An irresponsible farmer who destroys his land destroys it for much longer than his own lifetime, depriving his heirs of value, or reducing the value of the land for whoever buys it; and overall, reduces our civilization's food supply by the amount of growing land lost.
Every driver in a free market system, some of which you actually list, discourages a farmer from doing exactly that. As for more "collective" land management, how has that worked in places where it's been tried?
If the farmer didn't own or control the land, if his heirs were not allowed to inherit it, or if he was not allowed to sell or profit from it, please tell me why he would have any MORE incentive to keep it in good shape?
In any system where you have somebody reducing individual freedom for "the greater good," you have the problem of who gets to make those decisions. And what their real motives are. I've seen the far end of that curve, and I think we're close enough as it is, thanks, without getting any closer.
I'm not looking for libertarianism in America, but I'd sure like to stop creeping toward socialism.
Off Topic » in reply to re: On property rights
Farmer
The whole thread (42 posts)
- On property rights, continued from Geek Speak.
- re: On property rights, continued from Geek Speak.
- re: On property rights
- Farmer
- The Libertarian nonsense belongs with UFOs and Crop Circles.