Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

market-farming - Re: [Market-farming] OT Thought Provoking (or maybe justprovoking:)

market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Market Farming

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Jill Taylor Bussiere" <jdt AT itol.com>
  • To: <market-farming AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [Market-farming] OT Thought Provoking (or maybe justprovoking:)
  • Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2003 07:24:59 -0600

Jill wrote:
Here is an area where
> > many on the right and on the left agree vigorously - Pat Buchanan
> > and Ralph
> > Nader, John McCain and Russ Feingold - that monied interests have
greatly
> > corrupted our electoral process, and also the bills that get passed.
Rick wrote:
> I would not characterize this as common practice. It does happen.
> need to be much more vigilent about exposing it and eliminating the
> legislators who are found doing it.

Rick, we agree on something!!!! About the exposing and eliminating it!
Although, in the current scandals, that would be so many. It might be best
to be sure that the law and political climate do not allow it in the future.
Well, the law already didn't allow it.

But we have to be very careful to not go
> overboard about this because there will be a chilling effect on any new
> legislation that could favor any group or person. And almost ALL
legislation
> always has some discrimination inherent. Which is the point of passing the
> legislation. The Wisconsin legislative leaders have been charged with
crimes but have not
> yet been found guilty. But there are mainly two people and are both
> arrogant, especially the democratic who was even a previous candidate for
> governor here in the state. The Republican legislator appears at this time
> to be less extreme, but did allegedly use their office for campaigning.

The Democrat is indeed arrogant, and slimey, in my opinion - wanting power
over all else. The Democratic illegal practices seem to be more
concentrated in him. The Republicans, however, spread their illegal
practices throughout their legislators. Read the Carey email memo to get
just an idea of how pervasive the use of publicly paid staff for campaigning
was. And this is only one memo!!!
http://wispolitics.com/freeser/features/Scandal/RACC%2097/Carey.memo.pdf

>
> > Rick, but you are very uninformed and naive here.
>
> We will have to agree to disagree on this one. It is one of those "is the
> glass half full or half empty issues," and different people will look at
the
> same thing and have different conclusions. It is like asking if TIF
> districts are good or bad? You will find differences of opinion.

You will, but not by those who care if voters are represented.

> > Rick, there are many good bills/laws that do benefit such practices as
> > conservation, and there are even a few sections in the farm bill
> > - some for
> > value added, some for organic too that are new. But there are also a
whole
> > mess in the farm bill that work against conservation, such as the
> > extension
> > of EQIP benefits to very large farms, whereas formerly it was
prohibited.
>
> This is one of those things that in order to get the bill passed, it was
> difficult to convince the legislators (and the farmers) that only some
> should benefit. So they went ahead and made it a level playing field in
this
> case. I see that you disapprove of that.

It is not the level playing field that I disagree with, it is that offering
money to the larger farms which have much greater environmental impacts is a
way to encourage their existence - this is environmentally destructive, and
also destructive to a healthy economy. You and I have a basic disagreement
about the health of our current food system - to people and to the earth and
to the economy, so it is understandable that we would differ about this as
well. The world I envision is one where people farm with the health of the
earth and those who eat their products in mind. Where people are encouraged
to farm in such ways, and continue to do so on their own as soon as
possible. Subsidies would be to transition, educate, etc - to such
practices -because it is of benefit to us all. Then they would be dropped,
unless they were of benefit to the greater good. Now, farming practices
that are unhealthy to people and to the earth are subsidized.

But it is a bit much to screw the
> larger farmers who actually produce the food and fiber in the country and
> only favor the small farmers. In effect the EQIP program is a type of
> "corporate welfare" or at the very least, "business welfare." But it may
be
> good public policy in order to reduce the number of farms that go under
with
> the new NMP's (Nutrient Managment Plans). This is for any AFO as well as
the
> bigger CAFO's.
>
> > The limit that you mention about milk subsidies is indeed a good one.
But
> > you must also realize that Feingold, and many others could not
> > vote for the
> > Farm Bill in spite of their hard work on it, because when you add up the
> > plusses and minusses, the minusses (skewing the playing field so that
> > corporate agribusinesses have incredible advantages, indeed, some so
large
> > that they can much more easily drive others out of business) mightily
> > outweighed the plusses. Kohl did vote for it, but he generally votes
for
> > big business interests.
>
> I oppose the milk subsidies very strongly ... well, at least moderately:)
> The reason is that not only is it dangerous for farmers because it
> misallocates economic resources, but it makes them less competitive world
> wide as they build the subsidies into the fabric of food production. Often
> the money causes increases in rent payments to the land holders and I do
not
> support that kind of shift in resources.

I agree about with you here too!!!! It would be much better if milk prices
reflect what it costs to produce it.

At this point, the subsidies have not been a benefit for the smaller
arms - milk purchasers have already incorporated the subsidies into their
mental figuring of what they will pay for the milk, and as a result have
paid less, figuring that the subsidies will fill in the gap. So that the
subsidies have not worked in the way that those that believe in them had
hoped.

> By the way, how come they don't give subsidies to market farmers???
>
> > One difference that I have noticed between the right and the left -
> > controlling or not - the right seems to advocate for the individual
> > rights/good above all else, and the left advocates for the general good
> > above all else.
>
> Sort of agree at one level, but like so many things it is in the eye of
the
> beholder. I see your point though with such contentious things as abortion
> which is more of a general good for society vs. the life of an unborn
> person. The conservative thinks (rightly or wrongly depending upon your
> moral beliefs) that unborn individuals' rights should take precedence over
> the individual who brought it into being. And the liberal thinks (rightly
> or wrongly) that this is not an individual, at least not at the early
period
> of life, and if inconvenient, can be terminated and benefit society with
> fewer unwanted children who may otherwise be neglected or worse.

I agree with most of what you say above. With another point added. Many
are too old to remember the coat hanger and the deaths which were a real
result of the illegality of abortions. Deaths to the foetus and the mother.
Abortion is indeed a tough issue. My preference would be to have a society
where all had access to birth control, and that all babies that were born
were supported - this means that their parents would be able to support them
because they were paid living wages, that the babies would have access to
health care, food, and education. Where people were whole because they too
had been born into a society that valued them. I would prefer a society
where abortions were not necessary. However, we don't have a society where
children, or mothers, or people, are valued in that way. Someone must
decide whether there is enough support for a child to be brought into the
world - material and emotional - and I would rather that it be left up to
the women in whose body the child is growing, in consultation with her
family, her doctor, and her god. It is better, I think, to leave it up to
her than to politicians whose highest aim is to get reelected.
> > To me, the best is to have a balance between the general
> > good, and individual good/rights. And we can't omit the well-being of
the
> > earth, or subsume it under individual or greater good rights, because
> > without the well-being of the earth, we can not continue to exist - it
is
> > our life support system. Without the earth, there will be not
> > individual or greater good.
>
> True, but that viewpoint is highly variable with different world views ...
> even with middle of roaders:) Politics the art of bringing enough people
> together to agree as a majority. But you will never please everyone.

Indeed you will not please everyone. We agree once again. However, I would
like to see a society where democratic dialogue is encouraged - in that way
we can hope to attain a democratic compromise.
Jill

> Sincerely,
>
> Rick Williams







Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page