Quote from: tvbcof on October 11, 2014, 02:03:49 AM

I cannot see how the homesteading implementation in the U.S. was anything but almost the opposite of 'socialist'.

Opposite, as in it was a privatisation of the nations assets ?
Well, you might have an argument there I suppose. But for the fact that it was the original intention to limit the size of the homesteads, presumably on democratic grounds. It was different, for eg., to the recent Royal Mail privatisation in the UK, whereby the company was floated on the stock exchange and the ownership and control thereof was effectively granted to the highest institutional bidder i.e. Royal Mail, that 300 year old great British institution, is now most likely in the hands of a US financial oligopoly like Goldman Sachs.
   The Homestead Act didn't have that intent. It may have had that long term outcome - you would know the answer to that better than me, but I don't believe that was the intention.

Or opposite, as in unfettered free market libertarianism ?
If that be the case then why aren't those great proponents of libertarianism the Koch brothers dividing up Koch Ranches Inc. 239,000 acres into nice little homesteads on the basis of libertarian ideals and in the quest for perfect competition within the free and unregulated market ? Which is, after all, what all good libertarians are after, isn't it ? I mean, large monopolies interfere with the workings of the market - don't they ?

   At 160 acres per homestead that would create liveliehoods for 1500 hardworking families. Over here in Scotland the average sized croft is 12 acres - and the land is, I suspect, much less fertile. If the Cock brothers divided up their land into 12 acre "crofts", they would be creating livelihoods for 20,000 families.


   I won't be holding my breath though Wink

The Homestead Act seems to me to be a literal (maybe too literal as it panned out) transference of the means of production into the hands of the people. Flawed ? Probably yes. Exploited ? Probably yes. But definitely noble in its aspirations - and definitely closer to socialism in its intent than anything that a thousand Obamas have come even close to in the years since. Unfortunately.

Quote from: tvbcof on October 11, 2014, 02:03:49 AM

individual owners operating in their own best interest would produce products and jobs which would support society as a whole...

...and not operating in the interests of usurious billionaires, for example ? Not operating as wage slaves ?
This in itself is radical in todays world - call it what you will.

Quote from: tvbcof on October 11, 2014, 02:03:49 AM

Naturally there were expected to be taxes paid, but the main benefit to society was very much as Elwar mentioned in an earlier post; individual owners operating in their own best interest would produce products and jobs which would support society as a whole.

Yes - "Its not to the benevolence of the butcher, baker or brewer that we owe our next meal - but to the regard for his own self interest" - I take the point. This is why, in one of my earlier posts, I pointed to the Chinese economic model. The introduction of the market mechanism and the profit motive, into areas of the economy that are not deemed to be the bedrock/pillars of that nations economy, can be beneficial to the country as a whole.
   So while Chinas State Owned Enterprises still form the backbone of that economy, Apple/Foxconn are free to take work (from the US workforce) to the Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen.

  My point re. Elwars earlier post, was that he seemed to imply that good things wouldn't happen without people being offered a pecuniary benefit/ their regard to their own self interest etc.
   This is patently not true, as I tried to point out with the open source movement/bitcoin analogy. Again, it was an argument (the one I thought Elwar was making) that was used, for example, by the big record companies to justify charging rip off prices for albums/CD's - that the artists needed the monetary incentive to produce - filesharing would be the ruination of music/civilisation as we know it etc etc. - which was clearly bullshit and completely flew in the face of several hundred years of artists starving in garrets - and still producing.

   In fact, followed through, its the same argument that underpins the drive towards privatisation - that nationalised industries become "lame ducks" and have to be carried. Its the same reason that the Tory Government in the UK has been hellbent on introducing the internal market into the National Health Service - thereby allowing drug companies to fleece taxpayers once again. And under the trade and investment partnership (TTIP) services will be able to be contracted out to our US friends across the pond.

   God, how it makes me proud to have such libertarian free marketeer friends just across the water, ready to help us out and show us the error of our ways whenever called upon Grin

Brilliant. The US sets its sights on Europe.

Christ fuckin help us Cry