Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

homestead - Re: [Homestead] Localism, was Teamsters endorse Obama

homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Homestead mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: tom <tom AT honeychrome.com>
  • To: homestead AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [Homestead] Localism, was Teamsters endorse Obama
  • Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 11:50:18 -0500


On Feb 23, 2008, at 9:13 AM, homestead-request AT lists.ibiblio.org wrote:


Certainly a far more localized and diversified economy is superior in
terms of resilience and overall stability as far as the lives of the
'average' person are concerned.

I need facts on that. Food stability and security is greater when the
source is spread more broadly. Think garden failure. Think the great
potato failure in Europe. If we choose to rail at globalism we might
start with out recent ancestors who left their caves and huts and
crossed an ocean.

The potato famine is not an example of the failure of a localized and diversified economy. Relying almost entirely on a single crop is certainly not diversification and in the case of Ireland, where the famine was most acute, the control England exercised over the country forcing the Irish population onto smaller and smaller plots of marginal land (necessitating reliance on the single crop that could be cultivated on such land) while forcibly maintaining the exports of food from Ireland while people were starving is not an example of a 'local' economy. Moreover, the current program of globalization has nothing in common with ancient population migrations. Globalism, in its current form of political/economic philosophy, specifically excludes the free motion of labor (people, that is), as do most so called 'free trade' programs.



Localism is important in terms of energy use and community health. I
see globalism as the inevitable result of free enterprise and
resultant free trade.

Most 'homesteaders' seem to be drawn
to an ethic of self-reliance and self-sufficiency, for a number of
reasons- not least ethical ones and for a desire to create a more
secure existence for themselves. Why should not the same ethic apply
on the scales of community, state, country?

"Should?" When I see "should" I get nervous and want to look out the
front window to see if the pamphleteers are here. Homesteading barely
works for a very small number. It is impossible on a national scale.
The motivation for modern homesteading is based less on ethics and
more on economics, space and freedom. We live more simply than the
masses, but we freely pick and choose advanced technology. Indeed,
this homestead list is possible only because of advanced technology.
Take a deep breath and inspect your computer for country of manufacture.

Localization and isolationism are not the same thing. Beyond the exploitable differences in labor costs between countries (which would soon disappear if labor were given the same freedom of mobility that capital and resources enjoy under 'globalism' and 'free trade') there is no reason the computer I use should not be made locally (in other words, if the cost of labor were equalized the computer would likely be made locally as transportation costs would render it cheaper to do so... and yes, this is a simplification, but valid). To say homesteading, working toward maximum self-reliance and self- sufficiency, is impossible on a national scale is to imply it is also impossible on a global scale- if that is correct then there is no future for human-kind, for what is living on this planet in a sustainable manner if it is not 'homesteading' on a global scale?




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page