<p>What role was the Federal Government to play in Agriculture?</p> <p>As we all are aware, the federal government now plays a dominant role in agriculture in America. The government picks and chooses as to which types of agricultural choices receive subsidies. Many recent articles have been written as to how small farmers have been driven out of business by the billions of dollars that are given to huge farming operations. The political clout of big agriculture continues to ensure payments are made to them, despite market prices rising ever higher for their commodities.</p> <p>Who receives what subsidies is clearly controlled by the political and monetary clout of the various producers. I can assure you that the "little guy" has little chance of "equality" in this process. For example, the small, local organic producers of vegetables that are now so highly prized by the consumer for their superior quality receive no benefit whatsoever from the government. In fact, the government has done everything possible to stack the deck against these type of producers, all at the prodding of big agriculture.</p> <p>The Food and Drug Administration allegedly exists to protect the people, despite the known practices of big agriculture improperly influencing and controlling the process of what is "approved" by the government. The relatively recent "rubber-stamping" of genetically modified seeds as "the same" as what nature created is an example of how the process actually works.</p> <p>Without the government's involvement, the people's choices themselves would govern which products the producers produced. A free market, governed by supply and demand, and protected by the civil justice system is far superior to any government's decision making process. It literally costs we, the people, billions upon billions of our dollars every year that we pay to run these unconstitutional bureaucracies so that we, the people, can suffer from their unending consequences. If one subscribes to the concept of "do less, and accomplish more," all we would need to do is to return to the founders' constitution, eliminate these improper departments and consequently save billions every year while dramatically improving how agriculture works in our country.</p> <p>I believe the fundamental error in how this has all been created actually resides with the people. We collectively have lost our understanding of the role of the people, vs. the role of the government. We have succumbed to pleas from politicians that they will solve our problems for us, if we would only "trust them". It is said that you get what you deserve in life. I would like to see us "deserve" something better than paying dearly for abuse heaped upon us from false "saviors".</p> 5 96 2009-07-24T21:34:08Z <p>What role was the Federal Government to play in Agriculture?</p> <p>As we all are aware, the federal government now plays a dominant role in agriculture in America. The government picks and chooses as to which types of agricultural choices receive subsidies. Many recent articles have been written as to how small farmers have been driven out of business by the billions of dollars that are given to huge farming operations. The political clout of big agriculture continues to ensure payments are made to them, despite market prices rising ever higher for their commodities.</p> <p>Who receives what subsidies is clearly controlled by the political and monetary clout of the various producers. I can assure you that the "little guy" has little chance of "equality" in this process. For example, the small, local organic producers of vegetables that are now so highly prized by the consumer for their superior quality receive no benefit whatsoever from the government. In fact, the government has done everything possible to stack the deck against these type of producers, all at the prodding of big agriculture.</p> <p>The Food and Drug Administration allegedly exists to protect the people, despite the known practices of big agriculture improperly influencing and controlling the process of what is "approved" by the government. The relatively recent "rubber-stamping" of genetically modified seeds as "the same" as what nature created is an example of how the process actually works.</p> <p>Without the government's involvement, the people's choices themselves would govern which products the producers produced. A free market, governed by supply and demand, and protected by the civil justice system is far superior to any government's decision making process. It literally costs we, the people, billions upon billions of our dollars every year that we pay to run these unconstitutional bureaucracies so that we, the people, can suffer from their unending consequences. If one subscribes to the concept of "do less, and accomplish more," all we would need to do is to return to the founders' constitution, eliminate these improper departments and consequently save billions every year while dramatically improving how agriculture works in our country.</p> <p>I believe the fundamental error in how this has all been created actually resides with the people. We collectively have lost our understanding of the role of the people, vs. the role of the government. We have succumbed to pleas from politicians that they will solve our problems for us, if we would only "trust them". It is said that you get what you deserve in life. I would like to see us "deserve" something better than paying dearly for abuse heaped upon us from false "saviors".</p> 96 post 0 <p>What role was the Federal Government to play in Agriculture?</p> <p>As we all are aware, the federal government now plays a dominant role in agriculture in America. The government picks and chooses as to which types of agricultural choices receive subsidies. Many recent articles have been written as to how small farmers have been driven out of business by the billions of dollars that are given to huge farming operations. The political clout of big agriculture continues to ensure payments are made to them, despite market prices rising ever higher for their commodities.</p> <p>Who receives what subsidies is clearly controlled by the political and monetary clout of the various producers. I can assure you that the "little guy" has little chance of "equality" in this process. For example, the small, local organic producers of vegetables that are now so highly prized by the consumer for their superior quality receive no benefit whatsoever from the government. In fact, the government has done everything possible to stack the deck against these type of producers, all at the prodding of big agriculture.</p> <p>The Food and Drug Administration allegedly exists to protect the people, despite the known practices of big agriculture improperly influencing and controlling the process of what is "approved" by the government. The relatively recent "rubber-stamping" of genetically modified seeds as "the same" as what nature created is an example of how the process actually works.</p> <p>Without the government's involvement, the people's choices themselves would govern which products the producers produced. A free market, governed by supply and demand, and protected by the civil justice system is far superior to any government's decision making process. It literally costs we, the people, billions upon billions of our dollars every year that we pay to run these unconstitutional bureaucracies so that we, the people, can suffer from their unending consequences. If one subscribes to the concept of "do less, and accomplish more," all we would need to do is to return to the founders' constitution, eliminate these improper departments and consequently save billions every year while dramatically improving how agriculture works in our country.</p> <p>I believe the fundamental error in how this has all been created actually resides with the people. We collectively have lost our understanding of the role of the people, vs. the role of the government. We have succumbed to pleas from politicians that they will solve our problems for us, if we would only "trust them". It is said that you get what you deserve in life. I would like to see us "deserve" something better than paying dearly for abuse heaped upon us from false "saviors".</p> 2009-08-07T23:21:09Z 3 In all that I've heard about the animal confinement issue, I find that people on both sides can’t see the forest for the trees…In promoting regulation of the livestock business the anti-corporate people have transferred the responsibility of people to government. This fact has, in every case,worked against the anti-corporate cause. They shoot themselves in the foot and go on like mind-numbed robots demanding more government intervention in our lives. The corporates smile all the way to the lagoon as they see the rights of the people handed to government and independent farmers quit. Their buildings keep going up and there’s nothing we can do, because property rights have become a forgotten concept. If their stench pollutes our picnic we can’t complain, because they’ve complied with the regulations we begged for, and the legislature passed to buy votes. In a world without all these regulations, the stench would be called an infringement on property rights, the building wouldn't have been built, and the picnic wouldn't stink. 5 40 2009-07-08T15:58:38Z 40 quote 1 <p>In all that I&#8217;ve heard about the animal confinement issue, I find that people on both sides can’t see the forest for the trees…In promoting regulation of the livestock business the anti-corporate people have transferred the responsibility of people to government. This fact has, in every case,worked against the anti-corporate cause. They shoot themselves in the foot and go on like mind-numbed robots demanding more government intervention in our lives. The corporates smile all the way to the lagoon as they see the rights of the people handed to government and independent farmers quit. Their buildings keep going up and there’s nothing we can do, because property rights have become a forgotten concept. If their stench pollutes our picnic we can’t complain, because they’ve complied with the regulations we begged for, and the legislature passed to buy votes. In a world without all these regulations, the stench would be called an infringement on property rights, the building wouldn&#8217;t have been built, and the picnic wouldn&#8217;t stink.</p> 2009-07-08T17:08:22Z Clyde Cleveland, Edward Noyes, _Restoring the Heart of America_ (Better Books, LLC, Iowa, 2002) p. 127, 128. 3 <p>Mayors across the nation are trying to do something meaningful in their communities to address climate change. More than 600 have pledged to try to meet the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol, even though the federal government won&rsquo;t make the commitment.</p> 5 39 2009-07-07T20:01:03Z 39 quote 1 <p>Mayors across the nation are trying to do something meaningful in their communities to address climate change. More than 600 have pledged to try to meet the target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions set by the Kyoto Protocol, even though the federal government won&rsquo;t make the commitment.</p> 2009-08-07T17:59:01Z National Public Radio, _"All Things Considered,"_ (July 31, 2007) 3 <p>The federal government is America&#8217;s biggest polluter and the Department of Defense is the government&#8217;s worst offender&#8230;The Pentagon is responsible for more than 21,000 potentially contaminated sites and, according to the <span class="caps">EPA</span>, the military may have poisoned as much as 40 million acres, a little larger than Florida. That result might be considered an act of war if committed by a foreign power.</p> 5 38 2009-07-07T19:56:26Z <p>The federal government is America&#8217;s biggest polluter and the Department of Defense is the government&#8217;s worst offender&#8230;The Pentagon is responsible for more than 21,000 potentially contaminated sites and, according to the <span class="caps">EPA</span>, the military may have poisoned as much as 40 million acres, a little larger than Florida. That result might be considered an act of war if committed by a foreign power.</p> 38 quote 1 <p>The federal government is America&#8217;s biggest polluter and the Department of Defense is the government&#8217;s worst offender&#8230;The Pentagon is responsible for more than 21,000 potentially contaminated sites and, according to the <span class="caps">EPA</span>, the military may have poisoned as much as 40 million acres, a little larger than Florida. That result might be considered an act of war if committed by a foreign power.</p> 2009-08-07T23:45:37Z Robert F. Kennedy Jr., from a speech published in the Chicago Tribune (May 16, 2003). 3 In a mindless, criminally negligent process, we poured resources into military expansion both at home and abroad without any regard for the environmental consequences. Pollution was ignored on the grounds that 'national security' took absolute priority over all other considerations. 5 37 2009-07-07T19:46:16Z 37 quote 1 <p>In a mindless, criminally negligent process, we poured resources into military expansion both at home and abroad without any regard for the environmental consequences. Pollution was ignored on the grounds that &#8216;national security&#8217; took absolute priority over all other considerations.</p> 2009-07-07T19:46:18Z Eugene Carroll, before the First International Conference on US Military Toxics and Bases Clean-up (1997). 3