For a dose of what's really going on in the country, I highly recommend that everyone read The latest Salon cover story.

In brief, a middle age female activist is leading a bunch of homeless people on a march across New Jersey to arrive at the Republican Convention in New York on August 30. Among their group are pregnant women, infants in strollers, and reformed ex-convicts who want to get their message out. Along the way, they have already been hassled by police several times. They face possible arrest when they get to New York for marching without a permit. (Though they have requested one, the city has yet to grant it.)

What is it about these people that is so threatening? In any sane and healthy country, a small caravan consisting of a few dozen unarmed, penniless civilians would be a non-issue, at least as far as the law is concerned. Whether you agree with the content of what they are saying or not, what business is it of the police to photograph, harass, and block them?

I submit that the real reason they merit such close attention is because they do, in fact, represent a very genuine threat to the status quo. If enough people see them and listen to their story, it will prompt society to demand better treatment for its poorest members. The police, and the corporate state which rules them, cannot abide this.

It as a bizarre conundrum of capitalism that those who are at the bottom of its latter must not only suffer hardships, but these hardships must be well publicized enough that at the back of everyone's mind, a vague, untouchable fear lurks. "Those poor unfortunate souls out on the street must be having a terrible time. I better not start slacking off at work. Otherwise, I might end up like them!" If this is what you are thinking, then the system has done its job.

This would seem to be in contradiction with the attempted suppression and intimidation of those on the homeless march. If the theory I have just presented is correct, shouldn't the national media be all over this story? Shouldn't the Republicans not only be welcoming the homeless to their convention, but putting them up on a podium to wag a finger at the whole world and say, "This is what becomes of those who don't tow the line! Be afraid for your jobs! Cower before your masters. Beg them to keep you on your meager wage! Because after all, if you don't, next time, this could be you."

Here's the problem with that. Maybe it's just me, but when I hear about people marching like that, not only putting their own bodies on the line, but risking the livelihood of their own children, I am transfixed with admiration. They are a prototype of the system's worst nightmare. They refuse to be shut in a box, they want only the means to feed and house their families, and they are willing to risk everything to stand up and be heard.

If others join them, and create enough of an uproar, they will indeed get what they want. Welfare will be expanded, the homeless will be housed, and the fear that capitalism relies on to keep itself running will be diminished. Suddenly, we won't be able look at the poor bums on Pearl Street and pity them anymore. If they are housed, clothed, and fed, many who now resent their jobs will likely want to join them! Quit your job, do nothing, and live off of handouts from the state.

Thus, the anti-welfare arguments heard frequently from the right do have a certain validity. With no incentive for people to work, production will falter, the economy will crash, we'll have the Soviet Union all over again, etc, etc, etc.

How can this dilemma be solved? I have a humble, if radical, suggestion. To my knowledge, neither Republicans nor Democrats nor Greens nor Libertarians have proposed it. End welfare. In its place, every member of society should be allotted a small plot of land just large enough to grow food to survive, and build shelter from the elements. Nothing more.

This should please conservatives, because if they truly believe in their stated creed of rugged individualism and self-sufficiency, then all those so-called welfare queens planting their own gardens without having to rely on a nanny state ought to be a dream come true. This should also satisfy the disgruntled poor, assuming their desires are genuine, shouldn't it?

The only caveat is that yes, it would require a redistribution of wealth in the form of land, and probably on a periodic basis. Note also that I have not researched the practical aspects of this idea. How many acres of garden-able land exist in the United States vs population count? This would need to be addressed before anything even remotely resembling a practical proposal could be made. But I think the idea would be a good place to start.