Farmers don't pay enough to get Americans to work for them, so....

What is to be done about it? Especially here in the selfish as fuck US. Do you really think the side that ends up fighting and winning is going to give you a piece as a grunt? Do you think they will give back your seized land? You, as in you personally, are backing the most selfish dickheads in the world, and you think you might get a piece in every man for themselves libertarianism/republicanism?

The winner in the every man for themselves scenario is the one who forms the group and sets up a power structure where the popular leader gets the most and promises the grunts will have more status than their enemies.

what in my entire posting history suggests I'm okay with gaping socio economic inequity under any system?

Let's get the planet fed and housed, then Elon can go to Mars, m'kay?

Yes, let's not advance the science that can make feeding and housing people easier/more efficient/cheaper, let's continue to pour money down ratholes that never seem to solve the problem.

not sure what Elon and Jeff and Dicky are advancing with Mercury level achievements in "spaceflight" that's made putting a roof over anybody's head easier?

feeding and housing people are already the lowest it will be whilst still providing profits to the corporations.

What you are suggesting is exactly the same thing @Spaceturkey is saying.

Did you see the Norwegian model that I posted upthread? I think that could work here, it maintains a capitalistic structure, does away with corporate farming, protects small farms, places reasonable tariffs and restrictions on foreign imports, boosts exports (something we desperately need right now) and puts Norwegian citizens first. It still requires subsidies, but at least they go to small farms and not corporate farms. I think that would be a good step in the right direction.

Low cost space launch means more sensors in space looking down, more and better communications options, more and better navigation (think farmers plowing fields, planting, like that), and a whole host of other things most people don't consider in terms of enabling support functions. I mean, just think of the dramatic improvement in weather forecasting that happened once satellites became a thing. Not to mention the spin-off technologies in materials science, structural engineering, and all of that whole deal. Your argument is "let's keep doing the same thing that hasn't really worked for the last hundred years." Low cost space launch is a massively enabling capability to have that can impact nearly every area of human need.

@Paladin

Norway is a very resource rich country populated mostly by industrious Lutherans whose numbers are about half of Los Angeles County. Their model wouldn't work for us.

Culture matters. Japan adopted Britain's welfare model but has very different outcomes because in Japan it is considered shameful to be on the dole.

@federalfarmer

Leave Elon out of it. SpaceX is leagues ahead of Blue Origin and Virgin Galactic. Which Mercury booster flew 11 times? Which Mercury missions put thousands of satellites in LEO to offer internet access to anyone regardless of remoteness? Which Mercury mission put 4 people in a 585km orbit for 4 days?

Why wouldn't this model work, we have a vast amount of farmland? I'd much rather the farmland be owned and operated by families than the CEO of Tyson.

@Paladin

Yeah. Starlink seems to have pretty huge potential for helping poor people.

Starlink ain't cheap, but it does have the potential to make broadband available to a lot of places where it's either ridiculously expensive or simply unavailable. As far as I know there's no special rates for poor people. $100 a month is a lot when you don't have a pot to piss in or a window throw it out of...

You can spread that cost out a lot by sharing the access with your neighbors. And no, they have to make their money back first. You can't put up a satellite network and expect customers in Afghanistan or Somalia to pay off the investment, even if they're likely to benefit from it most, proportionately.

The $100 a month is for Beta testers. They aren't beta testing in poor countries.

So I've been trying (with many distractions) all day to figure out how all of this works and this what I came up with.

A shit ton more at the link.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119303272
Considering the increasing concern over the animal cruelty in the factory farms and an increasing demand for humanitarian conditions for the animals as well as a demand for natural grazing, it seems to me that this model would be ideal for the US. It also looks like this policy resulted in an increase of lamb consumption and a decrease of beef which of course would likely reduce carbon emissions. Lamb is leaner than beef and lord knows we have an obesity problem in this country. Imagine getting a lamb Big Mac for cheap, wouldn't that be nice?

Socialism

They are not taking over the means of production of agriculture.

Wait, are we using real definitions now?

(before you get mad, it's a joke, not necessarily at your expense)

Neither are most of the people you routinely accuse of being socialists, but it's nice that you appear to have finally learned what the word means.

It's not my fault that people I call socialist call themselves socialists.

The only American politician of any significance who calls himself that is Bernie Sanders and since he doesn't advocate taking over the means of production, the Socialist Party of America won't claim him. Of course if you can name some others who call themselves Socialist, please do.

AOC.

How important is a 2nd term Congresswoman? Anyway, she calls herself a democratic socialist, but that does not make her a socialist. Here from ever reliable Wikipedia (keep your salt shaker handy) is a summary of her main ideas: Rashida Tlaib and Ocasio-Cortez are the first female members of the Democratic Socialists of America elected to serve in Congress.[7][8] She advocates a progressive platform that includes support for workplace democracy, Medicare for All, tuition-free public college, a federal jobs guarantee, a Green New Deal, and abolishing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Which of these policies involve seizing the means of production?

So I shouldn't call her a socialist even though she calls herself a socialist. Liberal logic.

She calls herself a democratic socialist. There is no advocacy of seizing the means of production: which is the definition you trotted out. Call her a democratic socialist and you’re spot on. Feel free to criticize her actual stances. Feel free to criticize her stances and/or obnoxious arrogance and unrealistic demands and it’s all good. But I guess it’s a lot easier to just slap the Socialist label on her and dismiss her.

A "Democratic Socialist" is still a Socialist. It's like saying, "it's not a car, it's a Ford Fusion" or "it's not a dog, it's a schnauser".

LINK

People who say NAZIs are socialists are making the same fallacious argument. It's just as ridiculous as saying North Korea's leaders are democrats because they call their country a "democratic" republic. This thread from Quora is not proof one way or another, but it is an interesting exploration of the issue.