Self sufficiency

[guerillaGardner]

How many people here would be self sufficient if they could - like able to make their own clothes, build their own homes, grow their own food - all that stuff?

I just have a theory that a worldwide policy of personal self sufficiency for all would solve every single one of the world's problems. But I also have the idea that it is something everyone would love to have but for some reason there are things that stop them going for it - lack of knowledge, lack of confidence, lack of funds, etc.

Now, if I am right, it seems that there is such an obvious solution there waiting to be implemented that so many people would welcome with open arms - no matter what side of the politicial spectrum you're on.

What about a political movement that has no interaction with the people in power such as corporations and politicians. What about one that just goes around helping people to become self sufficient - the only obligation being to help someone else to do the same.

In the process corporations are stripped of their source of revenue - consumers. Meanwhile we're not putting people out of jobs because most of the people working for the corporations pack it all in to live the dream. With people looking after themselves government becomes much simpler and perhaps unnecessary.

As part of global security we have to make sure everyone else does the same - perhaps solving foreign policy problems at the same time - helping end some conflict and poverty in poorer countries where the war is over natural resources.

[EN[i]GMA]

Self suffiency is inefficient. Very.

Everyoen growing their own food, making their own clothes, building their own houses etc. is not nearly as efficient as having specialized people do those jobs.

This is the basic principal corporations run on: comparitive advantage and vertical integration, which can produce far more, more cheaply than self-made stuff.

[guerillaGardner]

GMA']Self suffiency is inefficient. Very.
Everyoen growing their own food, making their own clothes, building their own houses etc. is not nearly as efficient as having specialized people do those jobs. This is the basic principal corporations run on: comparitive advantage and vertical integration, which can produce far more, more cheaply than self-made stuff.

There are a few things I'd say about this. Corporations are too efficient - they produce more than is required and it's usually boredom, emotional void and some primitive urge that makes us buy, buy, buy not a natural or normal demand.

Also the cost to society of our current levels of production and their side effects aren't taken into account. If you take into account the effects of corporations on health, well being, pollution, etc then they aren't as efficient as they might seem.

Also conventional economics doesn't take account of the infinite nature of resources.

[EN[i]GMA]

There are a few things I'd say about this. Corporations are too efficient - they produce more than is required and it's usually boredom, emotional void and some primitive urge that makes us buy, buy, buy not a natural or normal demand.

See, this is where I disagree.

You're making a value judgement that I don't agree with, and it's not likely to be resolved.

They aren't producing more than is required, they are producing what is desired.

It isn't up to you or anyone to else to dictate how others spend their money, within obvious reason. Obviously buying of hits and bribary are to be outlawed, but saying we shouldn't produce this or that because of its effect on 'boredom' or our 'emotional void' isn't something I'm comfortable with.

It's all rather subjective.

I would say that what we choose to be is, by definition, natural and normal.


Also the cost to society of our current levels of production and their side effects aren't taken into account. If you take into account the effects of corporations on health, well being, pollution, etc then they aren't as efficient as they might seem.

Health? Corporations have done much to aid in health care. There are signficant, significant problems, yes, but has the net effect of corporations on the public health been positive or negative?

Well being? Again, subjective.

Pollution? I'll concede this, but pollution is down significantly since the 70's and continues to fall.


Also conventional economics doesn't take account of the infinite nature of resources.

What 'infinite nature' of resources? Resources are as finite as anything can possibly be.

[Ace42X]

GMA']
They aren't producing more than is required, they are producing what is desired.

That is potentially the most stupid thing ever said. Do you have any idea how much wastage there is in industry? Or ar you implying that supermarkets LIKE throwing surplus stock away?

Your countrymen waste on average *three times more* materials than a comparable european. Based on the average American's rate of consumption, we'd need *five* planet Earths for it to be sustainable.

[EN[i]GMA]

That is potentially the most stupid thing ever said. Do you have any idea how much wastage there is in industry? Or ar you implying that supermarkets LIKE throwing surplus stock away?

Why do these supermarkets have excess food TO throw away? Why do they order more than is absolutely required?

Answer: So they don't run out of food. It's absolutely required that have more than the bare minimumum amount of food for the given week or month so, should say, demand for a product rise or fall, they are prepared.

They don't LIKE throwing their excess stock away, but what would they do otherwise?

Give it away? Try it, see what the effects are.

And obviously there is wastage in industry, but what kind of point is that? I didn't mean there was no waste in anything, period, obviously that makes no sense, but that what is dictated by consumers to be produced is not wasteful in and of itself.

Are you somehow going to get rid of the concept of wastage entirely?

What a brilliant idea! Why hasn't anyone else ever thought of that? There should be an award.


Your countrymen waste on average *three times more* materials than a comparable european. Based on the average American's rate of consumption, we'd need *five* planet Earths for it to be sustainable.

Link to the study?

[Ace42X]

GMA']Why do these supermarkets have excess food TO throw away? Why do they order more than is absolutely required?

To make sure that greedy people have plenty of choice. Rather than conserve resources and maintain a stable and sustainable production line, people have to have a choice of everything possibly available at any time, even though that means there has to be half a dozen meals available, per person, per meal time.

Totally inefficient, and totally unsustainable. Have a look at the falling North Atlantic cod stocks, etc. Over-fishing has resulted in severe yield damage to the point where sea-quantitites are drying up exponentially. Soon, because of supermarkets "having to order mor than they require" - *NO-ONE* will have fish.

Great economical planning there.

but that what is dictated by consumers to be produced is not wasteful in and of itself.

Of course it is you tit. "Waste v. intr.To pass without being put to use". Just because needs be so, doesn't mean it isn't wasted.

If a contrivance needed excess fuel to work because poor design meant that large quantities were being evaporated off, you wouldn't say "that fuel's not being wasted, because without it there'd not be enough fuel for it to run..."

"Oh, that expensive fuel is performing the vital job of coolant!"

Are you somehow going to get rid of the concept of wastage entirely?

It doesn't need to be eliminated entirely, just eliminated enough so that the system is *sustainable* - you can waste as much as you want as long as you do not consume resources quicker than they can be replenished. And as the Xmas lectures of the royal institute can tell you, we'd need several Earths to sustain current lifestyles, and that is assuming the beggars recycling wasted materials DIDN'T have "improved quality of life" and could thus demand new things.

What a brilliant idea! Why hasn't anyone else ever thought of that?

Because wastage is big bucks to capitalists. An object you only need once is less profitable than the same object if you can oblige people to buy a surplus. This is called *consumerism* - and it involves getting people to buy things they do not actually need (surplus) in order to fuel an economy that doesn't work in their best interests.

Read Orwell - the whole point of the war is consumption.



Link to the study?

I can't link to christmas lectures on the TV several years ago. Google for the royal institute lectures and there MIGHT be some archive material on the BBC site or some academic network.

[Documad]

I loved Good Neighbours. Remember when Tom weaved his own suit? :p

[ms.peachy]

Yeah yeah yeah, wouldn't it be great if we all lived in some big hippie commune and grew our own lentils and made sandals out of bicycle tires. That'd be just super.

Except I don't want those ugly fuckin' sandals.

[BGirl]

Anna and Harlan Hubbard (http://www.ket.org/kentuckylife/800s/kylife814.html)


(they are heroes to my husband and me)

[Ace42X]

Except I don't want those ugly fuckin' sandals.

Well, you'll be screwed when modern materials are unavailable due to unsustainable over-consumption of resources.

[Schmeltz]

a worldwide policy of personal self sufficiency for all would solve every single one of the world's problems.


You know, there did used to be a worldwide policy of personal self-sufficiency. It went like this: grind your own grain or you're going to starve. Just about every ancient economy was based on principles of local self-sufficiency and a very low rate of what we would call industrialized production, simply because neither the wealth nor the tools nor the motivation were available for things to be otherwise. I don't agree with the way he says it, but Enigma is right - specialized industrial production based on an enormously broad integration of a vast array of resources yields much more comfortable results (at least for some people) than total self-sufficiency.

On the other hand, Ace is also right to point out the atrocious wastefulness that accompanies these methods of production. It's a double-edged sword that happens to cut less deep where most of us live, but it's going to catch up with us sooner or later unless we figure out how to do things more efficiently.

[sam i am]

You know, there did used to be a worldwide policy of personal self-sufficiency. It went like this: grind your own grain or you're going to starve. Just about every ancient economy was based on principles of local self-sufficiency and a very low rate of what we would call industrialized production, simply because neither the wealth nor the tools nor the motivation were available for things to be otherwise. I don't agree with the way he says it, but Enigma is right - specialized industrial production based on an enormously broad integration of a vast array of resources yields much more comfortable results (at least for some people) than total self-sufficiency.

On the other hand, Ace is also right to point out the atrocious wastefulness that accompanies these methods of production. It's a double-edged sword that happens to cut less deep where most of us live, but it's going to catch up with us sooner or later unless we figure out how to do things more efficiently.

Believe it or not, I agree with you Schmeltz :eek: .

Another sign of the imminent Apocalypse? :confused:

Anyhow, unbridled capitalism, without the mechanisms for some amount of regulation, is not conducive to the welfare of the whole (crap, I kinda sound like MArx there, don't I?)

Some MEASURED form of socialistic capitalism is still probably the best mix, much as it is in the US at current.

[Schmeltz]

Any sort of unbridled ideology or principle is a recipe for disaster, I think. Formally expressed and formulated philosophies are next to useless in the real world, regardless of their origin. What we need to do is hammer out a system that allows people to live together peacably and productively. It doesn't matter what you call it, people just want to live.

[sam i am]

Any sort of unbridled ideology or principle is a recipe for disaster, I think. Formally expressed and formulated philosophies are next to useless in the real world, regardless of their origin. What we need to do is hammer out a system that allows people to live together peacably and productively. It doesn't matter what you call it, people just want to live.

Agreed. I've said it before and I'll say it again :

Unimplemented ideas are philosophy...implemented ideas are history.

[ms.peachy]

Well, you'll be screwed when modern materials are unavailable due to unsustainable over-consumption of resources.
Don't worry, I'll have Jimmy Choo, Patrick Cox and Kurt Geiger to keep me warm in the end of days. You buy quality, it lasts ya know. And the classics never do go out of style.

[wanton wench]

Well, you'll be screwed when modern materials are unavailable due to unsustainable over-consumption of resources.
the ultimate survival of the fittest
:D
i cant wait!

[ms.peachy]

Like I wanna live in a world without nice shoes anyway :rolleyes:

[guerillaGardner]

GMA']It isn't up to you or anyone to else to dictate how others spend their money, within obvious reason.

Sorry. I should have been more precise here. I meant that this movement should be there to help people become self sufficient if they want to. I wouldn't intend for it to be compulsory.

GMA']I would say that what we choose to be is, by definition, natural and normal

I wouldn't necessarily say so. I think we live the way we do because it's easier to go with the flow than against it. Most of our lifestyles are influenced by advertising and government legislation (often lobbied for by corporations).

GMA']Health? Corporations have done much to aid in health care. There are signficant, significant problems, yes, but has the net effect of corporations on the public health been positive or negative?

That's if you believe that most of the disease was around before our westernised lifestyle. There is evidence coming in from westernising cultures that many diseases we take for granted are a result of the processed, nutritionally inferior foods produced by corporations. In Sweden there was a 40% drop in cancer that coincided with the banning of certain pesticide. Perhaps corporations are actually poisoning us.

GMA']What 'infinite nature' of resources? Resources are as finite as anything can possibly be.

That was a typo. I meant to say finite, but thanks for making my point for me. An economic system that consumes finite resources to the level that ours does is unsustainable. If we use them up, self sufficiency might no longer be a debate but a necessity.

I've read through the thread and there's lots of argument about the basis of this idea and I know it's something there won't be an easy agreement on. That's why my original idea is designed at not engaging in debate.

The debate is just a way of muddying the waters and distracting people when they could just be going out and doing it if they could get over the barriers. A strong support network would help them do that and meanwhile those who like the status quo are free to do what they like.

As Ms Peachy implied in her humorous way a major problem is the stereotype and the cliche. But self sufficiency can be what we want it to be. We can choose a level of self sufficiency - 50%, 70%, 100%. Dump what we don't need from the current system, keep what we do want. It's still an improvement.

Improvements in our state don't have to be perfect as long as they are an improvement. We have to get out of this all or nothing attitude.

[guerillaGardner]

One thing I should add is that I think that there is a balance between self sufficiency and capitalism that can be made where people work part time while becoming at least 50%-70% self sufficient in their basic needs.

If people dump what they don't need - for instance their cars (there's a good argument that the changes in society's infrastructure made due to the car actually necessitates the need for a car) capitalism can go on at a reduced level producing those items which are both necessary and can only be mass produced at an industrial level.

Where mass production isn't required we produce what we can ourselves, trading locally. Subsequently as our wages reduce our needs also reduce. The industries that wouldn't survive are those producing unnecessary luxury items or items that we can viably produce by ourselves.

The blow of job losses in the latter industries would be softened by a society with a much lower cost of living where lack of jobs isn't the source of hardship but the lack of skills - which can be quickly learned as there is support being given.

[zorra_chiflada]

how would we achieve this?
how could we fuck with capitalist's profits and get away with it?

[guerillaGardner]

We work out what we own and what owns us then we dump the latter and keep the former. :D

[Schmeltz]

there's a good argument that the changes in society's infrastructure made due to the car actually necessitates the need for a car


You could just as well say that about the fire and the wheel, and indeed about most widely used technology. That's the nature (or perhaps the price) of progress: increased sophistication and complexity that requires an equally complex and sophisticated support system in order to be maintained.


Where mass production isn't required we produce what we can ourselves, trading locally.


But that would necessarily mean radically depressing the economy and correspondingly the standard of living. What happens when wages decrease to the point where they might not satisfy even basic needs without a drastically sharp drop in that standard? What the system needs is a progressive overhaul, not a step backward that would probably result in widespread poverty, and perhaps death.

It's a nice idea, but it's just not realistic.

[Ali]

But that would necessarily mean radically depressing the economy and correspondingly the standard of living. What happens when wages decrease to the point where they might not satisfy even basic needs without a drastically sharp drop in that standard?Local Economies, based on the direct exchange of goods and services for other goods and services, tend to emerge in areas where wages are already very low, unemployment is high, etc. As soon as one economic system fails, the secondary backup survival economy kicks in. Without it, people would starve or freeze to death.

It can be implemented on a large scale too, like in South America and Africa, where countries are so impoverished and debt and inflation are so high that it makes more sense to trade goods and services directly for other goods and services than to try and sell and pay for them in a highly unstable currency that can be appropriated by Creditors. I think this is what that Dangerous Evil Communist Dictator Chavez is trying to do with his oil and I think that's what a lot of African Countries should do, especially those whose interest payments are higher than GDP!

[guerillaGardner]

But that would necessarily mean radically depressing the economy and correspondingly the standard of living. What happens when wages decrease to the point where they might not satisfy even basic needs without a drastically sharp drop in that standard

Our current economy is at risk anyway. It depends on finite resources some of which are just about due to run out. Insurance assessors in major insurance companies estimate that in this century the cost of weather related damage will exceed Gross World Product. Our economy isn't built on the most solid of ground.

It would be extremely foolish to assume that it is the most secure way of life. Circumstances could change at any time which make self sufficiency a necessity and not a choice.

Yes, wages may decrease in a society built on self sufficiency but so will the cost of living so it balances out.

Other economic benefits may occur due to high degrees of self sufficiency - less pollution, less additives in food, less traffic on roads, less landfills, less waste management, less war, etc therefore less taxes and public spending.

As it is people will never ever be 100% self sufficient - the best that could be expected of a drive towards self sufficiency is that people will produce a higher percentage of their needs themselves. They would work part time jobs and as there would be a high percentage of people who choose to live the western, industrialised life there would continue to be a place for certain industries.

[guerillaGardner]

I should also add that a self sufficient society would have less need for a welfare system further benefiting the world economy.

[Qdrop]

Any sort of unbridled ideology or principle is a recipe for disaster, I think. Formally expressed and formulated philosophies are next to useless in the real world, regardless of their origin. What we need to do is hammer out a system that allows people to live together peacably and productively. It doesn't matter what you call it, people just want to live.

gasp!

PRAGMATISM!!





bravo.

[guerillaGardner]

The fact that this idea has been considered as an 'unbridled philosophy' is perhaps an indication that I've accidentally misrepresented and not fully explained the concept I'm trying to put across.

First I should state that this wouldn't be a compulsory 'one solution fits all' socio-economic system. What I am saying is based on the hypothesis that there are a lot of people out there who are into the idea of self sufficiency and would welcome some kind of help in adopting that lifestyle.

Of course there are degrees of self sufficiency and I think that there are aspects of modern life that many people wouldn't want to give up. Some would give up everything about the western way of life and some wouldn't change a thing. (I'm not into all or nothing solutions).

What I am suggesting is that there is official help at unprecedented levels to help people become self sufficient if they choose to whatever degree they choose. This would be totally free of ideology. The entire motivation of this would be pragmatic, not ideological - to reduce the need for public services, for welfare, to reduce road congestion, increase health, to reduce pollution, etc. These aren't ideologies but they are probably things that any government in the world would love to achieve regardless of belief system.

In such a world people would be free to think what they please, how they please as long as it doesn't harm anyone else - as the Zapatistas say "One world with many worlds in it" - no dominance of any one belief system over another.

What I am suggesting isn't based on an ideal. Just as you suggest Schmeltz it's just a way of helping people to live peacably and productively together. It's a suggested solution based on recognition of the causes of world problems and an addressing that cause.

But most of all if I am proved wrong that this would be a possible solution to a whole bunch of problems then I would be first to admit it. To come up with a solution you first have to suggest it and then you have to test it and then you keep the parts of it that work and dump the parts that don't. That's very far from unbridled ideology.

Ultimately we could argue about the idea till we are blue in the face, but often all the theories, arguments and good ideas don't work in practice, so only testing it will provide an answer.

[DapperDiverge]

I think every person on the face of this planet is selfish... I don't care how religious or self righteous you claim to be.
If you're capable of being self sufficient, most likely you're able of being very manipulative. I think a lot of people look self sufficient but most likely are somehow playing others in order to become more independent.
I know it sounds like a paradox... those that are dependent on others are in fear of everyone else or very ignorant.
There's a lot of principles behind being self sufficient. You can either ass kiss your way until you're no longer subordinate or... actually I can't really think of how you can do for yourself without having to undermine your own beliefs, principles, or jugements at least once.

[Ace42X]

PRAGMATISM!!

There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.

[baltogrl71]

This would never work, there are too many lazy, and greedy people in the world most of which live in america. I know a lot of small self sufficient communities that work well and are raising well balanced people. I don't know that I could do it though, I like being alone too much. I could probably live on a mountain top though.

[guerillaGardner]

This would never work, there are too many lazy, and greedy people in the world most of which live in america. I know a lot of small self sufficient communities that work well and are raising well balanced people. I don't know that I could do it though, I like being alone too much. I could probably live on a mountain top though.

It would only not work if you were looking for a total solution. What I am suggesting isn't a total solution. There is no such thing. As I've said before people are hung up on all or nothing solutions. If we don't try new ideas until they are perfect then wouldn't ever try anything.

We have to learn to judge solutions not by them solving our problems completely but by how effective they are in improving our problems.
Improving and solving are different.

What I am suggesting is that there are enough people interested in this idea to accept help in becoming self sufficient to whatever degree suits them.

Some people might want to become totally self sufficient in certain aspects of their lives but not others. People who are out of work or on low incomes could use the help to get them through lean times and then go straight back into the western lifestyle when they get a job. The help could be there to help communities deal with mass redundancy while they try to get back on their feet.

It's an entirely flexible proposition which would be marketed well to reduce resistance to it and no-one would be tied to the choice once they've made it.

Although it would be great if it was the key to Utopia (which it isn't) the main point is that some improvement in the state of the world comes from it.

[Ali]

GMA']They aren't producing more than is required, they are producing what is desired.Their Marketing Departments produce the desire, too.

It isn't up to you or anyone to else to dictate how others spend their money, within obvious reason. But are people really spending their money on something they need, or something that they think they want, because they saw their favourite soap star wearing/driving/eating/smoking it?

It's all rather subjective.

I would say that what we choose to be is, by definition, natural and normal. But do we really choose it? I'll wager that 90% of our money is spent on stuff we didn't really need in the first place, but feel that we do.

Health? Corporations have done much to aid in health care. There are signficant, significant problems, yes, but has the net effect of corporations on the public health been positive or negative?Tell that to Thalidomide victims and Prozac junkies. Doctors are coerced to push a company's products, given rewards for prescribing large quantities of a particular brand of pharmaceutical. Reason? PROFIT! Governments should be solely responsible for Pharmaceutical manufacture and distribution.

But you are right, self-sufficiency is inefficient. Nobody can manufacture all of the things we need to as high a standard as a group of people with specialised skills, tools and experience. A purely self-sufficient society would be half-baked, to say the least. We, as a society, need to divide the tasks amongst ourselves and then co-operate... and there lies the rub. Although we are the most co-operative of all species and owe our "success" to it, we're sometimes a little too successful at being competetive, for our own good, and this is where problems start to emerge.

Fortunately, we have this thing called Karma. Excess of any form leads to over- consumption, depletion of resources, stagnation and rot. Rotten things die, fall apart, decompose and new things emerge, which benefit from the past and must compete with one another to survive - the most successful competitor taking the prize... and losing it again if it doesn't rein itself in.

Excuse the mumbling and any repetition of what's been said already. Bottle of wine for lunch didn't help.

[baltogrl71]

Gardner, I agree with you. my point is there are already lots of communities like this in america that do very well, it already is an option for people. If as a whole we started doing this I think there would be alot of problems, there are far to many people who don't want to help themselves and would rather point their fingers and blame the world for their issues, or are to lazy to be self sufficient, which would lead to crime increase and possibly more government interference if thats even possible.

[guerillaGardner]

Gardner, I agree with you. my point is there are already lots of communities like this in america that do very well, it already is an option for people. If as a whole we started doing this I think there would be alot of problems.

Yes it quite clearly already is an option but I think it's actually an option that for various reasons other than resistance to it people just don't make any attempt towards. They want to do it but somehow see it as beyond them when with some help they could achieve it.

Can I reiterate that I don't intend us doing this 'as a whole'. People who don't want to do it don't have to.

there are far to many people who don't want to help themselves and would rather point their fingers and blame the world for their issues, or are to lazy to be self sufficient, which would lead to crime increase and possibly more government interference if thats even possible.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. Are you saying that these things would happen if self sufficiency was forced on people? I hope you realise by now that that is not what I am suggesting.

[fucktopgirl]

self sufficient would be the best!
to be independant from the corporation...

but if you live in a city,thta can be hard! really hard,where the fuck you grow your vegetable?

first it is important to be in the country,, :D
me i believe in that and i am directing myself in that path ,
slowly,but it take time ,preparation,tenacity.
the advantage of being self sufficient is that if a disaster happen,,the outside food source is dry,well you can still eat...you know what you eat,you can design your own style(clothes)

you cannot be totallly self sufficient but inside a small community this can be close to this:there is the farmer who have organic cow,another grow vegetable,fruits.so everybody trade ,or buy from each others inside that small "family".then the money stay between people,mostly.nothing goes to thoses fat fuckers up there!

that is kinda what i live here,i am in the mountain,fruits farmer..ect..

but hey,totally self sufficient,,its hard ,or you would have to be totally secluded,nobody really want that!but at least we can be ,if we want,half way there,and in my opinion that is pretty good! (y)

[EN[i]GMA]

Their Marketing Departments produce the desire, too.

Can desire be produced?

Obviously if you don't know a TV exists, you won't want one, but isn't the innate desire of what a TV offers you always there?

An ad can't make you want something you don't want.

Certainly it can influence your purchasing behaviour, but is this, in and of itself, bad?

If you werent' influenced by ads, what would you be influenced by?


But are people really spending their money on something they need, or something that they think they want, because they saw their favourite soap star wearing/driving/eating/smoking it?

Does it at all matter?

What is 'need'?

We really 'need' very little to surive.

You're trying to attach value to something that has no innate value.

Something only has value becaues it's percieved to have value. Market decisions thus cannot be wrong, they just ARE.

It's like saying gravity is wrong.


But do we really choose it? I'll wager that 90% of our money is spent on stuff we didn't really need in the first place, but feel that we do.

By then of course we do need it.

Are we not allowed to define what we, as individuals, need?

How can you objectively define 'need'?


Tell that to Thalidomide victims and Prozac junkies. Doctors are coerced to push a company's products, given rewards for prescribing large quantities of a particular brand of pharmaceutical. Reason? PROFIT! Governments should be solely responsible for Pharmaceutical manufacture and distribution.

Tell that to the thousands of people who die every year because the FDA hasn't approved the drug that could be used to save their life or won't approve the risky medical advance that may save them.

Do they not count?

Doctors wouldn't be 'coerced' under your system, they would be FORCED. Is that better?

I think rules do need to be in place regarding this procedure; I don't think there needs to be government control.

[baltogrl71]

Gardner



the reasons are clear, laziness being #1 people can't even give up f-cking wal-mart or the big ass grocery the bigger the better moto for usa. I have watched so many small little communities destroyed by giant stores which people say price is the reason they support them, bullshit! Everyone wants everything right up their ass so they can keep up with their f-cked up overloaded competitive lives. They say they don't have time to COOK dinner (real food not microwave) time to support the farmer 3 miles out of the way of the root they shuttle the 4 to many kids they have between sports, tutor, and psycho appointments because they're fucked up from the overload they've taught their children is the way to sucsess and the crap divorce they dragged them through because they we're
too busy keeping up with the jones's to work on their marriage, that leads to the second reason greed and materialism these three things alone are the reason people chose not to be self sufficent, it doesn't matter if you live in the city or bum f-ck egypt you can be self sufficent,lots of cities do have community gardens.