Or they might be permitted some land of their own where they can grow their own food, or be given access to commons to where they and their animals can forrage.
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.
Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving.
You need to take that up with the historians of economics. The last few major famines in my lifetime were all in countries that have adequate capacity to produce food, but had governments at those times that tried to impose Marxist socialism on their populations.
More to the point of this thread, will you allow the smallholders you mention to use whatever means they find economical or convenient to grow food on their own land, or will you insist that they grow only "organic" crops?
You have a totally skewed way of thinking if you think we need free markets in order for people to avoid starving. People are perfectly capable of providing their own food given some land some seeds and some sun, and some water. The amount of land required isn't even all that high.
Indeed, it is probably their ability to produce a surplus that lead to markets in the first place and those markets made it possible to justify cutting people off from the ability to feed themselves. At this point, there are plenty of cities in the US where it isn't legal to store rain water that falls on your own land.