your goats there or plant corn there?

Who enforces or solves these types of conflicts...civil in nature?

Where are the centers for trade and commerce built? How much land is allocated to the auction houses for livestock trade?

What happens when one of the city states decides it wants more land...or water...and they legally plop down in a concerted effort to plop down on the empty land ...and then become the majority land holders?

What happens when the lazy and iggnorant people decide that they have a right to your food and livestock...? You already set the precedent that private property can be taken when you took other peoples land to divide up between the masses.

This is a nice dream, but throw in the human element and it falls apart quickly. As for free land to live on...I believe some states and Fed Bureaus have reinstated the Homestead Act...primarily up in the western USA.

Put your theories to a test there...good luck.

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:21 AM
reply to post by smithjustinb

Some of the idea has merit, but no need to do it on 3 acres. Plus, chopping down all the trees, or more trees, would be a problem and lead to all sorts of issues I think. Create another dustbowl.

With advances in farming, people could do quite well on 1/3 or 1/2 an acre (square foot gardening, for example).

I've read through a bunch of posts, and there are some valid points on ecosystems and the need for wild animals to live and thrive. The untouched lands do have a biosystem all their own!

I think it would make a lot of sense to have community gardens, or more focus on rooftop gardens, especially since you can't easily tear down buildings now, and the cities are the biggest drain on foods, products, and services that choke up the highways and cause much of the pollution problems. Finding solutions to bring the farms back, even in a small way, would be excellent!

posted on Jun, 20 2011 @ 07:22 AM
No...this has got to be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. I can see what would start happening if something this dumb was applied to the real world.
First of all...some states have specialized in specific crop production because of the advantage their land and climate gives them. Some states have more adaptation to livestock because the topography of the land allows them to. It's not going to be an equal distribution for all Americans, and it never has been. People will start fights over this...and it won't be pretty. So keep this stupid idea at bay.
You know what I would like to see?
I'd like to see the wealth generated by the productivity in Western America stay in the WEST!
The east can keep their politicians, lawyers, bankers and all their worthless financial institutions.
edit on 20-6-2011 by laiguana because: (no reason given)

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in