Homestead mailing list

[tom <tom AT honeychrome.com>]

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?