> Though I suppose rurality could help with drug and alcohol addictions by limiting access, you can't just pick people up and move them like that.

When we are the ones offering to help, then absolutely we can pick people up and move them if they wish to be helped. We are free to set our conditions and they are free to reject them. Right now, for instance, some poor people are tested for drugs in order to qualify for government housing. At some point someone argued, I'm sure, "you can't just pick people up and test them like that", but then someome smarter rebutted "of course we can, we are the ones offering to help, so we get to set the terms". And indeed, that is right. Do I have the right to demand that you help me monetarily in exactly the way I choose to? If so, please start paying my rent and sending me at least $2k monthly. Of course I don't have the right to set the terms of your helping me. One would have to be silly to defend such an idea.

And so, because those doing the help get to set the terms, we should tell poor people that they will be granted a farm and that it will be theirs forever to grow food and live independently on, unless they want to depend on other people by moving into the city and exchanging their skilled labor for the services they need to substitute for the plot they can't till when they're in the city. This is just reality, I'm just explaining it slowly like that because the current welfare state and credit-happy society warps reality so much that people forget that they need to be able to afford the things they want.

Regarding picking up and moving them out, we do that all the time right now. Cops pick people out and move them from places where they might be, for instance, peacefully smoking marijuana, a victimless crime. So we already do this for the silliest reason possible, burning tiny grass and inhaling its smoke. Wow. And you are berating me for wanting to pick people and move them, not because they've burnt tiny grass as is being done currently thousands of times per week, no, not for that, but for, wait for it, wanting to give them a farm! C'mon, you can't be seriously arguing this.

Not to mention, no one will be picked up and transported unless they commit a crime such as trespassing. They can still rely on friends, family and acquantainces to stay over, and when they run out of all options they can still return home to their farmland they own by themselves, out of their own will, without being escorted by police. All they have to do is not trespass (which would include not living on the streets as those would be private property as they are in many cities in the US).

> I can't imagine that a person who is unable to keep a home or job in the city due to mental or physical health issues would be able to sustain themselves on a farm.

The people who can do no work whatsoever in a farm will have to be taken care of by people who care about them. This will encourage everyone to make as many friends as possible and to help each other out as much as possible (helping each other out is the currency of friendships and it can even partially be the currency of communities). Those who can do just a little work can work together with others, or maybe with their friends or acquaintances they make within their farmer neighbors. Farms produce for more than one person so it will not be any problem if a farm needs to sustain more people than people working on it, provided those working on it agree to help the others.