Although all of the translations of the Bible say that the land is to "rest and lie fallow" (including Jewish translations, that is not what Exodus 23:11 says in Hebrew. It says "release and abandon" which is not even close to the same. It is a social prescription with an environmental outcome far more sophisticated than anything you can imagine.
The basic idea of a Sabbath for the land is sound but this cannot be done all at one time for a number of reasons so the Biblical prescription never seriously has been implemented over any large area as it seems to imply that this is to be done all at once just like humans observe the Sabbath.
If I told you that the principal reason for the Sabbath for the Land was military, would you believe it? I don't think so, but it is the truth. That is because until Shemitta was written, NOBODY understood what it was truly about for a number of truly tragic historical reasons. There is an excellent rationale for why everyone was to perform it the same year. So, why don't you try reading the material on the site instead of making such a supposition?
I just don't see your point for attacking someone who is telling the truth because you feel that you have a better version of the truth.
I am not "attacking" Mr. Moore. What I said was true. He associates with a claque of globalists and believes in "reasonable" regulation. Whatever that means is necessarily subjective. I am not a fan of politically derived subjective solutions.
Your suggestions may be very successful, but you are first insisting that they accept your frame of reference before considering your ideas. This is a sure ticket to staying marginalized.
I don't think my post insisted on anything. It did criticize regulation as a means of socialization, which is what it is, control being equivalent to ownership.
What is Shemitta?
Well, simply put, a single worldwide complete Sabbath for the land is insane regardless of the justification and thus this teaching has been thus far ignored generally. The Torah is very much like a fractal though and some of the things written there only make sense when the context is correct. But, I can't imagine a situation where food for nearly 7 billion people and their domestic animals for an entire year could or should be stored and consumed which is how this has been interpreted.
The idea of release and abandon would point to moving on, but this is a world where populations great and small cannot do that any longer. Even the wanders of the desert, the Bedouin only keep their tents for tourist trade.
You are obviously a brilliant, passionate and religious man. To the extent that I could read about your hypothesis, it is interesting, but to me unsatisfying on a number of levels.
But, as I said, somethings in Torah are just plain inscrutable, and the Sabbath of the Land is one of the most inscrutable of them all. On a small scale, what you propose may be possible, perhaps workable but once you step up to the scale of a county much less a state, the whole thing becomes intensely insane once again. Not that there isn't a glimmer of hope here, but I am afraid it is still not clear how this may work especially on the scale of 7 Billion humans.
But, folks have desperately tried to work out how this might make any sense for several millenniums so a new swing at it isn't all that bad. It isn't reasonable for a man of science though to hold out a hope as a solution. If you want to move from waving your hands to teaching this, you must find a community, a county and a state to implement this and show the way. But, it is food for thought.
I am not "attacking" Mr. Moore. What I said was true. He associates with a claque of globalists and believes in "reasonable" regulation. Whatever that means is necessarily subjective. I am not a fan of politically derived subjective solutions.
Unfortunately, any solution to any problem that involves more than two people is going to be political. Sorry.
Your suggestions may be very successful, but you are first insisting that they accept your frame of reference before considering your ideas. This is a sure ticket to staying marginalized.
I don't think my post insisted on anything. It did criticize regulation as a means of socialization, which is what it is, control being equivalent to ownership.
Well, the stance of control being equivalent to ownership is insightful and limited at the same time. The tension between individual liberty and the needs of an orderly society have always been a problem for humans. When the Israelite's begged Samuel to raise up a King to rule them so that they may be an orderly society, he cautioned them that a King would oppress them and be a tyrant and an implacable master. The advice was to accept God only and forget Kings, but the people insisted and Samuel anointed Saul because he was a King among men, tall, regal and full of life and power. Yet from this moment, Israel's doom was sealed and the story of the Kings was that of futility and defeat.
Our founding fathers read and understood this so very well and yet they did not set up a system that would approximate the modern Libertarian ideal. Instead, they crafted a society with the assumption that each group and level would act to maximize their own power and thus must be checked and controlled and frustrated by other equally powerful groups that had motivations to root out and cleanse the body politic. They developed a system of government where the highest and every official was a servant to the people of the country as a whole or as specific distinct groups. The brought back the rule of Law in the form of Judges that would interpret the Law and serve as a check to protect and establish the rights of the lowliest individual or the most mighty leader.
This system has not been perfect, but anything composed of the actions of men pursuing their own ends is not likely to be. Instead the goal was practical. Politics and its horrors is a means by where each of us might have a say and be heard, it is not an evil thing, but a place where ideas are traded and sold just as wealth and property are exchanged. In this way, an individual has the opportunity to sway the whole, and the whole has a way to work in concert as a greater organism just as the cells in the body work together without any conscious knowledge of each other.
The difference between our brain and a faction of elites who would set themselves up as our brain is any faction of cells going wild is normally termed a cancer.
Yet humanity has a collective brain brewing, and it acts very much like each one of our human brains does. Ideas flinging right and left, constructed and deconstructed and emotions and impulses in coordination and in conflict. It is our ability to talk, the word, and now the computer and the imagery of the imagination unlimited that serve to create an enormous ability to examine and extract knowledge from unthinkable data streams. Yet, at the edge, only a small bit of attention seems to be be fixed and one focus can drive the next out of conscious consideration. Politicians and pundits call this the news cycle and it functions very much like human consciousness, the pointer that keeps track of the line of thought that seems to be actively be considered. Yet below, the chatter continues.