politics and food - "everything i want to do is illegal"

[latefordinner]

food. the politics of food. it's an important topic often overglossed.

I understand that some of you will find this unbelievable, but I actually have been trying to take market anarchist theories seriously and read and think about them. In the past two months I have read more individualist anarchist and market anarchist writings than I ever have in my entire life - and what I have found is a mixed-bag. There is a tendency in right-libertarian thought to slip and slide between a critique of the current socioeconomic system and to write apologetics for some of it - Kevin Carson refers to this as "vulgar libertarianism" and much of his writing about it resonates with me. I find much of the critique parts compelling. I find much of the apolegetics sickening. I would especially like to thank AlexM and NietzReznor for repeatedly pointing out that in many cases, market-anarchists and libertarian socialists are critiquing the same things, just using different language, and perhaps a different understanding of cause and effect, to reach their conclusions.

So in that spirit I would like to talk about global agribusiness which is perhaps one of the most egregious examples of corporations and governments being in bed together. This is, in many ways, not suprising. After all, controlling the food supply is an easy way to control the populace. Put it under lock and key and demand that you engage in certain behaviors to get it, and you can create a tremendously unequal power relationship. Steal people's land using corporate-State power that they were using to feed themselves, and then demand they produce other items to sell to buy food. Create laws which shield corporations from being held accountable for say, killing all the salmon in a river, and watch the salmon die.

Industrial agriculture is profoundly destructive and totally unsustainable. We are literally growing our food in inches of oil, needing ever increasing amounts of pesticides and fertilizers and also land for ever-decreasing yields. People have become more and more disconnected from any sense of where food comes from - it comes from a grocery store, not the earth. Therefor we become brainwashed into thinking we must protect the grocery store, and not the earth (does that make sense?)

I still don't necesasrily understand what food production would look like in a market anarchist society - however it seems clear to me that barring the creation of huge externalities, local small-scale production for local consumption and in general, organic production, is a much more efficient process barring subsidies and externalities.

I also thinking that taking back our food and medicine supply from corporations could be a profoundly important step in allowing people to imagine life without the State which is why I'm involved in so many community-based garden/farming programs.


--
Here are some things you might find interesting

Everything i want to do is illegal - written by a farmer who strikes me as probably leaning AC

press release about organic crops performing 100% better in drought conditions than conventional crops (language is so revealing - what does it say when we refer to food grown in chemicals as conventional and food grown without them as something special?)

The Future of Food - a good, if long documentary - about the marriage of government and corporate agriculture. Here is the first part. (I think the full documentary is on google videos)

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
Industrial agriculture is profoundly destructive and totally unsustainable. We are literally growing our food in inches of oil, needing ever increasing amounts of pesticides and fertilizers and also land for ever-decreasing yields.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but the problem is not with governments, it's with the markets. Fresh produce wholesalers wants the lowest prices, so they can make the biggest profit selling to supermarket chains, who want to squeeze down suppliers as low as possible to make their own profit. And make no mistake, industrial agriculture is the cheapest of all agriculture, and creates food that travels better, looks better, and is more blemish free. The very thing consumers choose to buy.

If a local farmer wants to grow organically, and set up a market garden and sell to local shops, there is nothing in the world stopping him. Indeed, it's done quite a bit. There's a local farm and shop where I live that does just this, and the produce is just heaven. I shop there all the time. But not enough consumers choose not to spend their money at these places. They're happy with nice sized, blemish free, cheaper, more convenient supermarket based fruit and veg. And that's where the crux of the issue lies. The almighty dollar, the almighty market, and a public that just doesn't care about crap like "market externalities", but whether their pears are $1.99 or $2.99, and have a couple of spots.

To suggest this is due to subsidies is incorrect. Maybe for a few goods. But the same problems exist, regardless of subsidies and the government.

edit: I'd also add agreement that the government is most definitely in bed with the big US pharmaceutical and agriculture companies. But while that adds to issue, I don't believe that's the root cause of it, for the reasons mentioned above. If a large portion of consumers wanted to buy organic, and were willing to pay more for it, the market would supply it. In this case, the "externalities" you mention are caused directly by "idiot consumers", who individually are incapable of seeing the big picture - or just plain don't care. This is one of the gaping holes in capitalism.

[govman6767]

[ QUOTE ]
After all, controlling the food supply is an easy way to control the populace. Put it under lock and key and demand that you engage in certain behaviors to get it, and you can create a tremendously unequal power relationship. Steal people's land using corporate-State power that they were using to feed themselves, and then demand they produce other items to sell to buy food. Create laws which shield corporations from being held accountable for say, killing all the salmon in a river, and watch the salmon die.



[/ QUOTE ]

The solution to this is in the Constitution "The Right to Bear Arms"

If the government steals all the food then I'll go shoot some food.

Now we all know how quick the food supply would run out. So while I am philosophiclly against cannibalism if the government steals all the food then I'm going to eat the warmest moving thing within sight of my rifle.

When most of the population starts doing this then food prices will drop.

If you ever saw the movie "The Time Machiene" when the moon falls into the earth people go underground and start eating people it will be the only way to survive.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Industrial agriculture is profoundly destructive and totally unsustainable. We are literally growing our food in inches of oil, needing ever increasing amounts of pesticides and fertilizers and also land for ever-decreasing yields.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree, but the problem is not with governments, it's with the markets. Fresh produce wholesalers wants the lowest prices, so they can make the biggest profit selling to supermarket chains, who want to squeeze down suppliers as low as possible to make their own profit. And make no mistake, industrial agriculture is the cheapest of all agriculture, and creates food that travels better, looks better, and is more blemish free. The very thing consumers choose to buy.

If a local farmer wants to grow organically, and set up a market garden and sell to local shops, there is nothing in the world stopping him. Indeed, it's done quite a bit. There's a local farm and shop where I live that does just this, and the produce is just heaven. I shop there all the time. But not enough consumers choose not to spend their money at these places. They're happy with nice sized, blemish free, cheaper, more convenient supermarket based fruit and veg. And that's where the crux of the issue lies. The almighty dollar, the almighty market, and a public that just doesn't care about crap like "market externalities", but whether their pears are $1.99 or $2.99, and have a couple of spots.

To suggest this is due to subsidies is incorrect. Maybe for a few goods. But the same problems exist, regardless of subsidies and the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If agribusiness is in fact unsustainable, it will stop. It's inevitable. The "problem" will fix itself. Someone will come up with some other business model.

[ QUOTE ]
edit: I'd also add agreement that the government is most definitely in bed with the big US pharmaceutical and agriculture companies. But while that adds to issue, I don't believe that's the root cause of it, for the reasons mentioned above. If a large portion of consumers wanted to buy organic, and were willing to pay more for it, the market would supply it. In this case, the "externalities" you mention are caused directly by "idiot consumers", who individually are incapable of seeing the big picture - or just plain don't care. This is one of the gaping holes in capitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]


People ARE willing to pay more for it, and the market DOES supply it.

What's the hole? That not enough people share your preferences?

The history of mankind is *built* on "unsustainable" activity. Yet progress continues. Unsustainability is what drives improvement.

If you want stagnation, you can have it, nobody will stop you.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
If agribusiness is in fact unsustainable, it will stop. It's inevitable. The "problem" will fix itself. Someone will come up with some other business model.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just silly. If all the topsoil has blown away in a region, or land become saline through poor irrigation practices, or gets laced with dangerous chemicals like DDT - permanent damage has been done, and the problem does not fix itself, at least not for a long time.

Your argument is like saying: If cutting down the rainforests is indeed unsustainable, it will stop. The "problem" will fix itself

The trouble, pvn, is that there will be no more rainforest remaining, which is very bad for the world economy and future generations.

[ QUOTE ]
People ARE willing to pay more for it, and the market DOES supply it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I said as much.

[ QUOTE ]
What's the hole? That not enough people share your preferences? The history of mankind is *built* on "unsustainable" activity. Yet progress continues. Unsustainability is what drives improvement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, no. Previously unlimited resources is what has sustained unfettered capitalism. But those limits are approaching for the first time in history - with oil, with forests, with ecosystems, with arable land, with clean air.

The hole is people not realizing or not caring about the burdens they have to bear until it's too late. Consumers are simply stupid when it comes to complex issues where benefits aren't easily realized. And the nature of capitalism means that someone will always chase a buck - and damn the consequences. You yourself agree that the market can supply almost everything that people want to buy. If the thing that people want to buy is the last skin of an Asian lion, or the last ivory of an African elephant, someone will supply it, if not kept in check.

[ QUOTE ]
If you want stagnation, you can have it, nobody will stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Long term sustainability is not stagnation. But it does cost, and people simply aren't smart enough to pay it. Fast food proves that.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The hole is people not realizing or not caring about the burdens they have to bear until it's too late. Consumers are simply stupid when it comes to complex issues where benefits aren't easily realized. And the nature of capitalism means that someone will always chase a buck - and damn the consequences. You yourself agree that the market can supply almost everything that people want to buy. If the thing that people want to buy is the last skin of an Asian lion, or the last ivory of an African elephant, someone will supply it, if not kept in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the way to keep it in check is... property rights, of course. If you own african lions, are you going to harvest the skins from all of them and not leave any left to "sustainably" reproduce?

If they are unowned, and some government prevents people from owning them, you're going to just get all you can before someone else does.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want stagnation, you can have it, nobody will stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]
Long term sustainability is not stagnation. But it does cost, and people simply aren't smart enough to pay it. Fast food proves that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fast food proves what?

[hmkpoker]

cool post [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I actually have a more positive outlook on the future of farming. I am a big fan of organic foods; they're a little more expensive and not quite as pretty, but they taste better and they're better for you, and I think the demand is rising. Whole foods stores have been on the rise, as have consumer watchdog videos like "Supersize Me" and the videos you linked; and in response, a lot of foods have been shifting toward trans-fat free and organic to accomodate the demand. Time to stop subsidizing farmers who put poison in our foods.

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
If the thing that people want to buy is the last skin of an Asian lion, or the last ivory of an African elephant, someone will supply it, if not kept in check.

[/ QUOTE ]

The very reason lions and elephants are having survival problems is that there is demand for their skins/tusks, but the supply is artificially suppressed by government. If it was legal to keep a lion farm or elephant farm for the sole purpose of harvesting fur or ivory, the owner would have every incentive to maintain as large a pack/herd as possible. There's a reason we're in no danger of running out of chickens or cattle, and it's not because these animals are so resilient.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
The very reason lions and elephants are having survival problems is that there is demand for their skins/tusks, but the supply is artificially suppressed by government.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it's because free market forces plundered whatever they could, threating elephants with extinction before the practice was banned by government. There was simply more money in it that way. BTW, elephants have been doing much better since the ban and proper policing.

I guess rainforests are having survival problems because the government is restricting supply of rainforest timber and cattle ranches in Brazil and Indonesia? Or maybe because rich corporations who don't give a rat's arse come in and plunder what they can to make a quick buck. This is the free market at work with or without a government. People are greedy and don't think or care about the long term or external effects where money is to be made. This is a massive flaw in capitalism.

[Phil153]

BTW latefordinner - I'd be interested in your thoughts on my post. Which do you believe is more to blame for the current state of unsustainable agriculture? The government, or consumer preference and farmer/supplier greed? I think it's overwhelmingly the latter, but I'd be interested to hear your arguments why this isn't the case.