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.

[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?

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]


Fast food proves what?

[/ QUOTE ]

that advertising is able to sell absolutely anything to stupid people.

That people are inherently lazy.

That there are enough stupid people in the world to sustain the profits of many large multinational corporations - despite those corporations selling "food" that isn't really food.

Presumably because those same stupid people believe the advertising they are brainwashed with and are too lazy to care.

(from Dictionary.com) food - n. any nourishing substance that is eaten, drunk, or otherwise taken into the body to sustain life, provide energy, promote growth, etc.

the "food" the vast majority of fast food outlets sell does more to damage the human body than nourish it - hence my claim that it is not really "food"

Co-incidentally the farming practices that encourage deforestation to provide grazing land for large herds of cattle do a lot of damage as well.

In any sane world fast food should not exist - there ought not to be the huge demand for it imo.

[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.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Phil153,

I agree with your points about the limits of certain natural resources approaching being reached for the first time in history, and I think that many free-marketeers simply disbelieve this or choose to ignore this (on the flip side, some resources that appear to be in jeopardy may actually prove to be more resilient than expected).

I think the great problem pushing these developments, though, is not so much capitalism as it is population growth. If the world's population were much smaller, these looming issues would be very much less threatening. As the world's population increases, these issues are being forced to the forefront.

I think the world's population would be a reasonable match with the world's ecosystems at - and I'm just guessing here - perhaps about one-tenth of the world's current population. The natural world evolved for a mix where humans were far less dominant over natural species and where humans had far less power to curtail or destroy wild species and natural environments.

The level of population during the time when the continent was populated by Indians only would be a good natural balance, in my opinion. Of course, Europe and some other regions had long exceeded such human population levels, anyway.

It wouldn't be necessary to jettison all our present technology if the globe hosted only one-tenth of the humans it currently hosts. A modern lifestyle would still be a good and convenient thing.

Humans at lower population levels could easily fit in with the natural world and pressure the natural environment and resources hardly at all. In fact, the main reason there is so much emphasis and debate today (and during the 20th century) about capitalism versus communism or other economic systems, in my opinion, is largely because that is when the human growth population really exploded. The more people are forced to live very close with others, and the more people use limited natural resources, the more talk and concern there will be about "management" and "organization".

It might be interesting to speculate on what life would have been like with the population levels of 200 years ago, yet with all of our current modern conveniences. My guess is that that would have been better for humans than either of the historical time periods that actually unfolded, past or current.

As for the future, I don't see much hope of great human population redution save for calamitous occurrences, either natural or man-made. In my opinion, that's just too bad, because humans are ruining the natural world and are doing so mainly because there are just too many humans on the Earth (from a naturally balanced perspective). The ironic thing is, that too many humans will also be bad for humanity and already is to a significant extent.

Ah the irony of the universe. Humans have already wiped out 90% of the fish in the oceans; maybe the natural world will have the last laugh someday with a plague that wipes out 90% of humanity. Maybe that plague will be started by a mutant virus from some recombinant DNA experiment, who knows?

I hope there won't be some calamitous way that the human population gets reduced, and I would prefer to see a slow reduction by lower average fertility rates around the world; but a slow reduction in birth rates below replacement levels appears unlikely at present.

A calamitous crash WILL happen eventually, if population growth is not checked. Every natural population that grows wildly and remains unchecked eventually crashes; I see no reason why the population of humans should prove to be an exception to that rule.

Then, you'll no longer have to worry much about natural resources being overpressured due to capitalism - as long you're one of those who manage to survive the calamity.

[Misfire]

I take serious issue with the idea that humans are anything but natural.