Farmers Only: A Dating Site for Farmers

Anne said:
Bus enthusiasts; LOL Does anyone really like travelling on a bus?? Horrors!!!..:p
Click to expand...

Hey!!! I resent that! I really had an old school bus that I drove from British Columbia to the Maritime Provinces in the 90's with 3 teenagers. Now that was a trip! We took the seats out, bolted down a table and some plywood beds, put some air mattresses on them and hit the road. Took three months but we saw a lot of Canada. The only Province we didn't go to was Newfoundland and that was only because the ferry charged by the foot. :lofl:

Sorry, got a bit off topic there!
 

TICA said:
Hey!!! I resent that! I really had an old school bus that I drove from British Columbia to the Maritime Provinces in the 90's with 3 teenagers. Now that was a trip! We took the seats out, bolted down a table and some plywood beds, put some air mattresses on them and hit the road. Took three months but we saw a lot of Canada. The only Province we didn't go to was Newfoundland and that was only because the ferry charged by the foot. :lofl:

Sorry, got a bit off topic there!
Click to expand...
.

ok, now that would be a blast!!!! By busses, I mean Greyhound....wasn't fun in my younger days, and sure hasn't gotten any better......
 
:lofl:

Ooooo the opportunities that opens up for a harmless 'trolling' session.
Post a really old photo and tell 'em you died young is the most tempting benefit.

Bookmarked that for a cruise through some of their other weirdly interesting stuff later.
 
Oh geeze Phil, tell me that site's not one of those 'Furries' fetish things .... it gets too damned hot down here for the gear.
The only 'furry-cos' cool enough to wear would the Playboy Bunny rig and I'm too old now for that sh*t. :rofl:
 
I heard an engaged couple recently being interviewed on TV who had met on-line, on a website focused on rural living. I don't think it was this particular website tho. Both had been raised on farms and knew no other type life, and were determined to continue their lives as they had known it.

It's not for me, I've been way too spoiled to conveniences, but am convinced those who go that route live longer. IMO, it would be extremely hard work living off the land, but it's been done for centuries.
 
Katybug said:
It's not for me, I've been way too spoiled to conveniences, but am convinced those who go that route live longer. IMO, it would be extremely hard work living off the land, but it's been done for centuries.
Click to expand...

I wonder if farmers really live longer these days ... it's become a stress filled life today. Between weather challenges in the 2000's, and commercial farming taking over, making a go of it is a major challenge for the little guy. . it's probably more hobby and less life existence today.
 
What about a self-sufficient, homestead-type farm?

Those are the types I always dreamed of running, fueled mainly by articles in Mother Earth News and Backwoods Home magazines. You grow only enough for the family members, perhaps a little extra to barter or sell. In this plan you'd also keep goats for milk, chickens for eggs and hogs for pork. Maybe one or two cows, but those were often seen as optional.

You could get by on 5 acres, or so they said. No massive landholdings, no huge equipment investments. A small beat-up tractor was your sole investment in capital equipment, everything else being made or improvised on the fly as needed. They were also big on "side" efforts - beekeeping, aquaculture, things like that, all of which could take up a full-time schedule if they take off.

It wasn't seen as a business - it was deemed a lifestyle. Instead of going off to work in a cubical all day you went off to the garden and to tend the critters. That was your "job". You weren't selling as much as you were just making food for you and yours.
 
Spoken like a true anarchist Phil. There are indeed families who still live like that, aaand we still call them 'hippies'.

They tend to produce clueless kids who when they have to go out into the world are 'prey'. They dwell in welfare queues.
The joys of smug self suffiency and being at one with nature won't qualify them for a job much above roustabout in someone else's plant nursery.

To be entirely self sufficient in today's society means living a far lower level lifestyle than the norm and is that fair on the offspring? Education is compulsory, the kids are either home schooled by equally clueless parents, or go to school with others who have access to all the goodies the 'hippy' kids parents can't afford to offer them. Fine for the adults who choose that way of life but not every child will see the lifestyle as wonderful and resentment results.

Eventually the farm can't support the extended family and someone has to go and fend for themselves. Land good enough to support a family is expensive. Where do the kids get the money to buy another farm? They can't even afford internet connection and mobile/cell phones are too expensive for their income from selling apples and eggs to passing tourists to support. Imagine a kid looking for work these days who doesn't even know how to text?

They have to go out and work for da man to make a dollar and they're doing it from a handicapped position. Networking, old school tie connections, technology nous, peer communication etc that can form a large part of what career a child achieves is denied to them. The world they grew up in doesn't give them a hint of how life is in the business world. There are only so many positions open for landscapers and field hands and they don't pay enough to buy a farm that's a certainty.

Technology is expensive, just fitting into society is expensive. I see it as selfish of 'hippy' parents who feel that merely feeding the kids and expecting that being at one with nature is enough these days. It really isn't.
 
Much as I hate to say it, Di is right - these days kids 'need' their electronics; don't exactly love to work, and would find it nearly impossible to get a job, regardless of how hard they work. Years ago, employers were glad to hire farm kids for their work ethic, but I know few adults who are hard workers these days; let alone kids. The world has changed from what we knew, and it's not coming back, far as I can see.

I don't see them as 'backwards' or 'clueless' by any means; I don't see city people as being able to survive if the grocery stores closed down; what on earth would they eat?? Those hippy farmers could beat just about any city dweller in basic survival, for sure.
 
Diwundrin said:
Spoken like a true anarchist Phil. There are indeed families who still live like that, aaand we still call them 'hippies'.

They tend to produce clueless kids who when they have to go out into the world are 'prey'. They dwell in welfare queues.
The joys of smug self suffiency and being at one with nature won't qualify them for a job much above roustabout in someone else's plant nursery.

To be entirely self sufficient in today's society means living a far lower level lifestyle than the norm and is that fair on the offspring? Education is compulsory, the kids are either home schooled by equally clueless parents, or go to school with others who have access to all the goodies the 'hippy' kids parents can't afford to offer them. Fine for the adults who choose that way of life but not every child will see the lifestyle as wonderful and resentment results.

Eventually the farm can't support the extended family and someone has to go and fend for themselves. Land good enough to support a family is expensive. Where do the kids get the money to buy another farm? They can't even afford internet connection and mobile/cell phones are too expensive for their income from selling apples and eggs to passing tourists to support. Imagine a kid looking for work these days who doesn't even know how to text?

They have to go out and work for da man to make a dollar and they're doing it from a handicapped position. Networking, old school tie connections, technology no, peer communication etc that can form a large part of what career a child achieves is denied to them. The world they grew up in doesn't give them a hint of how life is in the business world. There are only so many positions open for landscapers and field hands and they don't pay enough to buy a farm that's a certainty.

Technology is expensive, just fitting into society is expensive. I see it as selfish of 'hippy' parents who feel that merely feeding the kids and expecting that being at one with nature is enough these days. It really isn't.
Click to expand...


That wins the Mr. Philstivus Award for Stereotyping! I cannot say that I've ever seen a more deserving recipient ...

I mean, seriously? You truly believe that in order to be in tune with Nature you are relegated to being a Luddite? You think because you live on a few acres outside of town you aren't allowed to have Internet or cable TV, or have the intelligence to read an occasional newspaper? You think anarchy means choosing to live outside the insanity?

Home-schooling? Over here the "teacher" has to pass rigorous screening and certification before they can teach. And were you aware that now you can go all the way to getting your PhD totally online? And this from accredited universities, not bogus back-room "online colleges". I doubt that any child raised in a self-sufficient family would ever go wanting for work, whether on the family homestead or in the "outside" world, unless they wanted to. Self-sufficiency isn't just about putting up some canned veggies - it's about adaptation, preparedness and self-knowledge.

The only folks I know who "dwell in welfare queues" are either those who have lost their "workin' for da man" jobs and/or their homes because of the economy (i.e., they couldn't afford to FEED THEIR FAMILIES because of the shifts of society's moods), or they were merely the latest iteration of a multi-generational welfare dynasty (i.e., they are shiftless bastards).

And it has nothing to do with being smug - it's about getting away from the crazies and not being dependent upon the government to suckle you from cradle to grave. Someone (MercyL?) just posted a thread here on how one country is proposing giving every adult $2,800 per month, basically for just existing. Do you realize how indebted one would become, so addicted to that father-figure support, that you would figuratively never move out of their basement? Do you realize how mentally crippling, how soul-scarring that would be?

That's no kind of life to live. But when you choose to play the usual life-games that's where you're going to end up - in your Mommy's and Daddy's big safe arms, and they'll only occasionally take a rectal temperature, feed you castor oil and spank you.

All for your own good, of course.

I think your model is from the '60's, which I can't fault because that's when it became the "in" thing to do - tune in, turn on and drop out and all that rot. I'm talking about sane, well-planned self-sufficiency, not flavor-of-the-week sheeple following the crowd. I'm talking about history - about families providing for themselves without the aid of the Federal or business-world teat.

I have known several souls who lived the minimalist life - they were far from being the unaware, socially-awkward type you seem to want to portray. In fact they would have given Plato, Socrates and Einstein a run for their money while at the same time partying hard in the latest club.

You can know of a thing without being part of that thing.

I'm disappointed, Di - I thought you were better than this. C'mon - show me you're really the deep thinker I know you are. :(
 
Anne said:
Much as I hate to say it, Di is right - these days kids 'need' their electronics; don't exactly love to work, and would find it nearly impossible to get a job, regardless of how hard they work. Years ago, employers were glad to hire farm kids for their work ethic, but I know few adults who are hard workers these days; let alone kids. The world has changed from what we knew, and it's not coming back, far as I can see.

I don't see them as 'backwards' or 'clueless' by any means; I don't see city people as being able to survive if the grocery stores closed down; what on earth would they eat?? Those hippy farmers could beat just about any city dweller in basic survival, for sure.
Click to expand...

I think you're equating societal failures with self-sufficient living - two TOTALLY different topics.

Kids do not NEED their electronics - they are brainwashed by their peers and the media to THINK they need them, but in fact they only WANT them.

Kids growing up on a homestead with proper parenting would be no strangers to hard work. That work ethic would stand them in good stead for whatever life later throws at them, unlike the mother in Chicago that just confronted the CEO of McDonald's that she should be making $15 an hour because she's been there for 10 years and she has 2 kids. That's not a work ethic - a work ethic would have been moving on to a job that deserved higher pay, and not expecting others to pay for your inability to keep your legs closed.

I think there will always be those few who have the strength of character to resist the siren-call of society's marketing mavens. They will be the survivors, and when everyone else is on the welfare line and waiting breathlessly for their government to support them they'll be out doing what they have to do - and are USED to doing - in order to survive.

I agree that country folk have a lot more down-home wisdom about growing their own than city folk - a definite advantage when things get tight.
 
You are still thinking idealistically Phil. You're viewing things from the city perspective and from how things are with people you know. Minimalist in the city is different from minimalist in the scrub. I knew a couple like that too, but they weren't inflicting their spartan lifestyle on their children. They didn't have any.

I'm also viewing from personal experience. Not far from the town I moved from was an area of said 'self sustainers' and it was redneck central down there. If your car broke down you could buy the wheels back from the nearest farm. Most have never heard of Socrates and the kids are 'out of the loop' and only come into town to go to school and fight with the 'haves.'

They aren't all mental giants with heads full of philosophy, many are the following generations of the 60s dopehead dropouts who don't know any better way to make a living. They don't qualify to home school because they barely made it past kindergarten themselves. Their kids don't all come out with PhDs either, many get through the system unable to read without moving their lips. Don't 'generalise' that all those bucolic self sustainers are philosophers. Most of their epiphanies occur while testing the efficacy of the latest 'crop'.

Bear in mind too that our welfare system is far more generous and easier to access than yours. These people get all kinds of family support, 'baby bonus' payments and exemptions from land taxes if the farm is small enough and derives no income. Yet they still can't afford to support mobile phone bills and internet costs, if they are even able to connect to it. Many don't even have the power connected because it can cost around 10 to 20 grand to get lines in from the road to where some of them live. They can't afford massive solar panels to power more than a fridge and a TV and even fuel for the generators costs heaps here. Those with big families live from the welfare, not from what the farm produces, and that's a great grounding for the kids to grow up with too isn't it?

The honestly self sustaining turn out kids who have learned little else but how to milk a cow and to do without what everyone else has.
The welfare reliant ones turn theirs out with a welfare entitlement attitude and no prospect of being any more benefit to society than their parents. How is living off a farm a great option again????

Yes it's generalizing but there's enough of both those types to make one seriously suspicious of that lifestyle being much more than a self indulgence of the non competitive.

Do you really think that most small farmers, including several of my relatives, take on jobs for the fun of it? They'd love to live that 1890s lifestyle, but necessity to keep machinery maintained, the kids dressed and educated decently, the fencing to stay standing, and the land out of the hands of the banks keeps them working. The properties they have are largely pastoral and livestock based. The land isn't good enough for cropping and it's cheaper to buy a box of vegies than for one of them to stay home and dig weeds instead of making a salary.

There is also a difference in availability of good farmland. Sure there are little patches that accommodate that lifestyle, but they cost. Growing enough to eat isn't enough, you can't grow jeans and boots and tractors and fuel. They can't grow the money to buy a vehicle or to pay for it's registration costs. To produce saleable product for cash income requires more good land for more crop, or machinery for making cheese or whatever their niche is, and the means to market it.

In essence you need money to buy a lifestyle that doesn't require money.

Thanks for that award btw, they're flying thick and fast around here.
 
Diwundrin said:
You are still thinking idealistically Phil. You're viewing things from the city perspective and from how things are with people you know. Minimalist in the city is different from minimalist in the scrub. I knew a couple like that too, but they weren't inflicting their spartan lifestyle on their children. They didn't have any.
Click to expand...

But you don't KNOW who I know - whether they are from the city, the country or a mix. They are in fact the latter.

I'm also viewing from personal experience. Not far from the town I moved from was an area of said 'self sustainers' and it was redneck central down there. If your car broke down you could buy the wheels back from the nearest farm. Most have never heard of Socrates and the kids are 'out of the loop' and only come into town to go to school and fight with the 'haves.'
Click to expand...

I've known rednecks as well, but that isn't what I'm talking about.

They aren't all mental giants with heads full of philosophy, many are the following generations of the 60s dopehead dropouts who don't know any better way to make a living. They don't qualify to home school because they barely made it past kindergarten themselves. Their kids don't all come out with PhDs either, many get through the system unable to read without moving their lips. Don't 'generalise' that all those bucolic self sustainers are philosophers. Most of their epiphanies occur while testing the efficacy of the latest 'crop'.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact that any serious "crop" grower isn't going to be getting zonked on their own supply to the point where they are comatose, once again I'm not referring to the aging bell-bottom set nor to the "We can't make it in the city so let's go to the country" crowd.

Bear in mind too that our welfare system is far more generous and easier to access than yours.
Click to expand...

Please excuse me a moment while I wipe away the tears of laughter.

These people get all kinds of family support, 'baby bonus' payments and exemptions from land taxes if the farm is small enough and derives no income. Yet they still can't afford to support mobile phone bills and internet costs, if they are even able to connect to it. Many don't even have the power connected because it can cost around 10 to 20 grand to get lines in from the road to where some of them live. They can't afford massive solar panels to power more than a fridge and a TV and even fuel for the generators costs heaps here. Those with big families live from the welfare, not from what the farm produces, and that's a great grounding for the kids to grow up with too isn't it?
Click to expand...

There is something seriously wrong when you're getting hundreds of dollars a month in welfare and various other assistance - food, insurance, medical, dental, prescriptions, etc. - and cannot afford $20/mn for phone and $30 for 'Net.

The removal from utilities is perhaps endemic to YOUR area. We have similar places but in general I'm talking about a homestead that is either totally off-the-grid or within the present service-area radius. I'm also talking about self-sufficiency, where you don't accept government assistance - you're talking about welfare cases with hay in their hair. Big difference.

The honestly self sustaining turn out kids who have learned little else but how to milk a cow and to do without what everyone else has.
The welfare reliant ones turn theirs out with a welfare entitlement attitude and no prospect of being any more benefit to society than their parents. How is living off a farm a great option again????
Click to expand...

Once again - I'm talking about a homestead, not a farm. Not a farm the way I believe you're thinking of one. This isn't hundreds or thousands of acres - this is 5-10 acres, and the goal is self-sufficiency, not profit.

Yes it's generalizing but there's enough of both those types to make one seriously suspicious of that lifestyle being much more than a self indulgence of the non competitive.
Click to expand...

Right ... like competitiveness is a desirable trait. How many problems in the world are due to over-competitiveness? It leads to lying, cheating, stealing - all in the name of "winning".

If that's what it takes to win then just call me The Biggest Loser.

Do you really think that most small farmers, including several of my relatives, take on jobs for the fun of it? They'd love to live that 1890s lifestyle, but necessity to keep machinery maintained, the kids dressed and educated decently, the fencing to stay standing, and the land out of the hands of the banks keeps them working. The properties they have are largely pastoral and livestock based. The land isn't good enough for cropping and it's cheaper to buy a box of vegies than for one of them to stay home and dig weeds instead of making a salary.
Click to expand...

Machinery ... I'm saying one used tractor, not combines and threshers and automatic sheep shearers. The banks don't enter into it because you have bought the land outright - once again, not being in debt to anyone. The fertility of the land is a problem anywhere, granted, but one that can and should be solved before even thinking about moving in.

There is also a difference in availability of good farmland. Sure there are little patches that accommodate that lifestyle, but they cost. Growing enough to eat isn't enough, you can't grow jeans and boots and tractors and fuel. They can't grow the money to buy a vehicle or to pay for it's registration costs. To produce saleable product for cash income requires more good land for more crop, or machinery for making cheese or whatever their niche is, and the means to market it.
Click to expand...

Keeping one's wants and needs separate and living a minimal yet fulfilling lifestyle is possible, very possible. Just because people go out and blow their wad on the newest model FartFire V-8 doesn't mean we have to. Clothes? How many pairs of boots can you wear at once? Think of all the commuting costs and clothing costs and dining costs that will be saved by not living in the competitive world. You'll be eating simply and healthily at little cost.

Not thousand-acre corporate-owned farms; little Mom-and-Pop homesteads.

In essence you need money to buy a lifestyle that doesn't require money.
Click to expand...

Perhaps in the beginning, yes. But if you're clever and persistent - but not too competitive - at least over here you can still score a few acres for under the price of that new FartFire. Which investment is going to last AND return a living?

Thanks for that award btw, they're flying thick and fast around here.
Click to expand...

I think I've found a new niche market. :D
 
Sifu, I am SO with you on this one. I have no clue how things are in Di's part of the world, but here in America, that old style hippy life is pretty well gone now, more of communities working together, than communes.
Todays peppers are sharp sighted former CEOs who have moved from the city to the country, sold the big rancher or tri-level home in the suburbs, and bought a piece of land with a barn, and maybe a house out in the hills somewhere.
They have studied the homesteading lore and crafts, and are using their savings to put in solar power or similar things.
Just look at George Ure, from Urban Survival. He is a fine example of a modern homesteader/prepped, and I enjoy reading his column, www.urbansurvival.com .

Of course, not all of us were the CEO of a company,and there are plenty of regular people living that life on a few acres, and milking their goats, and selling homemade soap from the goat milk, bringing in the firewood with the old Ford 9N.I think half of north Idaho lives that way.
I had a little trailer, chickens, rabbits, milk goat, and my dogs and even a llama. At first I had a Lister diesel generator, but I was not cut out for that, and got electricity, and sold the generator to a fellow that understood machinery. I hauled water in 55 gallon drums, in the back of my Mazda pickup, and melted snow in the bathtub in the winter for water.
Even if you are not totally self-sufficient, every little bit you do to take care of yourself and be independent is a good move.
Homesteading is not for everyone, but it is doable, and being done by people from all walks of life.
 
Phil,
You are arguing from view of how it theoretically should/might work, in the right circumstances, in a suitable situation, and with the right minded people who are affecting no-one's lives but their own. That seems to be the viewpoint of the anti-government philosophy.
Simply imagine the wished for scenario and then attempt to conjure up ways to make the theory fit. It doesn't fit. You'd have to the change the world around it to make it fit. It's possible for some perhaps, but rarely happens.

I'm arguing from the viewpoint of how the world really works on small, 10 to 500 acre properties... here.
Other than a retired couple on the pension or welfare feeders, small time agricultural pursuits don't work all that well. We have 10% of your population and of that not much of it lives outside the cities. Not a lot of scope for making money from passing traffic if there's only 3 cars a day other than locals doing the trip. Getting the produce to market can cost more in fuel than it's worth, but that's nitpicking, I do that a lot.

I dropped out of the 'competition' too, I was lucky enough to be able to afford to. I, like you have no one relying on me to feed them. But had I had kids who needed to go to University and required the techno trappings of life to give them an even chance in life then I'd have taken another tack.

What started this is your shock horror that someone on the land should also have a job 'in town' as though that is a failing or something.
I see it as a responsible way of keeping the land in family hands to pass down to any of the kids who wants that life while still giving them all the options for other careers available to their peers. If they so choose to go that way! Being virtuously poor and philosophically 'free' may not seem tempting to a budding entrepreneur.

My argument is simply that parents need to think deeply about how poor they want their kids to be unnecessarily and about what options they might be depriving them of. What's fine for Mum and Dad isn't always what their children want. If they do want to 'compete', and they do want that Firefart then they should be given every opportunity to learn how to go about getting it. Keepin' 'em down on the farm isn't giving them street smarts.

Having to be home in time for farm chores isn't giving them the time to keep up with the social networking of their peers. I know, and agree, that is a horrible world out there, and one I don't want to live in either, but it IS the world they are being raised to survive in. It ain't 1890 any more.

Those I refer to with jobs and farms have kids who are indeed up to speed with their peers despite their relative isolation. 'Hippies' kids are not.
Being a dirt poor, welfare sucking, while still claiming to have the right to be living a 'new age' sustainable lifestyle as a shining example to society in general doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. But really you are envisioning people who already have money, are simply hobby farmers, livin' the dream but with no real world responsibilities right? Plenty of them around but they're only playing at it.

Guess who our biggest contributors are to the suicide figures here? Yep, small time farmers. That is, the ones who are trying to make a living solely from their own properties and not coping with being the generation that can't keep it viable any more.

We have a bit of a translation problem going on too. A 'homestead' here usually refers to the owners house located somewhere on a 'Station' (ranch) of something between 50,000 to a million acres with half a day's drive to the front gate. It is usually a small village unto itself with workers houses and repair shops on site.

Lesser acreages are referred to as 'Properties', as in a cattle Property etc., of a few hundred to a few thousand acres, and smaller ones still as farms whatever they produce.

It gets more complicated as you can have a Sheep or Cattle Station, but not a Wheat Station. Even if you grow crops from horizon to horizon you're still just a 'Grower' on a ...name your crop...' Property.'

Then you have places like Cubby Station that used to be into cattle and since switched to growing cotton resulting in explosive angsty spit fights in parliarment and the media, but is still referred to by the old name of Station, even though it no longer applies.

So as you can see we are arguing apples and oranges here. I know that the self sustainers you laud are viewed with contempt as 'hobby farmers' by those who consider themselves 'real' people of the land who have to work in mines or wherever to keep the wolf from the door and the title deeds within the family.
It's a matter of viewpoint isn't it?

I'm not sure what you're tearing up about at the mention of welfare. Some of those big families on welfare can get thousands$$ a week! ... and yes, you're right they don't qualify as 'sustainable farmers' really, they just sprang to mind because whatever they spend it on it sure isn't their kids.

Here's the link to our Welfare benefits. Enjoy! ... and give me a heads up when you intend emmigrating, I'll buy some decent coffee.

http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services/

btw: the exchange rates don't make a lot of difference, until 2 months or so ago our dollar was worth more than yours.
 
Diwundrin said:
Phil,
You are arguing from view of how it theoretically should/might work, in the right circumstances, in a suitable situation, and with the right minded people who are affecting no-one's lives but their own. That seems to be the viewpoint of the anti-government philosophy.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily "anti-government" - just less government, government that does only what it was originally intended to do.

Simply imagine the wished for scenario and then attempt to conjure up ways to make the theory fit. It doesn't fit. You'd have to the change the world around it to make it fit. It's possible for some perhaps, but rarely happens.
Click to expand...

I've seen many listings of homesteads that are successful, on-going affairs. I don't have the energy to chase down the links right now but I'll try to in the morning.

I'm arguing from the viewpoint of how the world really works on small, 10 to 500 acre properties... here.
Other than a retired couple on the pension or welfare feeders, small time agricultural pursuits don't work all that well. We have 10% of your population and of that not much of it lives outside the cities. Not a lot of scope for making money from passing traffic if there's only 3 cars a day other than locals doing the trip. Getting the produce to market can cost more in fuel than it's worth, but that's nitpicking, I do that a lot.
Click to expand...

Your 10 to 500 acres is outside of what I'm thinking of, but you explain that later. ;)

I dropped out of the 'competition' too, I was lucky enough to be able to afford to. I, like you have no one relying on me to feed them. But had I had kids who needed to go to University and required the techno trappings of life to give them an even chance in life then I'd have taken another tack.
Click to expand...

I've owned many small businesses in the martial arts / Chinese medicine field - "many" meaning 9 - and most of them were during the years when I was married with children, so I did have a family to support. I was never a "competitive" teacher / practitioner - I relied upon word-of-mouth and publications to bring in business. Besides, how could anyone hope to compete with ME? I'm a unique individual with a unique way of teaching / healing - there's no one else like me when it comes to those two things, so even mentioning the word "competition" in that regard is ludicrous.

Yet I was able to provide quite well for my family, and am still living off the proceeds of what I did years ago. All without competing.

What started this is your shock horror that someone on the land should also have a job 'in town' as though that is a failing or something.
I see it as a responsible way of keeping the land in family hands to pass down to any of the kids who wants that life while still giving them all the options for other careers available to their peers. If they so choose to go that way! Being virtuously poor and philosophically 'free' may not seem tempting to a budding entrepreneur.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it was "shock horror" at all. I know it's a common practice. But again you're referring to large operations, very different than my little slices of Heaven.

My argument is simply that parents need to think deeply about how poor they want their kids to be unnecessarily and about what options they might be depriving them of. What's fine for Mum and Dad isn't always what their children want. If they do want to 'compete', and they do want that Firefart then they should be given every opportunity to learn how to go about getting it. Keepin' 'em down on the farm isn't giving them street smarts.
Click to expand...

So only a city-person can have street smarts?

Having to be home in time for farm chores isn't giving them the time to keep up with the social networking of their peers. I know, and agree, that is a horrible world out there, and one I don't want to live in either, but it IS the world they are being raised to survive in. It ain't 1890 any more.
Click to expand...

And what of the kids that have to run to their city home right after school to take care of the siblings while their single Mom goes off to work the evening shift at McDonald's? How is THAT any healthier?

Those I refer to with jobs and farms have kids who are indeed up to speed with their peers despite their relative isolation. 'Hippies' kids are not.
Being a dirt poor, welfare sucking, while still claiming to have the right to be living a 'new age' sustainable lifestyle as a shining example to society in general doesn't cut it for me. Sorry. But really you are envisioning people who already have money, are simply hobby farmers, livin' the dream but with no real world responsibilities right? Plenty of them around but they're only playing at it.
Click to expand...

The idea of a self-reliant, self-sustaining lifestyle is a far cry from hobby farming or "playing at it". Actually, growing veggies and such is just a very small part of the overall operation. It doesn;t take truckloads of money - just brains and desire.

Guess who our biggest contributors are to the suicide figures here? Yep, small time farmers. That is, the ones who are trying to make a living solely from their own properties and not coping with being the generation that can't keep it viable any more.
Click to expand...

If I were trying to farm under what I'm beginning to learn YOUR environmental conditions are then I'd probably be throwing myself under the tractor as well.

We have a bit of a translation problem going on too. A 'homestead' here usually refers to the owners house located somewhere on a 'Station' (ranch) of something between 50,000 to a million acres with half a day's drive to the front gate. It is usually a small village unto itself with workers houses and repair shops on site.

Lesser acreages are referred to as 'Properties', as in a cattle Property etc., of a few hundred to a few thousand acres, and smaller ones still as farms whatever they produce.

It gets more complicated as you can have a Sheep or Cattle Station, but not a Wheat Station. Even if you grow crops from horizon to horizon you're still just a 'Grower' on a ...name your crop...' Property.'

Then you have places like Cubby Station that used to be into cattle and since switched to growing cotton resulting in explosive angsty spit fights in parliarment and the media, but is still referred to by the old name of Station, even though it no longer applies.
Click to expand...

This I think is the crux of our difference of opinion. I always did wonder what a "station" was - thank you for enlightening me. ;)

So as you can see we are arguing apples and oranges here. I know that the self sustainers you laud are viewed with contempt as 'hobby farmers' by those who consider themselves 'real' people of the land who have to work in mines or wherever to keep the wolf from the door and the title deeds within the family.
It's a matter of viewpoint isn't it?
Click to expand...

It is. That's why I just consider this a spirited exchange between two crazy people, not a debate or argument. :biggrin-new:

I'm not sure what you're tearing up about at the mention of welfare. Some of those big families on welfare can get thousands$$ a week! ... and yes, you're right they don't qualify as 'sustainable farmers' really, they just sprang to mind because whatever they spend it on it sure isn't their kids.

Here's the link to our Welfare benefits. Enjoy! ... and give me a heads up when you intend emmigrating, I'll buy some decent coffee.

http://australia.gov.au/topics/benefits-payments-and-services/

btw: the exchange rates don't make a lot of difference, until 2 months or so ago our dollar was worth more than yours.
Click to expand...

THOUSANDS?!?

I was tearing up because our stereotypical idea of urban welfare cases are big shiny new cars parked in front of their Section 8 housing (welfare) whose trunks are filled with bags of groceries paid for by welfare. They carry the bags inside and sit down to watch their 72" dia. plasma-screen TV with the satellite service that offers 500 channels while smoothing out their $100 designer sweat shirt and $200 designer jeans.

They also seem to get the best weed, damn their souls. :(

That link is going to be like reading the Bible (for length, not for content), but when I get a chance I'd really like to look up the welfare stuff.
 
Diwundrin said:
"Everyone's crazy but me and thee and I'm none too sure about thee" ??? that one? :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

That's the one!

This may weaken my argument, being as it is in such a notoriously "hippie" magazine, but Mother Earth News did a lot of articles fairly recently (2011) on homesteading - here's their Start A 1-Acre, Self-Sufficient Homestead article to illustrate a bit more where my thinking is at.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top