Why no solidarity from the Libertarian Right?
One of the speakers at the Enough! launch rally lat night was Sharif Omar, a Palestinian farmer. He told the familiar tale of repression, of how the stringent permit laws and officious permit-issuing authorities prevent his sons from gaining free access to his own farm; of how a man of his sixty years needs help to till the soil to its full yield; and of how he cannot find enough farm workers despite massive unemployment in the Occupied Territories. The labour market, corralled like cattle behind a security ‘fence’, three feet thick.
Listening to all this, the first thought that occurred to me was not the metaphor of animals in cages, the dehumanising of the Palestinians. Rather, it occurred to me that the restrictions described by Mr Omar would be scorned by free-market capitalists and libertarians alike, were they imposed in any other country. Why the silence on Palestine from the Libertarian Right? Or (and this is entirely possible, indeed probable) have I just been reading the wrong blogs?
I guess many people feel uneasy at sympathising with the Palestinian cause because of the distaste they feel for those already a part of the campaign: the despised Left. This is a mistake in their thought process, of course. Imprisoning hundreds of thousands of people in a walled ghetto, or imposing a religion on a populated region by force: The gross immorality of these acts is not mitigated by an ad hominem objection to those who already oppose the occupation.
You’re forgetting that most of the “Libertarian Right” are the Right first and “libertarians” when it suits them.
Previously. And previously.
This superb post by Jon Swift was pretty close to the mark on this one.
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/01/violent-acres-mother-teresa-of.html
oops. wrong post, sorry
http://jonswift.blogspot.com/2007/01/knee-jerks.html
I was arguing along these lines with a wishy-washy lefty friend a year ago; “you are taking the language of property very literally” he said.
Well I think its just that bloggers are mostly working alone and there is just so much to rant about right now and only twenty four hours in a day – and even bloggers have to go for a dump!
But I think most of my friends are aware of the problem in Palestine.
I think it’s a result of the binary left-right identity in politics.
I think of myself as a left-liberal type, so I instinctively hate the Tories, even when they come up with ideas that are vaguely sensible. A chap I know who’s a Tory councillor once told me that, when he looks at the US, he instinctively wants to side with the Republicans, even though the Democrats are probably far closer to his own views and the Bush administration are a bunch of nutjobs.
The libertarians think of themselves as on the right, and thus instinctively want to align with the Republican-Likud axis. In misleadingly simplistic terms, the plight of the Palestinians is a left wing concern, the security of Israel a right wing one.
So the basically the left-right axis thing is a lot of misleading toss. But we already knew that, right?
No, Jonn: I think it is you who associate libertarians with the right.
They are – sigh, notwithstanding Donald above – economically “right” and socially “left”.
In the case of Palestine, libertarians would observe the social and economic freedoms of Israel – whoever happens to be in power – and agree rather more with that than with the distinctly socially and economically illiberal “govt” of the Palestinians – whoever happens to be in power.
Taking the one example of a “cross-border” farm is disingenuous: let’s ask a more sensible question. Given the choice between a plot of land 50 miles from the border inside the PA vs inside Israel, where would you would prefer to site your farm?
The problem with this particular pressure group is that it is – sigh – a little one sided as those rabid Thatcherites at Harry’s Place note here.
Hence, this analysis is wide of the mark:
“I guess many people feel uneasy at sympathising with the Palestinian cause because of the distaste they feel for those already a part of the campaign: the despised Left. “
This would appear to be a bit of projection: unlike Jonn, whose self-declared, if admirably honest, irrational hatred of Tories, libertarians do not – as a policy – hate.
Thus, it’s not the people sympathising with the cause that libertarians object to. It’s what the cause actually looks like. This one appears to be another boiler plate “It’s entirely Israel’s fault” shout-fest.
That’s not really going to help anyone solve the problem.
Given the choice between a plot of land 50 miles from the border inside the PA vs inside Israel, where would you would prefer to site your farm?
Do we really want to step into this mine-field (metaphorically and literally), Cleanthes? There are, as you well know, many settlers who would opt for the former rather than the latter, on religious grounds. Their presence and protection is the precise reason for many of the security measures.
Taking the one example of a “cross-border†farm is disingenuous
To be clear, Sharif Omar’s farm is well within Palestine, but the restrictions on his movement are imposed by the Israeli government. Given the odd nature of the borders between Israel and Palestine (have you looked at a map of the route of the wall recently?), labelling something “cross-border” might be considered disingenuous in itself!
I take your point about some of my conjectures… But Cleanthes, my original question remains: You’re a Libertarian, right? Doesn’t that wall, and the ghettoisation that occurs, offend absolutely everything you stand for?
Robert,
To be clear, Sharif Omar’s farm is well within Palestine,
Fair cop. Rephrase the question to be “50 miles to either side of the wall”. Bear with me on this one.
“Doesn’t that wall, and the ghettoisation that occurs, offend absolutely everything you stand for? “
Not as much as the wanton and deliberate slaughter of innocents that it prevents, slaughter that is not just condoned but celebrated by the PA.
Libertarians do recognise at least some valid functions for a state, defence being one. So let’s imagine this wall built on some kind of recognised border. At this point, there is no issue whatsoever. It is doing an extremely valuable job – it protects the freedom of the citizens of Israel at minimal cost in human life needed to defend the border.
So it is not the wall that is the problem, it is the routing. But then, the problem with the routing is that there is no recognised border. That, and the fact that the current elected authorities on the PA side of the wall think that the right place to put the border is the coast.
Which ever way you slice this, there is no escaping the fact that the conflict in the middle east is not about whether the state should take 4 or 44% of GDP in taxation. There are rather more fundamental issues to address before the finer distinctions of libertarianism are even remotely relevant.
But even assuming that this dispute is purely about the routing of the border between Israel and Palestine, and assuming that these issues were magically resolved, which state would you rather live in: Israel or Palestine? Which do you think fits more closely with the liberal/social democratic ideals that you hold dear? Which state would respect your freedoms of conscience, or religion, of speech, of association?
And if you can imagine a Palestine that did uphold such values, do you think that there would be any need for the wall?
This, for the avoidance of doubt, is not to condone the land grab by Israel – it is merely to suggest that presenting this problem as a simple free markets issue as you have done here is hopelessly wide of the mark.
In order to do so, you have to ignore the context and the context, in this case, is everything.
“there is no recognised border”
The 1967 borders are the internationally recognised boundaries.
Keep Digging.
“The 1967 borders are the internationally recognised boundaries.”
Not by anyone that actually matters in the region, not least the PA itself.
Are you claiming the PA doesn’t respect the 1967 borders and wishes to push Israel into the sea? That’s crazy talk and you know it.
I must have missed when Hamas changed their charter then.
This was a rather unkempt post when I typed it, and its now a tangled wood of comments. To take up the newest branch (without getting to the bottom of the old):
I must have missed when Hamas changed their charter then
Hamas don’t speak for all Palestinians. What about them? I’ve already debated this issue at my place.
This would appear to be a bit of projection: unlike Jonn, whose self-declared, if admirably honest, irrational hatred of Tories, libertarians do not – as a policy – hate.
Other people I hate, in no particular order:
-men in Ben Sherman shirts
-hedge fund managers
-Jacques Chirac
-the creators of hit BBC sitcom “My Hero”
-George Galloway’s Respect party
-Daily Mail readers
-the Christian Right
-Giles Brandreth
HTH,
Jonn
Jonn,
I take it all back: Giles Brandreth definitely needs a good shoeing.
Cleanthes
“Hamas don’t speak for all Palestinians. ”
But they are the elected government of the PA. I would have thought that that was relevant.
Whilst we are on this topic, and having reread your post on the election of Hamas, you are still being unfair.
I don’t write off the Palestinian PEOPLE as being uninterested in peace, and equally you appear to assume that I have no sympathy for the Palestinian people.
However, I don’t believe that Hamas – in particular – is really interested in any kind of peace that does not involve the destruction of Israel and the subjugation of the whole lot to an Islamist nightmare.
This is the whole point of the discussion. Your assumption at the top of this post is that the “right” does not care about the plight of the Palestinians. That is neither right nor fair.
I think my question to the progressives here is much more valid: if a two state solution emerges, which would you prefer to live in?
If a single state solution emerges, what would you prefer it to look more like: an Israeli administration of just about any stripe, or Hamas?
The questions around the LEFT’s world view are much more directly relevant that the facile discussion about a distortion of the free market in the immediate area of the wall that you post here.
For the sake of balance it should be pointed out that whilst Hamas clearly doesn’t recognise the 1967 borders in the long term, neither does Israel as none of its mainstream parties have publicly proposed a 2-state solution based on the 67 borders. Therefore Cleanthes comment about nobody with any power in the region recognising the 67 borders is technically correct. The 67 borders are merely recognised by the UN gen assembly, the EU and virtually everyone who has studied the issue and supports the international consensus on the 2-state solution.
However its also worth pointing out that the discourse over the 67 borders within both Israeli and Palestinian circles has evolved over the past 20 years, and isn’t set in stone for eternity.
Before this thread develops into the usual internet Israel/Palestine flame war it might be worth reminding ourselves of the topic here – which is the “libertarian” refusal to oppose excessive state power and interference in the free market when such power has been excerised on behalf of Israel. Cleathes justifies this on the grounds that defence is a legitimate role for the state, even though he must be aware that whether Israel’s actions constitute “defence” is a matter of debate.
However interestingly the question: “if a two state solution emerges, which would you prefer to live in?” reveals quite a lot.
Israel has traditionally had a strong welfare sate and socialist heritage, although it has changed recently.
The PA, on the other hand, has never actually been a state – the most it has been is having municipal powers at the height of Oslo. Its lack of money and adherence to neo-liberalism has meant that it could only ever support a small patchy welfare state and education system. This compares to the Hamas affiliated charitable network, which has formed the safety net of providing welfare and education services (probably the biggest factor in the rise of hamas) privately funded. In other words exactly the sort of welfare system supported by “libertarians†– non-state run, funded through voluntary contributions and provided by charities.
So to be consistent libertarians ought to prefer to live in a Palestinian run state because of the smaller state welfare system!
Planeshift,
Now we are on better ground, but I think you have reduced the discussion too far.
Let’s separate the three main issues in this post.
1) The wall *specifically*
2) The support of lack of it for the Palestinian cause in general: “I guess many people feel uneasy at sympathising with the Palestinian cause” failure to support
3) the motive suggested: “because of the distaste they feel for those already a part of the campaign: the despised Left. This is a mistake in their thought process, of course.”
3) is pure projection and is a pathology of the left much more than the right. We have even seen it from Jonn in this post.
As norm reminds us, the right looks for converts, the left for traitors.
2) The Palestinian cause in general: well here we come back to my question to the rest of you. Which state guarantees the freedoms that you purport to support? Hell, even Robert agrees that he holds Israel to an objectively higher standard than the PA.
Movements like Enough – and that is what this post is actually about – do not make clear that actually Israel’s infractions of human rights are piddling in comparison to every other regime in the region. Any analysis that maintains that the conflict is entirely Israel’s fault is facile and, indeed, positively counterproductive.
It’s just that the right is honest about this.
1) Given 2) above, the wall is not even remotely a free market issue. It is just one facet of a much, much more complex problem.
Why on earth would anyone think there is any need for a libertarian to answer question 1) when the poser refuses to give an honest answer to 2)?
And whilst we are channelling the norm, here is an exact case in point:
“Not a word about other sources of anti-Semitism, like the hatred deliberately and daily fostered in the Arab world. Not a word about the obstacle to peace in the region that non-recognition of the Jewish people’s right to national self-determination has been for going on 60 years now. ‘These principles are contradicted when…’ followed by a short list of Israeli-Jewish delinquencies, and that’s it. “
Well I don’t consider it necessary when criticising a state to first condemn every other state that happens to have a worse record.
However I do take your point, at least to its own citizens Israel generally has a far better record of behaviour than Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. That by no means excuses the wall, checkpoints and other major restrictions on the movement of people and goods that Israel has imposed. If the wall was built along the 1967 lines it would be far less objectionable, and frankly I fail to see how a libertarian can defend it as it currently stands.
3) the motive suggested: “because of the distaste they feel for those already a part of the campaign: the despised Left. This is a mistake in their thought process, of course.â€Â
3) is pure projection and is a pathology of the left much more than the right. We have even seen it from Jonn in this post.
You keep seizing on the fact that I admitted to doing it as proof that the left as a whole does it, and your suggestion that you yourself don’t do it as proof that libertarians don’t.
I’m not sure that’d stand up in court, you know.
The situation in Israel and Palestine is a monumental mess, jam packed with prejudice, religious and racial hatred, and two sets of leaderships that have dedicated much of the last sixty years to screwing the other in the name of their people.
You seemed to suggest that this mess can be attributed entirely to the Palestinians, and thus that they deserve what comes to them. To my prejudiced left-wing mind, this
a) appears distinctly blinkered, and expresses exactly the pro-Israel prejudice that you said was merely a projection of the left; and
b) doesn’t get us any closer to a solution, which is going to need reconciliation rather than simply security.
And incidentally, the reason I associated libertarians with the right has nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with the fact that the most prominent libertarian lobby with which I’m familiar, the US one, is generally happy to line up with the Republican party.
If they don’t want to be considered more right than left wing, they’ve got a funny way of showing it.
Planeshift,
“Well I don’t consider it necessary when criticising a state to first condemn every other state that happens to have a worse record. “
Did I say EVERY other state? No. I didn’t. It is however not just pertinent in the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict to consider their relative merits, but absolutely central.
“If the wall was built along the 1967 lines it would be far less objectionable”
Good. We’ve got that cleared up. As I said earlier: it’s not the wall, it’s the route that it takes.
As to the rest of your comment, I refer you to my previous post. I don’t condone the landgrab, but equally I don’t think any of us have a clear enough view of the precise decision making behind those parts that deviate from the 67 green line.
More importantly, my question 2 (which side is more in line with your views of equality, liberty etc) remains outstanding. The difference between the two sides in this respect is just so huge – and I remain staggered that so far noone on this thread has even begun to admit this – that the very fact that the wall is necessary hugely trumps the issues with its routing.
Jonn,
Can I plead “Crass generalisation” in defence? And I’ll throw in this for free as an exception to prove the rule.
:-)
“The situation in Israel and Palestine is a monumental mess, jam packed with prejudice, religious and racial hatred, and two sets of leaderships that have dedicated much of the last sixty years to screwing the other in the name of their people. “
Absolutely agreed.
“You seemed to suggest that this mess can be attributed entirely to the Palestinians, and thus that they deserve what comes to them.”
Absolutely not agreed.
I am very strongly suggesting that it cannot be entirely attributed to the Israelis, which is the prevailing view here, at Enough! and in the left generally.
Further, I am suggesting that, given the substantial cultural difference between the two sides, this sort of approach is not just naive but actively counterproductive.
I can quite see that if you had read that into my comments that both a) and b) follow. But you can’t, so they don’t.
As for your general comment re libertarians and the right, quite so. I merely wished to do two things:
1) reiterate that it is possible to believe in free markets and individual liberty.
2) introduce the idea – which no-one has yet acknowledged – that the various factions that purport to run the PA have fuck all sympathy for your traditional left wing/liberal views and that it would probably help get us closer to a solution if the left did indeed recognise this.
I am very strongly suggesting that it cannot be entirely attributed to the Israelis, which is the prevailing view here, at Enough! and in the left generally.
…but which is an opinion which I do not hold and have not expressed. I said that I was on the left, that the left generally take the side of the Palestianians, and you filled in the gaps yourself.
This is what I meant about not being the only one around here guilty of projecting.
I have nothing that comes even close to resembling a straightforward opinion on the Middle East. I don’t have the knowledge, and I don’t presume to pretend otherwise.
On the one hand, yes, Israeli values (or at least, the Labour end of them) are far closer to my own than anything else seen in the reason. On the other hand, the group that get most comprehensively screwed at present are, I suspect, the Palestinian people, who not only find that their security is threatened but also have to live in appalling poverty – and my instinct is ever to side with the underdog.
The PA’s values do have fuck all to do with mine. But it’s not the PA I sympathize with, it’s the Palestinian people. Just as I suspect you’d say that you have no particular love of the settlers, and just want security for ordinary Israelis.
My point, if I have one, is that a policy that focuses entirely on security by keeping the Palestinians locked behind a wall and unable to work themselves out of poverty is
a) morally dubious, and
b) bloody stupid, because it gives Hamas the chance to buy sympathy by actually engaging with communities, providing public services, and going on and on about how it’d all be alright if we could only get ride of those evil Jews.
Cleanthes, I think you might be misrepresenting my post from back in the day, and missing part of the point of this one. My final paragraph in the original post here: The gross immorality of these acts is not mitigated by an ad hominem objection to those who already oppose the occupation.
Your argument seems to be of precisely this nature: you are saying that the immorality of the Israeli human rights abuses of ordinary Palestinians is mitigated by the sheer awfulness of the terrorists. I am saying that it is not – as do Libertarians, no?
the very fact that the wall is necessary hugely trumps the issues with its routing
Further, I am saying that the wall is most certainly not necessary. It doesn’t make people safer, and is extremely harmful on social and psychological levels for absolutely everyone concerned… including the Israelis, whose fear of the Palestinians can only be exacerbated by the wall’s presence. I do think your question about where we would rather live is a false choice, therefore, because a country which builds something so harmful has no discernible respect for the rights and liberties of its citizens (many of whom have family on the other side) or its neighbours. The more I think about this, the more it actually becomes something of a dogma for me, which I appreciate is not very helpful and, as you say, appears smug.
To mitigate this, I do admit that the earlier conjecture (I guess many people feel uneasy at sympathising with the Palestinian cause because of the distaste they feel for those already a part of the campaign: the despised Left.) is pretty simplistic… although in fairness to myself, I did deliberately put it in such a way as to allow for alternative views (e.g “I guess for many”).
Apologies all – real life intrudes, but v quickly:
Jonn,
“I have nothing that comes even close to resembling a straightforward opinion on the Middle East. I don’t have the knowledge, and I don’t presume to pretend otherwise.”
Same here. Which is why I consider that the condemnation solely of Israel is not good enough, not helpful and not worthy of support.
“The PA’s values do have fuck all to do with mine. But it’s not the PA I sympathize with, it’s the Palestinian people. “
Quite so. My point is that you never see demonstrations of the size that you get outside Israeli embassies all over the world complaining about the conduct of the PA.
“My point, if I have one, is that a policy that focuses entirely on security by keeping the Palestinians locked behind a wall and unable to work themselves out of poverty … [is stupid and cruel]”
I broadly agree with you, but (see above) I don’t think it is fair to suggest that the Israelis have been focussing entirely on security for the last 60 years. So what possessed the Israelis to build it? Why the focus on security now?
Equally, given that the 7% of the West Bank that is enclosed by the wall is almost entirely composed of settlements, I am struggling to blame the entire employment problem in the other 93% (or ~99% excluding settlements) on the wall.
Or could it be that the Syrian, Jordanian and Egyptian border guards are equally unhelpful in terms of cross border employment and trade?
Robert,
Very briefly:
“although in fairness to myself, I did deliberately put it in such a way as to allow for alternative views “
but you deliberately put it in such a way that suggested that your explanation was a majority view and then did not provide a rationale that would allow the opposing view to be held sincerely and with reasonable motive.
Try this for size as well.
Especially comment 53:
“All told, in the past six decades, this region has witnessed no fewer than 22 full-scale wars over territory and resources, not one of them having anything to do with Israel and the Palestinians. And these international disputes, as I mentioned at the outset, are quite apart from the uninterrupted string of domestic clashes, military coups, acts of sectarian and ethnic vengeance, factional terrorism, and other internal conflicts that have characterized the greater Middle East, not infrequently attaining impressive heights of cruelty and despoliation. Nor is that the end of it. Underlying all of this are the unmoving facts, documented at length in the annual volumes of the Arab Human Development Report, of chronic instability, severe economic underachievement, social atrophy, and cultural backwardness. The greater Middle East is the only part of the world still largely untouched by the wave of positive change that followed the end of the cold war.
The notion that all of these problems can be waved away by “solving†the Arab-Israeli conflict is thus at best a delusion, at worst a recipe for maintaining today’s wider political, diplomatic, and social paralysis.
…
with the exception of Israel and with the partial exception of Turkey, the entire Middle East lacks a culture of conflict resolution, let alone the necessary mechanisms of meaningful compromise. ”
THAT is my point. Given the lack of a culture of conflict resolution, I’d hide behind a wall as well.
Pingback: Robert Sharp » Blog Archive » Inherently violent?
Libertarianism is not the same as Anarcho-Capitalism. For a Libertarian defending its citizens from aggression is one of the few legitimate acts of a state, and this is what Israel is doing with the fence. It is in the wrong place but it is also working in reducing the risk to the Israeli citizens.
As for the Left/Right split, that is quite simple really and can already be seen in the comments so far. In broad terms for the libertarian right freedom is paramount, for the left equality.
Israel is the most free country in the region, and one of the most free in the world. This is particularly striking when compared to any of the countries that surround it. Hamas, the elected government of the Palestinians, are dedicated to destroying it and turning the entire Levant region into an Islamic state which like all Islamic states would be anything but free.
Israel is also one of the most technologically, militarily, and industrially powerful countries in the region. This is particularly striking when compared to the PA which is a basket case that exists purely on handouts from overseas. So this fight is extremely unequal, with the Palestinians undisputed underdogs.
The libertarian right supports Israel so as to lend its support to the freest place in the region against a force that would turn it into a very unfree place.
The much of the left supports the PA because it is the underdog and they want to try and lend their support to level the odds and make it a less grossly unequal pairing.
One problem with Israel from a libertarian view is that many libertarians believe in unrestricted immigration (I don’t which is one reason I don’t call myself libertarian). In Israel such a policy would obviously mean the end of Israel as a Jewsih homeland & probably as a first world country.
The Israel/Palestine issue is very difficult to deal with in anything other than traditional state/national terms & so libertarians tend to shy away. In any case there is a very good argument that this issue already gets far to much international attention compared to Zaire, Kashmir, Kosovo, Krajina & other very similar national conflicts
As usual this subject has elicited an interesting and heated debate.
However some pertinent facts have fallen through the net.
1) Hamas is as much an Israeli creation as it is a Palestinian one. The Palestinian freedom movement was historically a secular one and Hamas received considerable support in its early days in order weaken Fattah control and ferment political infighting. In light of continuing PA failure in the face of Israeli oppression and US support Hamas gained popular support in time.
This was the long-term goal of the Israeli government in order to harden international support.
2) The Israeli government has never wanted peace with the Palestinians, they wanted them to leave. The Palestinian society in 1948 was essentially agrarian, by taking the land from them they took away their means to survive. Had the essentially middle-class/cosmopolitan Jewish Diaspora emigrating to Palestine recognised that a symbiotic arrangement could have been reached they could have roughly divided the society by function and there could have been a chance for peace.
But they didn’t want that, they were supposed to leave.
I am a right-wing libertarian but I’m still subservient to logic.
Wolfie,
“I am a right-wing libertarian but I’m still subservient to logic. “
That should be “therefore” not “but”.
“But they didn’t want that, they were supposed to leave.”
??
We are now getting into some very murky territory.
There is ample evidence that the Arabs who left Israel did so voluntarily on the advice of the invading Arab armies on the basis that they could then move back in and take the spoils after the war had been won and Israel wiped off the map. It didn’t work out that way.
More importantly, the fledgeling Israeli government was very clear that they would offer full Israeli citizenship to anyone who wanted to stay, as indeed they did.
Your accusation here is along the lines that Israel desires to be an apartheid state, if it is not one already or has been since its creation.
If that is what you are suggesting, can I recommend that you read this.
If not, perhaps you might like to clarify exactly what you do mean.
In the context of the debate “but” implies that I believe that logic has not been correctly applied by many on the right.
I agree that many were advised to leave by Arab armies but others were threatened or had their homes destroyed, no one description encompasses exactly what happened. Either way, civilians were made homeless and they didn’t want to be.
I really don’t see where I implied Israel was an apartheid state, what I implied was that it was the intention to create a Jewish majority state in a country that was previously a Palestinian majority. The Jewish leadership at the time made no secret of this intent, I think we can call that a historical given?
Logically this could only be achieved by someone leaving. The Israelis knew that, they were open about it and still are today.
The wall, which is the subject of this post is in part about security but its location is also a strategy to increase the pressure on remaining Palestinians to leave for economic reasons. To maintain that Jewish majority.
Wolfie,
Absolutely fair enough on all points, with the sole exception of the last:
“The wall, which is the subject of this post is in part about security but its location is also a strategy to increase the pressure on remaining Palestinians to leave for economic reasons. “
I should have thought that the wall, with the attendant downsides on the Palestinian economy on the other side, would do the precise opposite: if it is the health of your local economy you are worried about, you would want to stay in Israel, surely?
Cleanthes,
I think that depends on if you are going to be a participant in that greater economy or not. No land often means no participation, unless you count being low-paid labour on the land you once owned, which brings me back to my original point (35.2).