Ramblings of a Disgruntled Libertarian

reply to post by mnemeth1


So you agree with me. What is wrong then with localized food production with the local government there to ensure there is enough food for everyone, and not to make sure that everyone makes a profit. The flaw is really in our design of the system. It is at the federal government level. The local government would have a ton more insight in how to effectively drive food prices down and ensure we are not working day in and day out simply to eat. Infrastructure could be scaled back accordingly which means less cost overall. The biggest problem I see, as you stated that federal government is regulating and zoning industry nationwide. Therefore, the farmer down the street from me...and there are several, no longer grows food because they cannot compete with the big produce providers that stock up store shelves. They could however, provide a ton of produce at the farmers market, enough for many if not all people to buy.

How come we are so much apart on this issue, but agree with the problems as they are currently? I want less cost for the average person all the way around. And I want my local community to benefit from not worrying where the next meal was coming from or applying for food stamps that just assist the big agriculture government sponsored food production. Let it be local, abundant, and next to free or cost. Then and only then will we have so much food we can stop hunger and taxes associated with people going hungry.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

So you agree with me. What is wrong then with localized food production with the local government there to ensure there is enough food for everyone, and not to make sure that everyone makes a profit.

No, I don't agree.

It is not government's job to ensure there is enough food for everyone.

That is the job of farmers.

It is not the government's job to ensure food prices are low.

That is the job of supply and demand.

As the public demands more food, the farmers will supply it.

The government's job is to get the hell out of the way so farmers can produce the correct amount of food at a price consumers are willing to pay.

If government attempts to drive down the cost of say corn, by implementing price controls, the farmers MUST NECESSARILY produce LESS corn because the return on corn is LESS than what the market is demanding.

Farmers will produce soy beans instead of corn if government places price controls on corn.

The United States War of Independence was almost lost because of price controls on food. The colonial army could not get the supply of food it needed to survive in the field because the government had mandated that farmers could only sell food at a prescribed price.

This lead to the army nearly starving to death.

The removal of price controls on food is what allowed the army to survive. If the price controls had not been removed, America would have killed its own army.

mises.org...

Moving closer to modern times, George Washington’s revolutionary army nearly starved to death in the field thanks to price controls on food that were imposed by Pennsylvania and other colonial governments. Pennsylvania specifically imposed price controls on "those commodities needed for use by the army," creating disastrous shortages of everything needed by the army.

The Continental Congress wisely adopted an anti-price-control resolution on June 4, 1778 that read: "Whereas it hath been found by experience that limitations upon the prices of commodities are not only ineffectual for the purpose proposed, but likewise productive of very evil consequences—resolved, that it be recommended to the several states to repeal or suspend all laws limiting, regulating or restraining the Price of any Article."

And, write Schuettinger and Butler, "By the fall of 1778 the army was fairly well provided for as a direct result of this change in policy."

reply to post by mnemeth1


All the examples you provide are based on failed policy. I try to agree with you that government regulation of food on a national scale is wrong. Then you tell me you do not agree with me. Then you go on to defend your position agreeing with me. Do you think local government is the same thing as federal government? You seem to be against any form of collective will? That groups of people could not be successful in securing their own needs if left alone to do so.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

All the examples you provide are based on failed policy. I try to agree with you that government regulation of food on a national scale is wrong. Then you tell me you do not agree with me. Then you go on to defend your position agreeing with me. Do you think local government is the same thing as federal government? You seem to be against any form of collective will? That groups of people could not be successful in securing their own needs if left alone to do so.

All government policies that do not protect property rights are failed policies.

All of them.

Further, there is no such thing as "collective will".

My will is my own, not yours. My property is my own, not yours.

A gang of people saying they have a right to my property does not make them right, nor will their taking my property by force result in better economic conditions for society at large. Since they acquired my property by force rather than by voluntary trade, they will not utilize the resources as efficiently as myself, who acquired the property through my own sweat and toil.

reply to post by mnemeth1


That is right your will is your own and your property is your own. However, if you owned the only piece of land with the last water on it and other people needed that water to live, you have no right to it, as you would deny those others the right to life.

You say there is no collective will? Watch what happens when you hold out on water to those people. Collective will overtake you.

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

That is right your will is your own and your property is your own. However, if you owned the only piece of land with the last water on it and other people needed that water to live, you have no right to it, as you would deny those others the right to life.

You say there is no collective will? Watch what happens when you hold out on water to those people. Collective will overtake you.

Fortunately, such a hypothetical world does not exist, nor will it ever, so your example is totally pointless.

And if I did own the last piece of land in the world, I would sell it to the highest bidder.

Why would I sell it?

Because someone else could put it to better use than I could.

Then not only would I profit by the exchange of land for money, but I would also benefit because someone more talented at using the land than myself will now put it to better use than I could. He might make it into a farm, in which case I could get to buy the crops he produces on it.

Violent theft of my property is not necessary since I would hand it over willingly for the right price.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I am not sure what your position is anymore. I assume you just hate the government in any form it may take. I cannot say anything else to you as any type of debate with you at this point. Good luck to you, and at least know that I believe our current government is out of control. Maybe your gift is to confront the current system, so that when it collapses I can dream up a new one. The system you are advocating is the same system we had many years ago in 1776, that turned into our current system. So it is flawed already, but you still advocate it. Haven't you learned from history?

reply to post by ExPostFacto


I hate violent theft; therefore, I hate the State.

I hate poverty; therefore, I hate socialism.

Government is not necessarily bad if it is run by private individuals and paid for voluntarily by private individuals.

For example:
-security guards hired to protect a warehouse
-airport screeners that work for the airlines
-volunteer fire departments funded by donations
-private fire departments paid for by homeowner subscription fees or insurance companies
-private arbitration courts paid for by the loser of the court case
etc.. etc.. etc..

Those are just great, and they don't involve any theft or violence.

reply to post by mnemeth1


And I agree with almost every point you made. Would it be so wrong then to have a voluntary tax system that if I pay into I am guaranteed food? Even if it is ran by the government? Why can I not have a local insurance tax, that if anything of mine is destroyed I get a new one? Let's just say my local government in my hypothetical community wants to set up a garden for food. They say if you come volunteer to maintain the garden you will get a portion of the produce, if you ever need it. Let's just say the community cans all the food and puts it into storage. Then when someone needs some that has a need they get their fair share. Is it wrong for the local government to be involved in this? Is it wrong that if there is more than enough food for everyone that contributed that they share the wealth with those that did not contribute in an emergency situation?

My neighbors are those I want staying calm in any emergency situation. If they panic, my life is in jeopardy. If I deny them food when I have more than I could possibly eat, their life is in jeopardy. Should I demand that I make a profit from my volunteer work? Should a private company do this instead, simply to make a profit even when lives depend on it?

reply to post by ExPostFacto

Would it be so wrong then to have a voluntary tax system that if I pay into I am guaranteed food? Even if it is ran by the government?

If it's voluntary, why would you want the government of all people to administer it?

I wouldn't trust a bureaucrat to administer anything competently.

That's why we have private markets to weed out the bad business owners from the good ones.

There's nothing wrong with voluntary payment into a fund of your choice, there is everything wrong with holding a gun to someones head and forcing them to pay into a fund that is not of their choosing.

reply to post by mnemeth1


Well good then you finally see my point. I do not fear government itself. However, I do not trust our current government to make good decisions. I only want the federal government there, in part, to protect my rights against an out of control local government that infringes on my rights. There are dangers in both private and public systems. Private systems can squander the money for their own gain or not perform correctly. Public systems could waste the money or not perform efficiently. I get it, what you are saying. I also believe that if things were different and the federal government was limited that local governments would thrive. And yes they may even get into the business of making sure all the citizens have inexpensive food. Last thing anyone wants is a starving population. I think if we all used our imagination more we can come up with a number of ways in which to build a new fair society that addresses all ideologies and needs. We have to stop bickering at one another, when we agree so well that our current system sucks and is no good for anyone but the elite power brokers, the wealthy business interests, and the special lobby groups that can now one stop shop to change laws in every city, state, and country to conform to their ideals. Putting the local government back in charge would make that corruption not as easily obtainable.