From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@datamann.com)
Date: Sun Jun 16 2002 - 16:58:48 MDT
Colin Hales wrote:
>
> We have the U.S.A., bastion on free enterprise and free trade creating the
> largest sheltered workshop in history: US Agriculture. Here in .au
> Agriculture has been industrially toughened by the continual threat of
> extinction in a massively not-flat playing field that the US creates.
>
> They've technology. Amazing soil. Relatively benign weather. They don't have
> to live 100 miles from the nearest corner store .ie. they have a life as
> well (compared to here).
>
> What is so precious about the US Farmer (or some segment thereof) that it
> requires such welfare state privelege? I don't get it.
> Or is it just a really really squeaky wheel that gets a lot of oil?
While I'm not generally sympathetic to subsidies, welfare, or
protectionism, there is a rather valid argument to be made that some
people like to live in an area with a nice quality of life, a bucolic
scenery and landscape, peaceful neighbors who are happy that you still
work the land like your forefathers did, etc. and people would like to
keep it that way. Just because some people in the world choose to life
in desolate areas and/or run their soil/water/environment in to the
ground for the sake of economic development doesn't mean that the rest
of us should be forced to do the same to compete 'fairly'.
Here in northern New England we sure do have it good, but we also have
relatively high standards of living and high costs of living. A farmer
has to deal with state assaults via property taxes, income taxes, sales
taxes, professional services taxes, inventory taxes, plus transportation
taxes on the seed, feed, fertilizer etc that he/she uses paid to other
states. Labor costs are similarly high, as are workmens compensation
insurance costs (since farms are one of the most dangerous places to
work) as well as unemployment insurance costs (since farm work is so
seasonal in nature as well as impacted by inclement weather changes) in
an area where unemployment ranges from 1-2% normally up to *maybe* 5% it
is very hard to even get employees except when the economy is bad.
Family farms also form an integral part of local culture. How would
'moving to the country' have any actual meaning to urban dwellers if the
country didn't have farms, fields, and farm animals to complete the
scenery?
If a family farm goes under, the first thing that happens is the land
gets bought by a bank, subdivided, and turned into tract housing to sell
to idiots who think they are 'getting away from it all'. It isn't 'the
country' anymore if you've paved it over. The only alternative is to
sell the farm out to big agribusiness who convert it to industrial
agriculture, polluting the streams and being conveniently absent from
neighbors complaints about noise, stink, poisons, and managed and worked
by employees rather than owners. Employees whose bosses are frequently
thousands of miles away and quite immune to complaints about poor
treatment, poor quality products, or poor conditions. Employees who have
no stake in the land.
In this sort of environment, should local communities be forcibly
prevented by national or international governments from protecting their
local markets, local culture, and local traditions from the
agribusinesses in other countries?
A prominent GOP strategist made an interesting comment about his
libertarian views in a talk on C-SPAN: "I'm an anarchist
internationally, a libertarian at the national level, a republican at
the state level, and an absolute fascist at the local level."
Individuals do have the right to engage in community pacts to protect
their local area, whether it is police or fire districts, or zoning
regulations, or deed covenants, these are no different from saying that
all milk in the community must be sold at a price so that local dairy
farmers can keep their pretty farms, or telling all homeowners in a
neighborhood what limited selection of colors they can paint their
homes, or businesses how large they can make their signs. While
seemingly fascist in nature, they aren't specifically because there is
no attempt to prevent residents from voting on such regulations with
their feet.
This is exactly why the Tenth Amendment exists and is worded as it is.
I do agree, though, that at least for medium to large nations like the
US which has many different subcultures and regions, letting such laws
be passed at the national level is entirely inappropriate.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:50 MST