> > I'm sure he'll[Dale] be more reflective in the
> >future, and I hope we all will be.
> you are much more of an optimist than I <g>
He has improved, as have we all (and it takes intralist interactions-
which have not always been gentle and even then can be cutting - to let
each know on what ground he/she stands, & whose toes are being stepped
on). In any case, it would be counterproductive to set negative
expectations. Additionally, Dale (among others) is a good Devils
Advocate. Getting past that appraisal helps sharpen up a well meaning
but relatively unfortified argument.
> Imagine where the person who produces food is the most valued in the
> order. Start from there.
I'm more optimistic than you?
> in my new world, soil would be valued but not owned.
That was part of Agrarian Reform in Mexico, but bred other problems -
credits weren't available, as the land couldn't be used as collateral;
widows who couldn't work their deseased husbands land were unable to
legally rent it; it was hard to attractive collaborative investments in
infrastructure - joint ventures - as there was no security for those
investments; so a lot of reasonablethings were happening illegally and
the law was changed - Mexico's constitution was modified.
This is still a very controversial issue, but I think the changes were
justified. Also, the collective system bound individual tenants to the
abuses of corrupt leaders - and almost all were exactly that, once they
get into the driver's seat. However - quantity limitations on land
ownership remain (the amount depends on the quality, from flat,
irrigable land on down), so that speculation hasn't taken over the
market, as it has in other countries.
> All living things would be valued and given proper respect--this would
mean > no testing on animals as now occurs.
I feel this has much to do with ones upbringing, both within the family
context and the neighborhood, so there's a vicious circle here. And how
about the plants - do you think trees like to be grafted? Cover crops
roller killed? My sister once refused to weed her garden and grew a
great crop of grass that shaded out everything else. So it's hard to
draw the line, but good to think about.
> I'd not envision any chemical pesticides,
> fertilizers, or food additives.
This can be done with existing technology. But what about democracy? A
greater public good must be demonstable. More research is required, and
the collective results assembled into legislation.
> No prisons. Different ways for dealing with
This hasn't been demonstrated as viable yet.
> I'd see farmers and teachers given respectful
> positions in society, with training and apprenticeships for people of
Who is giving the land to the farmers, if it's not owned? What about
> Guaranteed income (from monies previously spent on bureaucratic
> monoliths like Social Security, USDA, and the Pentagon).
It's easier to create wealth than to wrest already created "monies" from
jealous burocracies or those that "have" it.
I sympathize, but have lived some of this - including having organized
an intentional community - and I still stand on the biological model:
Before and after the individual, the family unit; then the neighborhood,
and so on.
The transition to any change that's going to come, will have to be
achievable from the starting point of where we - and everyone else, are.