This Land is My Land

So, got asked a question and decided to turn my answers into a series of posts. I think I will leave the question and answer bit out of the post, as it might tend to distract, and just answer the question, or at least one part of it.

The question, edited, was:

If you could snap your fingers and turn the world into exactly how you think it should be, what would that look like? I mean more on a societal and larger structural level. What does the best version of the world look like to you?

Disclaimers:

Now before I can start answering I think I need to put in place a couple of disclaimers:

God is perfect

The foundation for everything I write is that God is creator, and He is perfect (all wise, all knowing, all that sort of thing). Thus nothing I write is intended as an attack on God or His actions.

We can, in some other location, get into the whole ‘How could an all good God create a universe where…” but this is not that post, and in order to understand what I write you will have to get past that issue.

Multi-faceted answer

One problem with proposing solutions is that you rarely have the possibility of proposing all of your solutions at the same time. If nothing else, it would take too long. So you are stuck with proposing partial solutions, or even solutions which would be undone by later solutions.

So, for example, in reaction to the modern transgender sports controversy, shocking and offending both sides, I would propose that everyone in the government schools and sports and all compete for the same teams, change in the same locker rooms, shower in the same showers, etc etc. Knowing full well that I would get rid of government schools entirely!

Beginning with Land

So my answer to the question on the floor could begin pretty much anywhere. But I have chosen to begin with the issue of land. And even that involves a multiplicity of issues that would have to be understood! So be prepared for this answer here to need much revision and explanation!

My first proposal would be that, outside of cities (and certain other minor exceptions), no land could be permanently owned by anyone except families. There would be no BLM, no corporate farms, etc etc. Families, and families only.

What is a Family?

For the purpose of understanding my proposal about land it is important to understand that family, as I am using the term here, means (outside of certain rare exceptions) the male head of multiple generations.

Thus when Adam was the only man in the whole world, all of the land would belong to him. Then, on his death, his land would get divided up into sections according to his sons. (No, not his surviving sons. All of his sons.)

Which means that men, even heads of large families, whose progenitor was still alive, would not own any land, however much they might work it etc.

Permanently

Which isn’t to say that the land couldn’t be rented or ‘sold’ temporarily. But it could not be permanently alienated from the family.

Poverty

One obvious ramification of this policy (and there are dozens) concerns the issue of poverty. I would be impossible, under this system, to have a permanent underclass. (Barring the ever present danger of the system not being the system… ie the powers that be killing the system.) A family may fall into poverty but, due to the fact that, in the long run, they own land, they cannot stay there permanently.

Land and Government

Now, there is a very difficult question to raise with all of this. Difficult not because the answer is particularly complex, but because it is far outside the modern Overton window. But I will try…

Try to imagine that the law stands above the government. The law is created by God, and the government is just as bound to obey it as are the citizens. And imagine that the law creates (at least) three jurisdictions: that of the church, that of the state, and that of the family. And imagine that of these three the most fundamental, the most powerful, that which stands as the highest… is the family.¹

Thus not even the state can take the land from the family. In the issues of what happens on the family land, it has nothing to say.

Extent

I will close this particular slice of my utopic vision with a note on the ‘extent’ of this vision. I believe that this is the way that all land everywhere should be divided. I’m not proposing some poor slobs get stuck with Antartica or the Sahara Dessert… but I am proposing that no land, anywhere, be owned by governments and, outside of cities, none of it owned by corporations etc. All of it would be owned by… families.

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Von also writes as ‘Arthur Yeomans’. Under that name he writes children’s, YA, and adult fiction from a Christian perspective. His books include:

The Bobtails meet the Preacher’s Kid

The Bobtails and the Cousins

The Bobtails go to France

and

No Ordinary School

Arthur also has a substack, and a website.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von

Links

J.S. Kasimir

and I are discussing patriarchy. I’m in favour and think it inevitable. J.S… not so much.

The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Laying some foundation.

The Blessings of the Breast and the Womb: // Podcast Version The role of pregnancy, lactation, and raising children in the inevitability of patriarchy.

What is Marriage // Podcast Version: Adding the issue of marriage, and discussing meritocracy and inheritance.

Differences Make Differences: // Podcast Version Given the differences between men and women, could it be that boys are wired to do their jobs and girls are wired to do theirs?

Not in the letter exchange, but on subject:

What is a man? A response to

KingEmperorPenguin

on the subject.

The Feminist Problem with Patriarchy: // Podcast Version Some logical issues that feminists have when discussing patriarchy.

Virginity, Chastity, and Children // Podcast version: In a natalist society women go through two phases of life.

Single Income Lots of Kids: The old lifestyle that contrasts with the modern perversions.

Does the Stereotypical Woman have a Vagina? // Podcast Version Is it ‘prejudice’ to say women were designed to bear children?

Misogyny and Agency: // Podcast Version Is it misogyny to say that women are human beings with agency?

Gender Roles: Should you be judged on how well your fulfil your gender roles?

The Modern Problem with Math: // Podcast Version When it comes to kids, modern people can’t count.

INCHEL: // Podcast Version: Involuntarily Childless Women

Generational Wealth: The Foundation

Rights, Wrongs, and Affirming Gender

Depopulation Solutions: Can we solve our fertility crisis?

Problem with Patterns of Patriarchy

Fundamental Contradictions

Delphic Penumbra

The Definition of Dog: Can two men marry?

Social Roles and Headcovering // Podcast Version

Let your Women Keep Silence // Podcast Version

Godly Fathers // Podcast Version

Jonadab // Podcast Version

The Words of Jonadab // Podcast Version

The Context of Jonadab // Podcast Version

1. There is an interesting scene regarding this in the film ‘Shakespeare in Love’, where Queen Elizabeth says ‘What God has joined together, not even I can put asunder.” One can look at that as God vs the state, but it can also be read as the family jurisdiction (the husband) is not beneath that of the state (the queen).