4 ms·

"The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming became illegal" Not completely true, see the Inclosure Acts https://en.wikipedia.or

by ozborn 9y ago

"The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming became illegal" Not completely true, see the Inclosure Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclosure_Acts It's not unique to England either, it's just well documented there. Generally speaking the process of removing subsistence hunters, herders and farmers off of land they have historically lived off takes place with violence - not because they can't pay the rent anymore. Additionally, the claim on the land of the people who are generally doing the displacing is usually questionable at best... This isn't a matter of history either, taking land held in common by indigenous people with little if any recompense is a process that continues today in many parts of the world.

SilasX 9y ago
>>The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming became illegal >Not completely true, see the Inclosure Acts I don't think that's disputing the parent's point. Seizing land isn't "banning farming" any more than repoing my car is "banning driving". To respond to the general point: if yeoman farming were actually more productive per unit input, then even enclosure wouldn't be enough to stamp it out. Displaced farmers would still have been able to buy back the original land and continue: the new owners would see the offer price as being better than the capitalized returns they could make, and some bank would have seen the business plan and interest payments as being enough to merit a loan.
- ozborn 9y ago
  "if yeoman farming were actually more productive per unit input, then even enclosure wouldn't be enough to stamp it out." I'm not making the claim that yeoman farming is more productive. I do claim however that such laws are sufficient to crush indigenous agriculture because enclosure is a violent and effective process for doing so. "Seizing land isn't "banning farming"" Enclosure laws aren't a ban (no society has ever banned farming to my knowledge), but they effectively put some farmers out of work if they engage in a particular type of subsistence agriculture. That is farmers that utilize a community owned shared hunting ground/pasture/cropland on land without a title recognized by the state. "Displaced farmers would still have been able to buy back the original land and continue" Your typical indigenous person or tribe who is having their land enclosed or confiscated doesn't have the capital to buy it back, assuming they are even have the knowledge, language and legal framework on how to go about with that process. They are likely not even interested in agriculture for the purpose of making money, and if they were, do you really imagine people like the Orang Rimba are going to buy back their land? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41981430 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41981430 It's going to be palm oil plantations no matter how effectively they were using the land - assuming anyone is even measuring.

by ozborn 9y ago

SilasX 9y ago

>>The Industrial Revolution put farmers out of work, but not because farming became illegal >Not completely true, see the Inclosure Acts I don't think that's disputing the parent's point. Seizing land isn't "banning farming" any more than repoing my car is "banning driving". To respond to the general point: if yeoman farming were actually more productive per unit input, then even enclosure wouldn't be enough to stamp it out. Displaced farmers would still have been able to buy back the original land and continue: the new owners would see the offer price as being better than the capitalized returns they could make, and some bank would have seen the business plan and interest payments as being enough to merit a loan.

ozborn 9y ago
"if yeoman farming were actually more productive per unit input, then even enclosure wouldn't be enough to stamp it out." I'm not making the claim that yeoman farming is more productive. I do claim however that such laws are sufficient to crush indigenous agriculture because enclosure is a violent and effective process for doing so. "Seizing land isn't "banning farming"" Enclosure laws aren't a ban (no society has ever banned farming to my knowledge), but they effectively put some farmers out of work if they engage in a particular type of subsistence agriculture. That is farmers that utilize a community owned shared hunting ground/pasture/cropland on land without a title recognized by the state. "Displaced farmers would still have been able to buy back the original land and continue" Your typical indigenous person or tribe who is having their land enclosed or confiscated doesn't have the capital to buy it back, assuming they are even have the knowledge, language and legal framework on how to go about with that process. They are likely not even interested in agriculture for the purpose of making money, and if they were, do you really imagine people like the Orang Rimba are going to buy back their land? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41981430 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-41981430 It's going to be palm oil plantations no matter how effectively they were using the land - assuming anyone is even measuring.