Agriculture / Organic Farming, EDITORIAL
Fury Over Food: Advantage to the Small-Farm, 'Natural' Foods Models?
By Anthony Wile - October 18, 2014

October 16th was "World Food Day." Perhaps you missed it, but certainly for those directly involved, it's a contentious holiday – with two well funded farming models facing off with each other. In this article I want to show how a "third way" is one that may win out despite its lack of publicity.

Let's begin with the first two farming models. In the 20th century, criticisms of globalist memes were often ignored or, if necessary, isolated and mocked. In the 21st century, there is the Internet to contend with. Thus, those who would like to see an increasingly internationalist society have relied on a dialectical formula that controls both sides of the argument.

Debate is polarized and arguments crystallized. Dialogue is then engaged and a synthesis is achieved that allows both sides of the controlled debate to agree. Once this happens, the debate is declared closed by public figures and any further attempt to reengage is portrayed by the mainstream media as unconstructive and unprogressive. This is what's currently going on with food.

"Food" has come in for this treatment because it is a staple of survival and is yet inequitably distributed throughout the globe. Of course, there are reasons. But first let's examine World Food Day itself – how it's implemented and why it has generated (purposeful) opposition.

Here, from the World Food Day website itself:

World Food Day is a day of action against hunger. On October 16, people around the world come together to declare their commitment to eradicate hunger in our lifetime. Because when it comes to hunger, the only acceptable number in the world is zero.

… In North America, grassroots events and public awareness campaigns engage diverse audiences in action against hunger. From hunger walks and World Food Day dinners to meal packaging events and food drives, there are many ways for people to be a part of solutions to hunger.

Why care about hunger? Because the right to food is a basic human right. In a world of plenty, 805 million people, one in nine worldwide, live with chronic hunger.

Every human being has a fundamental right to be free from hunger and the right to adequate food. The right to adequate food is realized when every man, woman and child has the physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.

This all sounds very good in an innocuous way. After all, what's controversial about trying to ensure that everyone has enough to eat?

In fact, areas of controversy become highlighted when one peers beneath the surface. The annual World Food Prize generates perhaps the fiercest. In opposition to this prize, the US Food Sovereignty Alliance has developed and awards its own prize.

The website Ecowatch describes the evolution of the alternative prize as follows:

The tragedy of the World Food Prize is that since 1987, when the prize was first awarded, the laureates—with a very few exceptions—have been primarily scientists that have advanced food as a commodity and not as a basic human right. This week the World Food Prize is once again being awarded to a plant scientist, Dr. Rajaya Sajaram, for his development of numerous prodigious wheat varieties that have been spread around the world to the benefit of "small and large-scale farmers."

Yet, privileging food as a commodity to be bought and sold on the exchange floors of Chicago and New York has led to considerable damage to the natural environment and to our health. Not to mention that world hunger has reached the staggeringly high estimate of nearly one billion people, with more spikes than declines in the past few decades, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization.

… Climate change is in part a direct result of this profit-driven recipe for efficiency and scale in agricultural production. And, like the sorcerer's apprentice, no longer able to control what he has summoned by his spells, climate change is making our Earth inhospitable to food production through an increasing prevalence of drought followed by monsoons.

… Enter the Food Sovereignty Prize as a foil to the message perpetuated by the World Food Prize that industrial agriculture is necessary to feed the world. In 2009, a group of non-governmental and community-based organizations, spurred on by the world food crisis that hit headlines around the globe, banded together to form what is now called the U.S. Food Sovereignty Alliance and established an alternative prize to recognize the quiet champions producing food in a way that puts people and their basic needs and rights to be nourished first.

Several points can be noted in the above. We can see, for instance, that ending hunger is intimately linked to combating climate change. The only trouble with this recipe is that, increasingly, there is little evidence for the kind of global warming that is supposed to be causing various kinds of natural disasters.

As a result, global warming is starting to be looked on with skepticism by the general public. And by linking an increasingly controversial concept to hunger and food, those trying to promote food sovereignty are likely complicating the message they seek to disseminate.

What also must be controversial is the idea that food is a "human right." Saying that people should have enough to eat and mandating it are two different things … and considerably expands the reach and operation of the state. Much better – as history shows – to leave it up to the market itself to provide the necessary resources and nutrition.

While this may sound radical to modern ears, there is plenty of precedent for this sort of approach. In the normal course of things, absent an invasive governmental entity, people historically have lived in small, flexible communities (even within a larger city-state).

Within the boundaries of these small communities, people have cared for each other and ensured that members of the community are provided for. Often this takes place within the context of religion and religious principals, which tend to expand in the absence of a coercive state.

What we thus have when we examine both sides of the food debate is a controlled dialectic. On the one hand, we have the established forces of globalist intervention. This approach features the "next" green wave of farming, so to speak, that focuses on what we may call the Monsanto model, which itself is derived from Big Pharma.

Big Ag, too, seeks to create its own "controllable drugs" in the form of patentable seeds and genetic modifications that increase efficiency and create significant profit margins. But this approach inevitably deprives people of control over their own destinies as food becomes the purview of gigantic multinationals that may or may not make decisions that are in the best interests of their customers, especially when it comes to the actual production of the food product.

The model of Big Ag is a mercantilist model that involves considerable government mandates. Judicial force must be employed to decide everything from patents to the disposition of branded wind-blown seeds.

The model of the Food Sovereignty movement also seems to depend on government intervention. First, proponents of food sovereignty obviously want government action to address the contentious problem of global warming. Second, government itself and not the private sector is to become responsible for fulfilling the mandate of food as a human right.

How did we end up with a food debate where both sides depend on Western-style "leviathan" government for implementation of appropriate farming practices? Probably the way we ended up with the multi-party system of Western democracy. The dialectic has been imposed by a globalist clique that intends to control food no matter what.

It is a political matter, indeed. Now, range these two government-oriented systems against what is actually going on, which is the rise of small-scale, organic farming in the 21st century.

As new forms of individual small-farm empowerment have become prevalent, arguments are being made that small-farm practitioners are more efficient than huge mono-farming establishments. The damage of modern green farming is becoming more apparent every day as scientists examine soil depletion and other forms of farm degradation that were not previously publicized.

The small-farming model, meanwhile, is NOT being driven by government and Big Ag forces arrayed behind government. The small-farming – "natural" – model may feature sustainable practices like "no till" and may seek to grow fruits and vegetables without employing pesticides, etc.

For lack of a better term, let's call this approach the "free-market" model, as it seems to have sprung up spontaneously. Looked at this way, we can perceive a VESTS paradigm where F.A. Hayek's "spontaneous order" is challenging the orthodoxy of modern-age authoritarian farming.

Right now, we'd argue, small-scale farming producing local and "natural" foods has a great deal of momentum. It may hold the key to reducing world hunger if it is not interfered with. Arrayed on the other side are those who would utilize government force to create food as a "human right" and Big Ag itself, which is overtly the product of the same globalist forces that create the so-called green revolution.

Anyone who has traveled the world knows that the food/poverty battle is at least a questionable one. Everyone on Earth could be fed if one were willing to reduce war and funnel freed-up resources into a flexible network of dedicated, privately operated food banks administered at the local level as much as possible.

But perhaps it is not in the interest of those who control these wars to radically reduce hunger and malnutrition. Absent these miseries and other poverty-linked afflictions, there would be no rationale to create over-arching internationalist solutions. Those advocating these solutions need to retain the so-called intractable problems of poverty and even expand to justify the growth of a regulatory superstructure.

For this reason, sustainable farming producing "natural" whole foods is a deadly challenge. In the 21st century, the entire food industry around the world must be further regulated and modified. This is task that the internationalist set has given itself.

Investors in this sector should be clear about the opposing sides and be prepared to make significant judgments about what trends will win out. I'm not going to go into a further analysis of the VESTS paradigm as it relates to farming and farmland, but as free-market thinkers, we always want to emphasize the humane and successful attributes of "human action."

Left to their own devices, and absent Leviathan, people can usually handle their affairs efficiently and build prosperity dramatically. Farming – farmland – and natural food production certainly constitute an intriguing trend and one investors will want to watch, even as they observe Big Ag's encroaching mercantilist maneuverings and modifications.

You don’t have to play by the rules of the corrupt politicians, manipulative media, and brainwashed peers.

When you subscribe to The Daily Bell, you also get a free guide:

How to Craft a Two Year Plan to Reclaim 3 Specific Freedoms.

This guide will show you exactly how to plan your next two years to build the free life of your dreams. It’s not as hard as you think…

Identify. Plan. Execute.

Yes, deliver THE DAILY BELL to my inbox!


Biggest Currency Reboot in 100 Years?
In less than 3 months, the biggest reboot to the U.S. dollar in 100 years could sweep America.
It has to do with a quiet potential government agreement you’ve never heard about.

Posted in Agriculture / Organic Farming, EDITORIAL
  • Dave Meekhof

    That was a well articulated article on a touchy subject, Anthony. It would be great if the world could come together on Oct. 16 and actually ‘eradicate’ hunger. But what then, when it returns on the 17th. What really is the best method of ‘procuring food sovereignty’. It seems self-sufficiency should have something to do with it. Shouldn’t education and demonstration lead the charge? We’ve all heard that teach a man to fish thing…

    Anyway, the term “organic” food or farming is becoming compromised by the USDA and Big Agra.

    To be organic certified for example, no longer means that crops were not sprayed with pesticides, but only that certain pesticides were not used. Big Ag is buying up the brand names as soon as they become successful, and are catering to this pricier niche market. So there may be investment opportunities there, but as far as eating healthy; know your farmer or grow your own is the best practice, imho.

    • chuck martel

      Big Pharma=Big Oil=Big Food. If growing your own Roma tomatoes, which can be purchased down at the market for 99 cents a pound, makes sense, what about drilling and refining your own motor fuel? Generate your own electricity. Raise your own beef and chickens. Butcher your own pigs. Weld together your own car. Yeah, how about neighborhood automobile manufacturers, get together and teach one another how to cast engine blocks and laminate windshields. Might be some issues with government mandates but we ARE the government, aren’t we? There might be a few people around that can remember the pre-pesticide era, when bed bugs lunched on everyone, mosquitoes and malaria made much of the US literally uninhabitable and weevils ate most of the flour. Ah, the good ol’ days. They might have a different take on the situation. As Steve Landsberg points out, we have the technology to successfully grow bananas in North Dakota but we don’t. Why?

      • Dave Meekhof

        We are the government? The Federal Government? Good one. I simply said “know your farmer OR grow your own”. If you are not concerned about the banana you eat, then you don’t need to know anything about the United Fruit Company or their practices. Maybe there are other foods we should be concerned about. What is wrong with garnering some knowledge about what sustains us. Or is it just easier to rely on government to protect you. How is that working out?

    • I think that you should really try to understand the root cause of the problem – the root cause of the problem is america and american corporations – who want to flood the world with GMO products – Take my little country – population 2.7 million – the americans came to my country “Yea man – we’re gonna get rid of all them pesky mosquitoes” – sprayed the island with god knows what – that resulted in the death of our coconut trees and much of the wild life that fed the food chain – them my ever so clever politicians were encouraged to import food (american – / GMO / SOY / VEGETABLE OILS / FLUORIDATED PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS) – The result Never in all my 70+ year of life – have a met so many people at the same time with brain obnormalities – loss of memory / etc / etc / etc – 10 year old with brain cancer, hyper-tension – ADT / the same ailments that americans are so blessed with – and many other ailments – that is the number one problem – the other problem is all the parasites of wall street buying up the best arable in poor countries – then just sit and wait for the price to rise – so – there is no guick fix and the article writer has absolutely no idea of the effects of american greed on the rest of the word – Please to write – you must know what you are writing about – Instead of penning your articles from the extreme comfort of your current home – go live in a poor country for a 12 to 18 months – not as an american – who is forever trying to buy the population with his $ – but as someone who really want to know the true effectd of american greed and corruption – and don’t just say that the local politicians are corrupt – follw the money – and you will always find an american on the other side of this trade..because america does not know any other way – it is either american kills you to get what america want or america bribe you to get what they want…(go do some research on the effects of american patronage) – and hence the tradegies that is the world today – Made in America – with a Smile…

      • First of all, Mr. Wile is not American. Second, he has lived in several countries, including developing countries with large populations in poverty. Third, you clearly do not know a thing about what The Daily Bell is all about or you would not display obvious ignorance of its mission and rhetoric.

      • The effects you write about are not “America”, they may be caused by SOME “Americans” (not) that are under the dominion of the satanist powers that run the world, Please do not fall for their misdirection, true Americans do not want these processes any more than you do. Open your eyes and see that which is hidden.

    • Good points, thanks.

  • Wrusssr

    The big food picture can’t be said or summarized a whole lot better than this. Great article, Anthony.

  • Henry James

    “.talk of liberty, which is an abstract ideal for the left hemisphere, would increase… but individual liberty would be curtailed… according to the left hemispheres’ take on reality, individuals are simply interchangable(‘equal’) parts of a mechanistic system, a system it needs to control in the interests of efficency. Thus it would be expected that the state would not only take greater power directly, but play down individual responsibility, and the sense of individual responsibility would accordingly decline”. pp431-432 The Master and his Emmisary , McGilchrist (2009)

  • A “Day of Action against Hunger”?? Give me a break!!! With 500 trillion in their underground vaults, much of it in Gold Bullion, the Rothschilds could end world hunger for the foreseeable future. Instead they intentionally impoverish entire nations by stripping resources; destroy healthy soil the world over with their fertilizers, GMOs and insecticides; sabotage sustainable farming methods with their big Ag model, forcing small farmers into debt so their land can be confiscated; use HAARP to create droughts; foment wars that destroy crops and people; and have a stated goal of reducing world population by 90%. As has been demonstrated for millennia, if people are left at peace in their own culture they are quite capable of feeding themselves. One of the best services The Bell is rendering, is pointing out how these monsters worm their way into control of both sides of any and all discussions, disagreements, political processes and wars. The forces of shadow have been enormously successful and increasingly brilliant in advancing their agenda, which is grounded in satanism, human sacrifice, pedophilia, and sadism at the very highest levels. Free thinking men and women using the internet to educate themselves is a very new phenomenon and quite disruptive to their entire paradigm. I would imagine this will be allowed to continue only long enough for the Lords of Darkness to identify the “bad actors” and co-opt any meaningful resistance, then totally controlled (we are almost there already, see You Tube, Facebook, etc) and turned into just another income stream going into the coffers of the satanists. TV was free when it was introduced – are you old enough to remember? Now we pay through the nose every month to be pummeled with 300 channels of mindless and degrading TV programming, endless advertising, and thoroughly nauseating propaganda (“news”). Doubtless we are headed in the same direction with the world wide web, which was created after all at the behest of DARPA. If mankind is to cast off this parasitical cancer, we had better become even more effective and brilliant than those who seek domination, subjugation, and total control. We have been asleep at the wheel far too long.

    • Darpa made a mistake.

      • Excellent!

        • As we´ve written, they did not foresee the rise of the personal computer which turned a tiny connective facility for the military industrial complex into the World Wide Web. Just as with the Gutenberg Press, they figured it out too late.

          • Here is hoping you are 1,000% correct DB. Our beloved adversaries are nothing if not adaptable.

    • chuck martel

      TV was free? How long ago was it that the “Lords of Darkness” showed up at your door and made you sign up for cable TV at gunpoint?

      • Chuck, I do not pay for cable TV, there are other options if you look hard enough. As for the Lords they will not show up at my door or anybody elses, they have plenty of willing stooges for that. My point is not that one has to pay for TV – any workable business requires both income and profit – but that it was free in the first place. It is patently obvious that advertising revenues by themselves were sufficient to make the networks very profitable. Then suddenly the networks are gone – absorbed – and everything is cable – doubtless owned and/or controlled by the same group that seeks total control of everything and everyone. If you find my appellation off-putting (“Dark Lords”) I can think of several that are unprintable.

        • chuck martel

          I haven’t had a TV in the hovel for over 20 years but I’m pretty sure there’s still network television that’s broadcast over the air waves and capable of reception by fairly simple antennas. Be that as it may, TV of any kind has never been free. When you or I order an adult beverage at the local we’re subsidizing the broadcast of a football game or a dance contest or a soap opera. All the people involved with the production of these extravaganzas are paid for their work and that money comes from advertisers that use that money to further the sales of their products. Ain’t nothin’ free, except maybe the air we breathe.

          • You are correct of course, the difference being that with the network model consumers were charged indirectly (advertising costs added to product cost) and now with cable the consumer is still paying indirectly and also pays monthly fees. Two income streams, more cost to the consumer for a product that for the most part is specifically designed to degrade the viewer and society at large while promoting the false realities cooked up by……. what name would be best here? The “Elite”? They are not elite to me!

    • I believe the future is brighter than the past. We have been asleep at the wheel for far too long, but now the world is waking up.

      When the Internet was brand new the search engines algorithms did a fine job of finding relevant information. Something has changed as it is much harder lately to find relevant information. A simple search for a recipe turns up the same big name websites over and over on the first pages. That kind of control of information seems like a fatal business market share flaw to me. A while back I searched for a new razor. After my search, that razor company’s ad advertized on my screen over and over. I liked the razor so I bought it, but they are still advertising to me weeks later and I no longer have any need for it. They are taking up ad space needlessly. I am tired of Google, but my options are currently limited. That is about to change.

      Super Wide Area Network is about to debut. SWANsat is scheduled to begin operations in 2016. I am looking forward to it and they have said they are committed to privacy. I hope so.

      • alaska3636

        I have used as an alternative search engine in the past

      • Yes Brother J I too have noticed the heavy hand of Big Brother on google and particularly on You Tube now owned I believe by google. Lately I have noticed that if I type “Daily” or even “Daily B” on google there is no sign of the Bell. If this is intentional – if in fact “normal” search algorithms would cause the Bell to pop right up – then this is a compliment of the best kind to DB.

  • autonomous

    Funny how individual action makes sense to everyone except those who are driven to govern others.

  • Danny B

    An organism grows until it reaches the limits of it’s resources. Malthus was definitely right. But, he was only correct for a population that doesn’t practice birth control. The doubling time for populations that don’t use birth control is causing great problems for those groups. Sub-Sahara Africa is a good example. It’s not so much the growth rate as it is the doubling time. Look at growth in Africa;
    It’s not so much growth as it is population growth outrunning food-production growth.

    The British held the population of India at 220 million for a century. They transported the food out and held rotating famines.
    Today, 7,000 Indians starve to death every day. India has 1.27 billion people. So, it’s either birth control OR Malthus. There is no right to food.

  • Harry Skip Robinson

    It’s been my experience over my life that when government was less centralized and smaller there were more jobs, higher wages, less inflation and food was easier to afford, at lease for me. The horrible affects for me from warfare started with the unjust Viet Nam War based on the bogus domino theory. I guess it really wasn’t bogus because we have become more communistic from warfare, just not like we were envisioning. A bad joke, sorry.
    In our case, it is well established that we, the USA has been overthrown by enemies from within. A continuous loss of individual rights via continuous abrogations of the Constitution, often times perpetrated by the judiciary through their appellate decisions. Many may not know, but we just lost the right to petition the government for Redress of Grievances in 2008. A portion of the 1st Amendment is now gone. The additional and continuous efforts to provide benefits to special interests through political means, have weighted down the majority with staggering costs that many just can no longer bear. Almost every country appears to have the same problems. The political machine is rapping and pillaging the majority and then wonder why so many of their Citizens are going hungry. Perhaps you are correct Anthony, in that this is more planned than not.
    What I have noticed from the so-called “progressives” as they like to call themselves on many of the blogs, is a high level of arrogance often coming from those fairly well educated that truly believe they can socially engineer a society. It is one of the things I love to point out to these type folks. Great article.

    • Thanks. Funny how the domino theory was “dropped” after the war and never reemerged. But then again, viewed from the vantage of the 21st century, there are problems with narrative of the entire Cold War ….

      • Harry Skip Robinson

        My favorite meme though is, Reagan and the Republicans through increased military spending caused the economic collapse of the Soviet Union, because they were trying to keep pace with the US. As if statism doesn’t fail on it’s own merits. After the collapse, we found out that a large portion of the information coming out of the CIA through their espionage efforts was as bogus as the domino theory. Agents justifying their existence by making things up, thinking that their lies would never be uncovered.

        • MetaCynic

          One wonders if those who really believe that escalating military spending triggered the collapse of the Soviet Union believe that the U.S., whose military spending is now equal to that of the rest of the world, is immune from such a collapse.

          • Harry Skip Robinson

   – I can’t remember it at the moment, but there is a psychological phrase for “this can’t happen to me” and sadly many of those who have fallen for the Republicans brought down the Soviet Union meme, also have fallen for the “this can’t happen to America” meme, despite it already happening. It reminds of the phrase Irrational Exuberance and why we should always consider the probability that the majority are often wrong. It is one of the reasons why Democracies fail to provide for what they are meant to do. Provide for what is in the best interest of the majority and provide a civil society for a prolonged period of time. What a difference there is between the word Civil in the phrases Civil War and Civil Society.
            Perhaps we should stop using one of these phrases since there is nothing Civil about a Civil War. And it is not just civilians fighting either, because a government is always on one side of the conflict.

  • 2prickit

    I’m considering here the circular form of this containment that the masters of this hungry or not population, civil or not, is but circular; that unity of Big-Pharma and Big Ag/Monsanto. One clue to this vicious circle is that animal fats are demonized in the media, and have been since the introduction of Crisco and margarine, 1917. But here in response to the above article I am concerned mostly with food products made from various grains where gluten (glue) is present: Consumed by humans these Big-Ag/Monsanto grain foods contain contaminants that cause deadly medical conditions, symptoms of which are then treated by Big-Pharma including psychotropic, products.

    Need we mention our physical and emotional health along with the liberty necessary toward our creation of wealth?

  • Praetor

    Left to their own devices, Vest paradigm and Hayek’s ” spontaneous order”, challenging authoritarian farming. That’s individual people, saying, wait a minute, what’s going on here, what I am I eating. Its kind like the guy in “Solent Green”, saying, your eating people. You realize you are eating something not so good. So, what did people do when they found out their food was imitation and had very little nutritional value, they gravitated to the new market of vitamin supplements, as sold, “one a day”, we are “Flintstone kids” and so on. This is the answer or is it. In the food markets of the Elites, the “so-called”, vitamin nutrient supplement is really just synthetic man-made chemical compounds, in other words Synthetic Pharmaceuticals. YES, they have “SOME” nutritional value, The word is “SOME” just like the food they produce has “SOME” nutritional value, what they produce in their factory farms is not the “WHOLE” of foods nutritional value, it just has SOME value. Why do you think peoples arteries are clogging up, they are eating GLUE, so, the need for pharmaceuticals to un-clog, remove the glue, acid to dissolve the glue. INSIDIOUS is it not. The only way to get all the nutritional value you need is through real whole food, nothing added and nothing removed. If you don’t believe that, you better start taking their acid pharmaceuticals to un-clog your brain cells. Internet Reformation ” Information”, read more.

  • WILE: “Everyone on Earth could be fed if one were willing to reduce war and funnel freed-up resources into a flexible network of dedicated, privately operated food banks administered at the local level as much as possible.”

    BISCHOFF: Anthony Wile’s assessment of the world food situation is spot on. Except that he is unclear about how to remedy the problems.

    There would be plenty of food, if one were to reduce wars….??? Probably so, but who is the “one” that reduces wars….??? How is it done….??? Why hasn’t it been done already….???

    Furthermore, who is going to funnel freed-up resources into a flexible network of dedicated, privately operated food banks administered at the local level….??? The funneling suggested surely does not involve government, or does it…???

    If government doesn’t do the funneling, then who does…??? At what local level are the food banks administered…..??? Administered by whom…??? Whatever happened to “free markets” in contrast to using “administration” (mandating) as means of distribution…???

    The solution to the food problem is so simple, it surprises me that Anthony Wile does not see it. It’s not that it hasn’t been pointed out. As a matter of fact, I have pointed it out in comments on the Daily Bell for years.

    What is the solution….???

    The solution rests with the restoration of Anglo-Saxon type government, the type of government installed with the constitution of everyone of the fifty states, with the exception of the State of California which has broken the covenant with the other forty nine states by materially changing their Anglo-Saxon government through modification of its constitution as required by Proposition 13.

    The county system of the fifty states mirrors the shire system of early England in which the County Sheriff as the chief administrative and law enforcement officer, along with the County Assessor, and the County Recorder are responsible for the use administration of county lands. Through recording of fee simple titles, through value assessments of lands under fee simple title and through collection of a land value tax, equal access to land is guaranteed.

    ….and all one needs to solve the food and hunger problem is have equal access to land. It is as simple as that…!!!

    Anyone interested in the historical and technical aspects of land use administration can read “Land Tenure in Early England” by Eric John. Anyone interested in the popular aspects of the administration of land use and land value taxation can read “Progress and Poverty” by Henry George.

    • Ingo once again we see things a little differently. Food banks offer a very short term improvement to hunger and starvation, but longer term are a financially unworkable approach that creates dependency and rewards sloth, just as welfare does – another naive and financially unworkable “solution” to poverty that is utilized by the forces of darkness to destroy families, self respect, and work ethic. Any solution to to hunger and starvation requires – in this modern world – some sort of population control. Our Lords and Masters are right about this even if the end does not begin to justify the means they use and intend to use in the future.

      • Gregg,

        You are correct. We disagree again. Let me explain……

        I do not disagree with your critique of welfare system. Welfare does damage the work ethic, an ethic to which adherence is taught by one generation to the next. By natural law, each human being is obliged to work, unless physically or mentally disabled. For those physically or mentally unable to sustain themselves by work, charitable giving is a beneficial solution.

        A problem arises when those willing and able to sustain themselves by work are prohibited from doing so by others. The way this occurs is through barring access to land. A number of a privileged few who are allowed to control the use of land, set into motion control over the “fruits of labor” and render the “workers” to labor in a state of servitude. Therein lies the cause of food shortages and of hunger.

        Only equal access to land can solve the problem of food distribution. Equal access to land allows free markets in “labor” and in “goods”. A reduction or absence of equal access to land distorts “wages” and “prices”.

        But, here is where we disagree:

        GREGG FOSSE: “Any solution to to hunger and starvation requires – in this modern world – some sort of population control.”

        BISCHOFF: This statement smacks of Malthusian thinking which has been discredited by many population/demographic experts. Even so, Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich peddles this crap in his 1968 book “The Population Bomb”, which still to this day sells plenty of copies.

        The natural reproductive rate of humans is that of their arboreal ancestors, which is 1.25 to 1.3. What disturbs this natural reproductive rate for humans existing in the terrestrial environment is strive and uncertainty about survival. As soon as a society becomes prosperous and people experience a relative security which approximates that of its genetic ancestors in the arboreal environment, humans will experience a reproductive rate which is the natural reproductive rate of the arboreal ancestors.

        Evidence…..??? Take a look at the welfare states of Europe. Their populations live in relative security, and their populations are declining in numbers relative to those of the Middle East, Africa and South America.

        Take a look at the white population in the United States, which is relatively more prosperous than the minority populations in the United States. It experiences a worrisome drop in the reproductive rate. Illegal immigration tries to make up for it, bringing along economic problems which have the effect of halting the drop of the reproductive rate of the U.S. population overall.

        Take a look at Japan, a country which is ethnically homogenous and discourages immigration completely. The post-WW II prosperity Japan created for its people is causing to wipe out its population. China will fare no better, if the living standard of its people will one day approach that of the Japanese.

        My point is that there is no need to control population numbers in order to feed everyone. What is needed are policies which will let people have equal access to land. If that happens, nature alone will control population numbers.

        • Equal access to land is a fascinating concept Ingo even if I have no idea how this might be accomplished. The territorial drive is present in most mammals and especially in man. The control of land is essential to all who seek dominance or even survival in worst case scenarios. Whatever has happened to birth rates in developed countries the the fact remains that humankind is in my opinion overrunning and despoiling the planet. If as I suspect modern birth control is controlling population growth in developed societies that may offer the best means to population reduction if all can see, or be motivated to see, a benefit. The welfare state is actually compensating mothers to have more babies rather than fewer, and I am sure this is no accident.

          • Gregg,
            The concept is codified in every state constitution, except that California has changed its constitution pursuant to Prop 13 to institute unequal access to land. After thirty five years of Prop 13 change, the results are in. California will default on its debt obligations.

            The reason it hasn’t done so already lies with the economic consequences such default is going to have on the rest of the country. Make no mistake, without massive federal monies coming to the state at present, California would cease to operate.

            It is the enforcement of laws and procedures on the books which determines the access to land that people have within a state. Those states with the most equal access to land are Pennsylvania, Alaska, Texas, Alabama and North Dakota. The states with the least equal access to land are New York, Illinois and Michigan. The one state with unequal access to land is, of course California.

            The commercial real estate interests, operating under the name of “Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association” brought about the change in the California constitution. This same group is hard at work to promote the change in the constitution of other states to match that of Prop. 13. Their latest attempts were made in the 2010 election in the states of Pennsylvania, Texas and North Dakota. I am glad to say that these attempts were unsuccessful. If you wonder why, I’d need another hour to explain it. All I can say is, watch out for this group to appear in your state to do you favors.

            Thank heavens, no other state has been dumb enough to destroy its Anglo-Saxon type government with a Prop 13 change, as has been the State of California.

          • Thank you Ingo, this is all very new to me.

          • This information is to be passed on from one generation to the next. However, the education establishment whose job it largely is, has been delinquent in performing its mission. The universities and colleges are supposed to inform Americans about problems before they strike them down, but these institutions have failed Americans.

            Instead, the members of the education establishment due to following their own selfish interests, have become tools of any number of special interest groups. For generations now, the teaching of how a monetary system works and how government is to be funded and to be operated under the Constitution, has been either distorted or it has been absent.

            It is no wonder that total ignorance reigns when it comes to finding solutions to the economic and societal problems we face. If the Constitution were understood, and if its precepts were followed, we wouldn’t be today in the mess in which we find ourselves.

          • Dave Meekhof

            I don’t see any problem with land valuation and best use of land being determined by the highest bidder. That is a free market principle. I don’t see any problem with special assessment taxes being levied on land owners that enjoy the increase in land value due to public works.

            I do have a problem however, with a perpetual land tax based solely on possession AND use. Why should a person be subject to eviction and denial of his rightful exclusive use of legally purchased land for not paying a biannual tribute, when all he wanted was to be left alone and homestead, to exist?

            I understand the problem where the con-man element in banking, illegally using retired notes for real estate speculation and their ‘cleaning up’ to the detriment of the population at large. So we should all suffer horrendously in order to keep the criminal element satisfied? We should just pay the gangster protection money?

            I highly value your knowledge, Ingo. But this current concept of property tax just rubs on my soul. If limited statism is to exist, let it be funded by its service fees and not by its declared authority fees. In short, was the exclusive use of land sold or not. Or is it leased. Who or what else can sell anything and then attach confiscation rights for not paying tribute.

            I agreed with you in the past because property taxation keeps the uber-rich from accumulating ownership of the earth. I have rethought it and am beginning to realize that this is just another result of the elastic, irredeemable funny munny hoax that has been foisted upon us; and that we the people gullibly accept in another fun filled day of oil soaked, energy rich industrial output. When this peaks and people go searching for reality…well, they might find that they can’t afford it, and it’ll be too late to return to the land.

          • Dear Dave,

            You sound discouraged about seeing the picture about “land” correctly. I sympathize with you, and please don’t think that you are the “Lone Ranger” when failing to understand this subject clearly. I am not trying to be condescending. Please, don’t misunderstand…….

            Without going into Germanic Vulgar Law which is the basis for Anglo-Saxon Law and land use administration in old England, let me just say that the early settlers to North America practiced Anglo-Saxon type government starting with the administration of the Jamestown Settlement under Sir Thomas Dale. It was the “Articles, Lawes, and Orders Divine, Politique, and Martial”, aka Dale’s Code (1611), which became the basis of the Connecticut constitution (1636), the first written constitution on the North American continent.

            Both Dale’s Code and the Connecticut constitution provided for Anglo-Saxon type government. The constitutions of the original states are all based on the Constitution of Connecticut, as are the constitutions of the rest of the other 37 states.

            When people congregate within a certain landed area, they become more than just a congregation of individuals or families. When they want to guarantee to themselves protection and survival through cooperation, they become a state. A state claims allodial rights or sovereignty over a landed area within defined borders. Under Anglo-Saxon Law, in contrast to Feudal Law, state allodial lands are administered for use at the local level. Under Anglo-Saxon Law this involves a fief owed by the user. I won’t go into details, only to say that a fee simple title is a recognition of such fief.

            A fee simple title under the laws of the states, which by the way all only issue titles to individual persons or corporate persons which are “fee simple”, IOW, they require a payment of a fief. The idea that by holding a fee simple title one can acquire private ownership over land is pure folly. There have been dimwits who filed in a Nevada court for allodial rights, thinking they could thereby acquire unassailable private property rights over “their” land. They got laughed out of court.

            However, a fee simple title carries with it the exclusive right to use the land and to pass on the title in an inheritance. The only challenge to a fee simple title can be had by the application of eminent domain and that of escheat. Escheat is the recovery of a fee simple title, if there are no heirs, or if the holder of the title is incarcerated for an extended period of time and there are otherwise no beneficiaries to the title.

            The application of eminent domain to retake a fee simple title requires that the public has an overwhelming need for the use of the land. If the title is taken by eminent domain, the public has to pay for the value of the land, as well as for the value of the fixed personal property upon the land.

            It is in the area of eminent domain where the greatest mischief is being perpetrated upon fee simple title holders. Firstly, it is the county which assesses land values and the county which records fee simple titles. The counties are sub-divisions of the state and administer the land use to which the states have allodial rights. Therefore, to have corporate type municipal governments get into the act of issuing eminent domain decisions for the retaking of fee simple titles is an utter perversion of the law.

            The Kelo decision, written by Justice Suter of the Supreme Court in 2005, violates Anglo-Saxon Law embodied in every state constitution. Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

            This was clearly a decision in favor of commercial real estate interests over the proper application of Anglo-Saxon common law. You will see why in the explanation that follows.

            Again, without going into original fee simple titles, i.e. Northwest Territories, Oklahoma Land Rush , etc., the County Assessor values the all sites held under fee simple title within the county. He publishes a list of the valuations which are open to challenge. Once the valuation list is finalized, a copy of it is furnished to each taxing jurisdiction.

            Municipal governments receive taxing authority over fee simple titled land with their incorporation papers issued by the Secretary of State. To exercise its taxing authority, municipal governments must hold public hearings on the budget. Once a municipal budget has been finalized, the total amount of the budget is divided by the sum of the valuations of lands held under fee simple title within the taxing jurisdiction. The resultant quotient is called the “mil rate”. Individual real property tax bills are calculated by multiplying the mil rate with the site valuation as shown on the County Assessor’s valuation list.

            A land valuation tax does indeed force the use of the land to the highest efficiency. That is as it should be.

            Without going into “land” as a factor in the production of goods and commodities, let me just say that businesses will find maximum efficiencies in sites that do not compete with lands for residential use.

            The land value tax is a cost of doing business where businesses are concerned. They must recover the cost as part of the price in selling goods or leasing out space in a building. The land valuations for commercial real estate is far higher and changes more frequently than that for residential real property. Businesses cannot afford to expand funds for capital improvements upon sites which cannot be recovered in revenue derived from the business. That fact alone causes businesses to relocate timely where the most efficiently use of land can be had.

            The land value tax for residential real property must be paid from income. It cannot be recovered from the sale of products. Under normal circumstances, residential properties are valued only every ten years.

            In the case of Kelo vs. City of New London, the proper procedure would have been to challenge the valuation of the Kelo site held under fee simple title. If after proper valuation with the mil rate applied the tax would have risen, Kelo could have then decided to pay the tax, filed for an extension, or to sell the fee simple title based on the latest valuation, along with the fixed personal property on the land.

            Instead, what happened and what is happening in the 3,000 plus counties in this country routinely, is that commercial real estate is purposely undervalued. The holder of the title however charges “rent” in the form of actual rent for space in a building, or in the form of higher cost calculated into the price for goods which reflects the true value of the land. The difference between the taxes calculated from the under valuation and the revenue derived from collecting on the true value of the land goes into the pockets of the commercial real estate title holder.

            In the case where a title holder is stuck in a location, i.e. an old lady in a downtown residence, the location of which is valued as commercial real estate, the County Sheriffs normally work with the title holder before eviction is ever necessary. When proper valuation is applied to a site by the County Assessor, it is rare that the demand for commercial real estate interferes with thee demand for residential real estate. Of course when improper practices are condoned decade after decade, distortion set in which a very hard to rectify.

            To guarantee free markets in “labor” and “capital”, the proper valuation of real property and the collection of a land value tax is an absolute necessity. Without it, there be economic dislocations and sooner or later a complete collapse of society. Then we have to start again. However, it will never be what we let be destroyed due to our lack of knowledge of history.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Thanks Ingo,
            I guess this is what I was pointing at, as far as seeing an injustice:
            “The land value tax for residential real property must be paid from income.”-IB

            And I’m not so sure of this statement:
            “To guarantee free markets in “labor” and “capital”, the proper valuation of real property and the collection of a land value tax is an absolute necessity. Without it, there be economic dislocations and sooner or later a complete collapse of society.”-IB

            Anyway, I have no reason to complain. I have been treated pretty well by my State and Local Governments. And I’d better tone it down a little because I am starting to feel guilty for not paying you any tuition fee. 🙂

            Thanks again.

          • “The land value tax for residential real property must be paid from income.”-IB

            Yes, and nothing can serve as better proof of this injustice than the effects which Prop 13 has had on the tax levels for residential real property in California.

            Prop 13 changed the California constitution to eliminate periodic valuations in favor of an annual 1% increase in evaluation with a base year of 1979, or using for valuation the latest price at which the real property sold.

            Commercial real property changes hands on average every twenty years. Residential real property is sold on average every five years. When real property was sold after Prop. 13 took effect, new owners gained an advantage in knowing that future valuations were limited to 1% increase per year. The seller of course charged the new owner for this advantage in the selling price of the real property. Thus, it didn’t take very long before the residential real estate prices in California exceeded the national average by multiple times. (Real estate prices in downtown Modesto exceeded those in Manhattan at the end of the last century)

            Now, we come to the injustice. For every turnover of ownership of commercial real property, there are four times as many turn overs of ownerships of residential properties. The advantage gained by the 1% limitation in valuation per year drove up residential real estate prices in proportion to commercial real estate and the increased prices in residential property came to be the base for the 1% valuation.

            If you follow all this, you can see where over time more and more of the tax burden gets shifted to the residential property owner who must pay his taxes from income, while the commercial real estate owner can charge on the basis of true value and collect this in revenue of the business, but pay taxes only on the 1% annual increase on real property which turns only 1/4th as often as residential real property. So, not only does the residential property holder have to work to pay the taxes, he then has to pay a higher price for the goods, because the price reflects the cost structure based on the true value of commercial real estate. (Value determined by what people are willing pay for rent or goods.)

            A few residents who never sold, and who have their base year as 1979 for tax valuation purposes, realize a great advantage over their neighbor who just paid a huge price for his newly purchased home. Thus, it can happen that one resident pays a $1,000 in annual real property taxes, while his next door neighbor pays $20,000 a year. Yet, both residents enjoy the same police and fire services, etc…. (Talk about equal protection under the law.)

            As this goes on, certain distortions in the labor and capital markets start to appear. Some professions are favored with tax subsidies and capital markets are interfered with, be it by the PPT in the equity markets, or by the bond speculators who end run the FED…..on and on it goes…….

            The problem is that the effects of Prop 13 cannot be totally isolated to California. For example, when someone in Silicon Valley sells their shack for $500,000 and moves to the Boston corridor, he starts to bid up prices in Massachusetts’ real property. The banks love it. They sell mortgages, and the higher the real estate prices, the more they love it. Of course, they don’t inventory the mortgages. They take their commission and sell most of them as quickly as possible to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Those two GSEs (Government Sponsored Enterprises) in turn slice them and dice them into MBSs (Mortgage Backed Securities) which are then sold as investment vehicles to the public, domestically and overseas.

            However, don’t forget that those MBS bonds pay an interest for which the GSEs like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have to stand “good”…… Oh, I take this back……it is for which the American taxpayer has to stand “good”. Do you get the picture…..?????

            (As an update, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have been pretty much defunct after 2008. All their problems are taken care off now by the QEs)


            “To guarantee free markets in “labor” and “capital”, the proper valuation of real property and the collection of a land value tax is an absolute necessity. Without it, there be economic dislocations and sooner or later a complete collapse of society.”-IB

            This has to do with fundamental economics. There are three “factors” involved in the “production” of “wealth”. (I won’t go into the exact definitions of all these terms). They are “land”, “labor” and “capital”.
            The return to each of the factors in the production of wealth is “rent”, “wages” and “interest”, respectively.

            The “land value” tax (rent) collected as “fief” under Anglo-Saxon Law pays for the cost of government, but it also reflects the value of resources which nature provides and upon which labor exerts itself to produce wealth. Wealth when not consumed can be employed as capital which earns interest in return.

            If you distort the true value which nature (“land”) provides as a factor in the production of wealth, you are then also distorting the value contributed by both labor and capital. “Free markets” discover prices of goods and commodities by “arbitrage” (not by “supply and demand”). Arbitrage does not work when any factor of production is distorted and obscures the true cost of production. The distortion I am talking about is brought on by either practices of corruption, or by government mandate.


            If, I can in anyway explain the workings of an economy to make it more understandable to you, then I am pleased. There is no need to feel guilty admitting it, though………..:)

            I look for challenges of my views. That is one of the reasons I write here. Of course, I like those challenges be based on facts, reason and logic, not merely on emotion.

      • Harry Skip Robinson

        Gregg – you can’t ethically socially engineer society in a positive manner other than by market forces. As examples, our social welfare system promotes women to have children they cannot really afford to care for; free food stamps, housing, education, etc. Even in marriage, women often times get pregnant against their husbands desire, to sure up their financial position, preparing for potential divorce thus seeking both child support and/or alimony. It even appears to me that many women are attracted to the various religions because it grants them financial power without the responsibility of having to actually bring home the bacon themselves. Government interventions appears to me to just exacerbate these existing cultural problems. We have in affect communized the family unit through cultural and government policy thus giving women greater incentives to have more children. Is it the women’s fault for taking advantage of the system or is it man’s fault for wiling to do just about anything for sex. Lol.

    • What Wile is suggesting is private food banks analagous to those that operated for thousands of years in various societies under the supervision of temples, churches, etc.

      • If Wile is promoting charitable giving of foods, he has my ardent support.

    • “The county system of the fifty states mirrors the shire system of early England in which the County Sheriff as the chief administrative and law enforcement officer, along with the County Assessor, and the County Recorder are responsible for the use administration of county lands. Through recording of fee simple titles, through value assessments of lands under fee simple title and through collection of a land value tax, equal access to land is guaranteed.” – Ingo Bischoff

      I completely agree. When we win the land battle in the western United States as promised by the sacred compact between the States and the General government, the Federal government gives up Leviathan and governments revert back to local control as designed by our founding fathers. The is working hard to strip illegal federal power by taking their resources. It is a big fight that was fought, and won, by Andrew Jackson, et al. for the States created out of the Northwest Territories in the 1830s. We can do it again.

      • Brother Jonathan,

        I applaud you for your right thinking as well, as for your efforts in support of Anglo-Saxon governance. I think corporate type governance (government from the top down, like municipal governments) has spawned too much emulation. I offer the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments as evidence.

        It is high time that Anglo-Saxon type government be revived which means that power be returned to the states and to the local county sheriffs.

    • chuck martel

      How about “land tenure on the southern Great Plains”? The Comanches didn’t even have private ownership of real property and got along just fine until some Anglo-Saxons arrived and decided that they were big roaches instead of the actual owners of the land. It took awhile but the palefaces managed, through disease, repeating rifles and good luck, to exterminate or incarcerate the resident population and turn their country into a pasture for English cattle. Of course the purported new owners of the land give it up if they don’t pay their tithe to the government, so they don’t actually own the land, they’re only renting it. The Comanches never had that issue.

      • Native Americans methodically killed many Europeans simply because they did not believe in land ownership. A native American killed Abraham Lincoln’s grandfather, while he was farming his field, in May 1786, simply for claiming the right to own land, to build a home, and feed his family, in Kentucky.

        I do not wish to live, in a Tipi, as a nomad, yet the Comanches did. They did not believe anyone could “own” land, or a permanent home. The Comanches had a lot of issues. Killing people they did not agree with was one of them.

        • chuck martel

          “while he was farming his field”

          Who says it was his field? Did he have a signed deed from the native Americans that once managed that property? In fact, the natives couldn’t have given anyone a deed because such a thing did not exist. No native had the ability to sign away, sell, or give their property to anyone, although some wily souls made a pretense of it.

          ” The Comanches had a lot of issues. Killing people they did not agree with was one of them.”

          Pretty unique issue. Wasn’t that Lincoln’s solution to the disagreement with the seven secessionist states? I seem to recall something about the US Army Air Corps dropping a couple of nuclear devices on some Japanese teen-age girls on their way to school one morning in April 1945 over some disagreement. By the way, how many Branch Davidians were barbecued by the US government over some disagreement or other?

          • “Who says it was his field?” – chuck martel

            The “State of Kentucky” said it was his field. He had a land deed issued by the State of Kentucky which is how civilized people live. He did not need a deed signed by the native Americans because they did not believe in land ownership. They were nomads, roaming the world, living in tipis, who would kill anyone who disagreed with their nomadic ways and tried to build a permanent home for themselves and their posterity. They were barbarians.

            “Wasn’t that Lincoln’s solution to the disagreement with the seven secessionist states?” – chuck martel

            No. That is your misunderstanding of history. Secession was not the reason for the Civil War. That is a “lost cause” lie that keeps being told, but it has no basis in historical fact. The Confederates tried to overthrow the Union. That is why Lincoln consistently said that he was trying to “Save the Union” because the Southerners were trying to “Destroy the Union”. Abraham Lincoln did not wage war because of secession. Lincoln defended the Union against the slave powers who waged war on their Northern brothers and sisters in order to keep their slaves. No amount of historical “lost cause lies” repetition can change historical facts. History can be misunderstood, but historical facts can not be changed. Facts are stubborn things.

            “By the way, how many Branch Davidians were barbecued by the US government over some disagreement or other?” – chuck martel

            None. Again, you believe the lie as told on TV. The “Mob” killed the Branch Davidains. There is no Constitutional basis for what the Mob does. The Mob overthrew the U.S. government a long time ago. Just because the TV says it was the U.S. government, who killed those people, does not make it true. The TV lies to you.

          • Lincoln unfortunately, was responsible for a war that killed millions. He never offered peace, he never allowed discussion of secession. He jailed thousands, impressed thousands, and in elevating the “union” to a priority above all others, he set the stage for the current leviathan.

          • That has no basis in historical fact. That lie will die, someday. When enough people finally study 19th century history. Lincoln did offer peace. Jefferson Davis wanted no part of peace. He wanted Empire!

          • Where in the historical record does it show that Lincoln made a signifcant and serious peace offer once war began? Where?

          • Was sending Robert S. Chew to South Carolina, on April 8, to let Governor Pickens know that surrendering the Union was not an option not an offer of peace?

            Lincoln authorized the destruction of 15,000 Union weapons at Harpers Ferry on April 18, 1861. Was that not an offer of peace? Instead of building up arms before the war he was destroying arms. That to me is an offer of peace. Instead of achieving peace, tens of thousands of Confederate troops surrounded Washington and held them in siege from May until July. Was surrounding Washington and holding them in siege an offer of peace?

          • Again, once the war began, he pursued it grimly to the bloody end and seemed, according to some, to enjoy doing so.

          • Obviously, you have never read what Lincoln said or wrote when he walked the Earth. He did not enjoy the war and never wanted any part of it. You can believe the sophists if you wish. I am not going to believe the lies.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Hi Brother. I am no longer taking sides on this, since the last time we discussed it. I also find it silly to argue which statist was better or worse. But you speak of truth in historical fact. When entire populations are lied to right off the bat, it is hard to have any truth in history. Wasn’t there an argument over international trade and the banking houses that cleared it? It is fact that the Fed was granted power to regulate interstate commerce, but maybe the cause of the war boiled down to a question of the Fed having any jurisdiction or not over the States engaging in international commerce? Is not interfering with any sovereign state’s international trade an act of war? I don’t know. It just seems the issue must have been bigger than slavery or secession when peering through the clouded lens of history, into that time frame.

          • I am not asking anyone to take sides. I am asking people to read what Abraham Lincoln said and wrote while he lived here on Earth before they make false claims against him because it is easy to see who has done their own homework and who hasn’t.

            Statism, not anarchism, is what protects liberty, peace, and prosperity. Anarchism came to America over 30 years after the Constitution was ratified as a socialist scheme. Josiah Warren: The First American Anarchist Statism gave birth to Anarchism, Marxism, Mormonism, Socialism, and a whole host of other Utopian philosophies because the conditions classical liberalism brought to America were nearly Utopian but not perfect. Perfection was sought.

            Slavery was the reason for the Civil War. All the other excuses for the war were made up after the war was over. It wasn’t fought over tariffs or the right to secede. The federal taxes were less than $3 per person per year in 1860. They did not secede until after they lost the election.

            Lincoln correctly read the founding fathers intention to end slavery in America by not letting it expand into the Territories. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 passed before the U.S. Constitution was ratified banned slavery in the Northwest Territories. See Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. See the Wilmot Proviso. See Lincoln’s speech concerning the Kansas Nebraska Act. See Lincoln’s House Divided Speech. The Confederate Constitution ratified just one week after Lincoln swore the oath of office clearly was written specifically to nationalize, expand, and perpetuate slavery. See Article IV.

            If there were no slave owners, there never would have been a Civil War in America.

            Read what Jefferson Davis said to William Seward in 1860. The right of the superior race to own slaves was what defined freedom in the mind of Davis.

            Jefferson Davis’ reply in the Senate to William H. Seward


            Abraham Lincoln – March 4, 1861
            “One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute.”

            Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens – March 21, 1861
            “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

            Slavery, slavery, slavery. Only after the war was it claimed that the war was fought for other reasons.

            Abraham Lincoln is the poster child for Hegelian Dialectic a favorite divide and conquer technique of Skull and Bones society. I am not yet certain which Skull and Bones member was the first in American administration. However, Skull and Bones co-founder Alphonso Taft, father of president and Skull and Bones member William Taft, was Secretary of War under President Grant. Alphonso Taft may have been the first. I have more research to do.

            Lincoln grew up in abject poverty in virtual anarchy, and spent his entire life prior to the war calling for an end to slavery, liberty for all, free market capitalism, and peace. After the Progressives took over America in the early 20th century, they put Lincoln on a marble throne in Washington portrayed as a ruler of the masses. He was no such ruler. He was a man of principle who swore an oath to defend his country against invasion and that is what he did to the best of his ability.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Thank you very much for that. Obviously I spend much less time and energy than you, as a student of history. I do see the value in the quotes and references you provide, not just for me but for anyone who might care.

            The only thing you said here that leaves me hanging is, “Statism, not anarchism, is what protects liberty, peace, and prosperity.” Limited statism…maybe. Are there any examples in the history of the world where this limited condition has existed for very long within a statist realm? It seems to me that a good dose of anarchy is essential in maintaining a balance of power between statism and individuality, which is the foundation of liberty.

            Anyway, this is an interesting and profoundly important subject. Thank you for the richness of information you are providing.

          • Land disputes have always been a problem because all wealth comes from the land. Greed is a problem and always has been. The Queen of England lays claim to millions upon millions of acres of land, as does America’s Federal government. I call that greedy. They should allow their subjects the right to own their own lands.

            Statism attempts to solve land disputes through voluntary agreements (land deeds) describing who owns which piece of land and the resources contained in the lands. Statism was fairly successful in early America especially in the Northern states where people were allow their freedom, and free markets … for the most part. It wasn’t perfect and it never can be because some people simply believe that they should rule over others. Native Americans, blacks, the Mormons, and other groups were persecuted. That is a sad black eye for statism, yet anarchy (of the past) in America, was even worse as Abraham Lincoln described in his Lyceum Address.

            “In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American People, find our account running, under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era.–We find ourselves in the peaceful possession, of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions, conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty, than any of which the history of former times tells us.” – Abraham Lincoln – 1838

            Lincoln grew up in virutal anarchy and later rejected for obvious reasons. There was no due process.

            Statism was highly successful in the South for the slave owners and slave traders, but free Southerners could not compete against slavery, so statism did not work well for slaves or free persons who did not participate in the slave business in the South.

            We can do better in the future than we have done in the past. The Internet Reformation is finally freeing the world.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Well, greed is a human trait. So lets not let that become a “problem”. And that can start by not agreeing to be “subjects” to authority. If royals or governments have no subjects, then they have no use of such large tracts of land.

            You say, “All wealth comes from the land”. Hmm, all sources (resources), an ingredient for wealth production comes from the land, but not the wealth itself. Human productive input is responsible for turning earth resources into wealth. So once authority is accepted and the control over ones productive effort becomes acceptable, then land ownership or the control of its resource becomes necessary to take advantage of, to procure the wealth created by the exertion of human effort.

            So we are still talking about the pivotal question of who should control human productive effort. Plantation owners, aka, todays overblown corporation affiliated with monopoly bank currency or the regulatory body? Neither one can control the human element without the others collaboration. Now, thanks to you, I’ll thank Lincoln for the short reprieve which may have added greatly to my current economic/freedom condition, as opposed to what may have evolved out of the slave states. I would either have to use the whip in order to compete or feel the whip. Not a good set of choices.

            Now I said all that as a qualifier when I agree that the biggest and badest controversy comes back to the concept of land ownership. And that statism has demonstrated to be an effective protector of property rights against invaders, both foreign and domestic. Statism and all other claims to authority need to end right there. And I don’t believe anyone has land rights. One can purchase land, conquer land but can not purchase rights or conquer rights. But through the purchase of land, in a civil society, personal property rights can apply in the exclusive use of the purchased land and its resources. I might come to a cross roads between You, Ingo and the Georgians over the concept of land taxation. But that is a different subject.

          • chuck martel

            “Well, greed is a human trait.”

            Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, like sloth and lust. We don’t hear much about lust, even though it’s economically significant. Anyway, where’s the line between a normal level of acquisitiveness and greed? How do you measure greed? Isn’t there a relationship between ambition and greed? When someone gets up in the morning and heads to the office is he propelled by ambition, greed, or force of habit? Are the gamblers around a crap table greedy or compelled by some other emotion? When an investor buys shares in an IPO is he altruistically promoting the success of the venture or hoping to make a killing without expending any mental or physical energy? Concentrating on greed to the exclusion of lust, sloth, wrath, and so on isn’t pleasing to the higher power.

          • Dave Meekhof

            Who is concentrating on greed? I just assume it is present in varying degrees, in everyone including myself, and move on. Yes, let the ‘higher power’ be the judge of all the deadly sins. That’s not my job. I think the natural law of cause and effect works quite well.

          • Why is it necessary to read political lies in order to establish the truth? Does one read the speeches of Bill Clinton or George Bush to determine the reality of their regimes? Statism protects peace? This is a kind of tautology. Statism mandates the use of force to enforce laws. How can the use of force against people protect those same people from the use of force?

            If Abraham Lincoln was the poster child for Hegelian Dialectic, then he was the witting or unwitting tool of a power elite determined to give birth to a more totalitarian state via a bloody war. Either he was a dupe or a willing participant in a bloody charade. His war gave rise the world´s most powerful empire. Save us from such men of principle willing to shed the blood of others for self-proclaimed humanitarian purposes.

          • Lincoln’s speeches and letters are much more philosophical than political. He didn’t have speech writers.

            I agree that he may have been an unwitting tool of a power elite determined to give birth to a more totalitarian state. That is why I am still researching to learn when the first Skull and Bones members infiltrated the general government. If he was an unwitting tool, then there is no need to blame him for the war. I believe that may be why he was killed. Lincoln would have been an obstacle to the power elite’s expansion plans. There is no evidence that Lincoln wanted war. He spoke of peace and searched for peaceful solutions until the Confederates attacked the Union soldiers off the coast of South Carolina unprovoked.

            With 74 year old General Winfield Scott, who had gout so bad he could barely walk, and he couldn’t ride a horse, in charge of around 900 Union soldiers the day the Confederates bombarded Fort Sumter indicates that Lincoln did not prepare for war. Further evidence is his destruction of 15,000 weapons at Harpers Ferry just a few days later. Tyrants do not first destroy their weapons if they intend to invade.

            Whenever people call it Lincoln’s war, we immediately know that person has an agenda. The war was predicted by many people years before Lincoln was even born. Lincoln just happened to be outspoken enough against slavery that when he was elected president, even though the Southern states kept the Republicans off the ballot in 9 or 10 Southern states, “the war came”. Southern secession commissioners went through the South scaring the Southerners with fear of chaos if they did not secede. Most likely, Jefferson Davis knew, if he could blame Lincoln for starting the war, that Virginia would then secede as well, and Maryland too. Then, Washington would have been completely surrounded and forced to surrender. Yet, Jefferson Davis had knowledge that Lincoln’s only intention, by sending supplies to his troops in Fort Sumter, was to not surrender the Union. He told them specifically.

            “To Robert S. Chew [1]

            [War Department.] Washington, April 6. 1861

            Sir—you will proceed directly to Charleston, South Carolina; and if, on your arrival there, the flag of the United States shall be flying over Fort-Sumpter, and the Fort shall not have been attacked, you will procure an interview with Gov. Pickens, and read to him as follows:

            “I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort-Sumpter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or amunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the Fort”

            After you shall have read this to Governor Pickens, deliver to him the copy of it herein inclosed, and retain this letter yourself.

            But if, on your arrival at Charleston, you shall ascertain that Fort Sumpter shall have been already evacuated, or surrendered, by the United States force; or, shall have been attacked by an opposing force, you will seek no interview with Gov. Pickens, but return here forthwith.
            [Respectfully SIMON CAMERON
            Secy of War]


            Notice carried by R. S. Chew to Gov. Pickens, and his report as to how he gave the notice.


            [1] ADf, AD, AE; DLC-RTL. In addition to Lincoln’s autograph draft of the letter, the paragraph quoted in the letter, and the endorsement on the envelope, Cameron’s LS copied from Lincoln’s draft and Chew’s report to the President on April 8, are in the Lincoln Papers. Bracketed portions are not in Lincoln’s draft, but are reproduced from Cameron’s LS. Robert S. Chew was a clerk in the State Department. His report is as follows:

            “To the President Charleston S. C. April 8th 1861

            “Under the foregoing orders I left Washington at 6 P. M. Saturday April 6th, 1861, in company with Capt. Theodore Talbot, U. S. Army, and arrived at Charleston, S. C. on Monday at the same hour. Finding that Fort Sumter had neither been surrendered, evacuated nor attacked, I immediately thro’ Capt. Talbot, requested an interview with Governor Pickens, which was at once accorded to me, and I then read to him the portion of said orders in italics [quotation marks], and delivered to him the copy of the same which was furnished to me for that purpose, in the presence of Capt Talbot. Govr. Pickens received the Copy and said he would submit it to General Beauregard, he having, since the ratification of the Constitution of the Confederate States by South Carolina, been placed in charge of the Military operations in this vicinity. Genl. Beauregard was accordingly sent for, and the Governor read the paper to him.

            “In reply to a remark made by Governor Pickens in reference to an answer I informed him that I was not authorised to receive any communication from him in reply.
            Respectfully submitted R. S. CHEW”

          • He was a dupe or devious, and probably both. Either way it doesn´t speak well of this most bloody of US presidents you are obsessed with defending.

            Here is an eloquent summary of Lincoln´s deeds and behavior …


            Lincoln’s Conduct of the War …

            A civil war is usually marked by an intensity in feeling and an atrociousness of conduct which is often lacking in wars between rival powers. It is fair to say that the War between the States was waged by the Lincoln administration with a barbarity rarely equaled in any other war in American history.

            Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus throughout the nation. He assumed the power to close newspapers and in fact closed hundreds of them in the North which dared criticize his policies. He arrested elected officials, including former members of Congress, who opposed him. /35

            Vice-President John C. Breckenridge, who finished second to Lincoln in electoral votes in the 1860 election, presided over the official election and swore in his successor, Hannibal Hamlin. Breckenridge, a Kentuckian, was opposed to disunion and to Lincoln. His criticism of Lincoln was censored and the Associated Press was barred from reporting his remarks. Breckenridge remained in Washington until after the First Battle of Manassas, hoping and working for peace. /36 He later became a Confederate general.

            The first taste of what was to come in the South in the course of the war was seen in the border states. In Missouri, the Anglo-Saxon population was disarmed and the state was garrisoned with volunteer units of Germans who could be counted on to support the Lincoln administration. The Anglo-Saxon population of the whole western tier of counties in Missouri were deported from their homes by General Ewing’s General Order Number 11, which depopulated the region by forcibly evacuating the women and children on the shortest of notice, along with burning their houses and stealing their property. Among those experiencing this deportation and expropriation was the mother of later President Harry S. Truman. The memories of the sufferings she and her family had endured while she was a small child stayed with Mrs. Truman throughout her life. On one occasion the aspiring young politician told his mother that he had been invited to dinner at the house of a prominent family in Kansas City. His mother admonished him to turn the silver over and check the hallmark because, “It’s probably ours.” On another occasion, Truman showed his mother his new National Guard uniform only to be ordered out of the house because the pants were blue.

            In Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, Northern troops fired on pro-Southern demonstrators, dispersed legislatures, expelled elected officials and otherwise demonstrated that no respect for constitutional rights or liberties would be shown during the course of the war.

            It is amazing that the Lincoln cultists have been able to shield Lincoln from the Northern atrocities committed during the war under his tenure as Commander-in-Chief of its armies. The standard line on this point, usually implied rather than stated, is that Lincoln sat in the White House exuding love for Southerners, in blissful ignorance of what Sherman, Ewing, Pope, Butler and others were doing. This, of course, is unworthy of belief and is an impossibility, given the widespread jubilant publicity in the North over the depredations of the Northern armies against the Southern people. /37

            General Ewing’s General Order Number 11 in Missouri was merely a taste of what was to come throughout the South. The most famous and widely known example of Northern atrocities was the campaign of General William Tecumseh Sherman in Georgia. No portion of this country has ever felt the scourge of war like the State of Georgia experienced it.

            The city of Atlanta, after its surrender, was burned to the ground, and only a handful of churches and a few outlying residences escaped the holocaust. More than 4,000 edifices were burned, which was approximately 92% of the city. Only 450 buildings of any sort escaped this ruthless burning, in a city which had a population of 14,000. Captain Daniel Oakey of the Second Massachusetts Volunteers recounted the bunting of Atlanta as follows: “Sixty thousand of us witnessed the destruction of Atlanta, while our post band and that of the 33rd Massachusetts played martial airs and operatic selections.” /38 Like the bombing of Dresden, this massive destruction of civilian property was of no military importance. On November 15, 1864, the march of the Northern troops across Georgia from Atlanta to Savannah began. Sherman created a charred avenue over 40 miles wide, destroying all railroads, seizing all provisions, pillaging, plundering and burning. There was no military force available to obstruct his course. /39

            The devastation in Georgia was so complete that entire communities disappeared never to be heard of again. Perhaps the most dramatic of these occurred at the midtown of New Manchester on Sweetwater Creek in Douglas County, Georgia. The Union forces had occupied the town without a shot being fired on July 2, 1864. Most of the workers in the mill were women and were told to return to their homes. They were told that they would be taken out of the path of the advancing army. The mill was destroyed and the town was placed under guard. On July 8, the entire town, including the homes of the workers, was burned to the ground. Having destroyed the entire town, only the population remained, most of them women and children with a few men. The women and children were separated from the men and herded into wagons. The wagon train then set off for Marietta, Georgia, some 16 miles away. During the journey the women were forced to endure the sexual advances of the Union soldiers. In Marietta the group was joined by a similar group of deported women from Roswell, Georgia. On July 20, the entire group of women and children were shipped by train from Georgia to Louisville, Kentucky. /40 Not one woman or child is known to have returned to New Manchester. To the credit of the North, even in that section, there was strong opposition to the policy of deporting women and children.

            Are we really to believe that Abraham Lincoln knew nothing of the depredations of Sherman’s troops? The atrocious deeds of his troops were reported widely throughout the Northern press and extended over a period of many months, not ending until the final surrender of the Confederacy, by which time Sherman had similarly torched Columbia, South Carolina, and laid waste to parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina Sherman, besides his legendary “War is hell” comment, wrote his wife in Savannah, Georgia, of popular opinion of the Northern liberators: “They regard us just as the Romans did the Goths and the parallel is not unjust.”

          • That website is a very poor example of 19th century history and full of false premises. Folks who are interested in the truth of who Abraham Lincoln was should simply read what he wrote and said when he walked the Earth. Who Lincoln was is no secret.

            Speeches and Letters of Abraham Lincoln 1832-1865


            “In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.” – Abraham Lincoln – March 4, 1861

            The South should have heeded his words and remained peaceful. Instead, when Lincoln told them he was not going to surrender the Union, and he was going to supply his troops with provisions, as he was duty bound to do, they waged a war they could not finish. All they had to do was not bomb Union soldiers in a Union fort, off the coast of South Carolina, that had no offensive capabilities, that had been deeded to the Union by South Carolina and built with Union money. That’s it. All they had to do to avoid all the suffering they still complain about today is not wage war against their Northern brothers and sisters.

            During the 1863 “Bread Riots” in Richmond, Jefferson Davis ordered Confederate troops to shoot hungry Southern women and children protesters if they did not disband. That was more despicable than anything Lincoln did.

            The Confederates cheated the 1860 election, they held Union soldiers in siege from late December 1860 to April 12, 1861, they shot at the unarmed merchant ship “The Star of the West” in January 1861 when President Buchanan tried to resupply Fort Sumter, then they bombarded the Union troops, who were running out of supplies, for 36 hours, then they marched tens of thousands of Confederate troops North to camp 30 miles outside of Washington and held Washington in siege tearing up telegraph, food, and rail lines for many more months until the first battle at Bull Run on July 21, 1861. All to keep chattel slavery. Why should I believe the Southerners were innocent victims of a horrible war? I don’t. They did not have to take up arms against their Northern brothers and sisters. They need to take responsibility for their own actions. They were their own worst enemy.

          • Again, Jefferson Davis did not even want to surrender after Lee surrendered to Grant. Jefferson Davis was a lifelong warmonger who wanted EMPIRE! That is a historical fact.

          • Lincoln’s actions during the war were not those of a man who desired peace. Rather, he desired the absolute subjugation of the enemy, which set the stage for the rise of the modern leviathan and all the bloody consequences of its 20th century genocides.

          • If a man attacks you, do you fight to win?

            Your misunderstanding of history does not promote truth. Lincoln did not set the stage for modern leviathan. All of that came after he was killed.

          • A war is not a fight between two people. A war is a serious business that often ends in a kind of genocide, as it did under Lincoln. There were plenty of options available to him. Instead, he decided to send his generals down to the South to rape women and starve children. There are perhaps esteemable politicians in America´s history; Lincoln was not among them.

          • Again, that is not true. Again, that lie will someday die. Jefferson Davis could have, at any time, ended the suffering of the South. It was all in his hands because he waged the war and would not stop the killing until he was forced to stop. He massacred thousands of Mexicans before he killed hundreds of thousands of Americans.

          • As with Lincoln … One was no better than the other.

          • Lincoln could have ended the war? How? By surrendering to the Slave Powers? How would that promote liberty?

          • He certainly didn´t have to be part of it, and didn´t have to prosecute it. He used the power of leviathan to make war. Since he was not a naive man, he must have known that the peace to follow would be more ruinous than the war he waged.

          • Liberty is not better than chattel slavery? Peace is not better than War? Abraham Lincoln was a peaceful man while Jefferson Davis was a lifelong warrior. Abraham Lincoln was defending liberty while Jefferson Davis was fighting for the right to own slaves. Lincoln was a much better humanitarian than Davis, IMO. I’m glad Lincoln defended liberty for people of all colors and genders everywhere in the world. If we all defended liberty, instead of slavery, we would all be free people.

          • One can defend one´s liberty and even the liberty of the larger community. But to say that one defends the liberty of a “nation,” is gibberish. There are no nations, only culture, and the idea that a politician sacrifices his life for humanitarian purposes is fairy tale.

          • The framers of the U.S. Constitution were fully aware that unless the slave states could bestow civil rights upon their slave population, a civil war was unavoidable.

            However, it was the secession of the Southern states in 1861 which gave rise to the initial outbreak of the Civil War. It was Lincoln’s desire to secure the Union against foreign influence and threats of invasion which prompted him to mobilize the resources of the industrial North to fight the secession movement of the Southern, slave-owning states. By fighting the war between the states to a successful conclusion, Lincoln established the principle of insolubility of the Union. IOW, a territory can form a state to conform to Article IV and join the Union, but once joined, it cannot secede.

            As the Civil War progressed, the civil rights of slaves became a greater and greater issue. With the end of the Civil War, the Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act as 14 Stat. 27-30, enacted April 9, 1866. It was the first United States federal law to define US citizenship, and affirmed that all citizens were equally protected by the law. It took the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 to make the Civil Rights Act of 1866 fully enforceable.

            If the current leviathan is the all powerful central government of the United States, I completely disagree that Lincoln can be blamed for it. He never did anything to diminish the power of the states vis-à-vis the federal government.

            The blame for the current leviathan must be strictly blamed on the Progressive Movement of the early 1900s, on the Democrats and Woodrow Wilson and his friends, the money center banks, which funded the push for the ratification of the 16th and 17th Amendments. No less blame goes to FDR who nationalized the savings of the American people, and who perverted the functioning of the U.S. Supreme Court with a speech in 1937. Also, no small blame for the current leviathan goes to the U.S. Congress which turned a Federal Reserve System consisting of private reserve bank associations into a Federal Reserve governmental central bank with the National Banking Act of 1935.

            This constant bashing of Lincoln for fighting the Civil War to keep together and to secure the Union smacks of special interest attempts to divert attention from the real problem, namely the neutering of state power by an all powerful federal government controlled by special interests.

          • chuck martel

            The native Americans weren’t granted citizenship in the United States until 1924. The point, however, is that the never-ending mouthing about freedom and liberty in the US is simply so much crap. The citizen Japanese were interred because of their ancestry, as were Germans during WWII, Young men are conscripted, enslaved, to fight the wars of the political and commercial elite, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, arrested legislators, closed newspapers. Americans keep parroting a government line that doesn’t correspond to reality. If the Americanos are willing to admit that they wanted the property of others and were willing to kill to get it, fine. But don’t keep claiming the moral high ground when you’re standing in blood.

          • Thank you for your response, but may I ask you what civil rights for black slaves has to do with citizenship for Native Americans……??? Do you equate the treatment of humans being enslaved to warriors being defeated…???

            The internment of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WW II was unconstitutional, as was the restriction of movement for Americans of German and Italian ancestry in certain parts of the country.

            However, just because the Constitution was violated by the government with support from certain special interests, and this violation had tacit approval of the population in general, are you then saying that the precepts to guard individual liberty set out in the Constitution are crap…???

            Yes, Lincoln did all those things that you say he did. How can I justify them…???

            In order to understand the justification, knowledge about American history during the early decades of the Union is necessary. After 1791, the main concern of the original thirteen states joined by Kentucky and some other states shortly thereafter, that a divided North America gave opportunity to European powers to again gain influence and territory on the North American continent. The English had been kicked out less than ninety years ago, and the French had sold the Louisiana Territory to the U.S. less than sixty years ago. Spain was still a power in Florida at the eve of the Civil War.

            The measures Lincoln took to stymie dissent were unconstitutional, but they were not directed at the power of the states vis-à-vis the federal government, except to the extent that Lincoln told the Southern states that secession was out of the question.

            With victory over the Confederacy the question whether the Union could be divided, was settled. You may not like the results, but that is a separate subject. In any case, European powers which tried to gain influence with the Confederate States were rebuffed, and any retaking of territory on the North American continent became a pipe dream for European powers.

            By the way, I gather that you are not a U.S. citizen, based on the judgment you allow yourself about of a government by “We, the people” (though “we the people” allow special interests to walk all over us) when you talk about “moral high ground” and “standing in blood”…..

    • It is already Rescue Missions and the St. Vincent de Paul missions feeding the poor. Food stamps require volumes of paperwork and documents, a food stove at home, etc etc at least used to. Red Cross, private concerns still have to pick up the slack.
      First ones on the scene for Hurricane Andrew in South Florida were young local missionaries, while the county emergency director was whining for “Where is the calvary?” Ditto for the west coast of the peninsula later. Caravans of Baptist church buses loaded with aid were stopped by police and national guard from getting into New Orleans after Katrina.

  • MetaCynic

    I would think that a causal link can be established between a lack of food and a lack of economic freedom.

  • The only real solution is to eliminate the central bankers and their power to print “money”. So long as they control that, they control everything and everyone… including food.

  • The Cubans have found that ordering farmers to communes and abolishing the profits from commoditization has caused a LOT of hunger in a VERY fertile island. When they started allowing some private sales, people waited a bit first (they have done it before and then cracked down again) and then there was more food.

    Ethiopia’s big starvation (“We are the world”, remember that) was the fault of the government. Food was locked up in ports.

    After Hurricane Mitch messed up Honduras, food rotten on ships in port because government officials couldn’t sell it fast enough from their own stores.

    South Korea sends food aid to North Korea.

    The Pilgrims distributed food equally the first year, with some starvation. For the second year they divided up plots by family. They harvested an abundance enough to share with the Indian neighbors.

  • Bruce C

    I think this is an excellent piece.

    I consider the provision of food to be like the provision of healthcare – something that “statists” would like to control to control the populace. I also think that neither are “rights” (at least defined as that which does not require the efforts of others to provide.)

    However, I have a problem with the concept that “overpopulation” is not a fundamental problem. I understand the concept that “free market” food production is probably the most prodigious and could provide the most food for the most people, but I sometimes think that’s beside the point. I don’t think the more people the better is generally true. It’s obviously not literally true because the quality of life for everyone would be compromised. Therefore, I’m a little skeptical of any subject that doesn’t address that.

  • Danny B

    Well, I certainly don’t want to argue with Ingo over Malthus. BUT, there are other factors to the equation. Things change over time that we take for granted. We are in climate change. Just look at the balance of ice at the north pole relative to the ice at the south pole. The Holocene is running quite long as far as the duration of inter-glacial periods. I believe that some of the extremes of weather are not man-made. While land access is important, water access is more important in many places. North America gets repetitive droughts;

    Modern farming converts carbon energy to food energy. “In 1960, the average U.S. farmer fed 26 people. Now, he feeds 155.”

    Agriculture must use human or animal labor if it isn’t going to use carbon energy. Human labor results in very little “net” food produced. We can return to small farms but, it will need more workers. Modern improvements increase output but, are more complex.

    Water shortages and cold weather are the stumbling blocks to individual food production. Russia isn’t as dry as America and seem to be able to make it work.
    America would be hard pressed to revert to an agrarian economy with it’s present population. The harvest season would be a disaster without combines.

    • Danny,

      It is not particular news that the earth’s climate changes. Whether populations are threatened in their survival in the short run, neither you nor I can predict. While you believe that some of the extremes of weather are not man-made, I believe that the weather is what it is, and that man has no influence over it.

      There is no doubt that without water man can not exist. On the other hand, how can the existence of water be more important than that of land when the definition “land” as a term when used in economics includes all natural resources, to include water. When Anglo-Saxon government issues fee simple titles for exclusive use of a certain portion of real estate, the title can include mineral resources as well. Bodies of water found upon such real estate are part of the fee simple title issued, or at least the use of the water is defined in a codicil to the title.

      Efficiency and quality in the production of food should be the determining factor in agriculture. Farming of grain is suited for highly automated farming methods. For export, transportation of grain can be accomplished very efficiently by ocean freight.

      The farming of perishables is most efficiently done locally by small farming methods which more intensively relies on human labor. To ship perishables by truck or airplane over hundreds or thousands of miles for general distribution is inefficient. Local production and distribution of perishables fruits and vegetables cuts back on processed food sales. At that point, the interests of large food processors are threatened.

      To judge the state of agriculture purely by the amount of human labor involved in it is not particularly useful. There is a place for large acreage farming, for small acreage farming and for green house farming. While there is a need for quantity of food, to really “live” life, there is also a need for quality of food.

      The point is that there should be a balance between the cost of “labor” and the cost of “capital” applied in the production of food to achieve both quantity and quality.