Where reasonable people discuss reason using methods both reasonable and unreasonable...
I feel better now.
The other night I watched a kind of silly little show on the History Channel called "The Prophets of Doom". It was purported to be six experts in their respective fields and their opinions on how this country will fail in the future. I had never heard of any of them before, but I am certainly not the most worldly of souls, so hey, maybe they may are somebodys. One said finance would get us, one said water was our dagger to the heart. Overpopulation, peak oil(our addiction to oil was a biggie) even nuclear terrorism. They had a roundtable discussion throughout the show in between each gentleman's profile and individual scenario. Some seemed sane and some I thought to be outright kooks(the gentleman who thought the biggest threat was artificial intelligence was crazy as a loon and acted like an actor acting crazy).To make along story short, at the end they came to some agreement on the solution, decentralization of food production and other activities and if we started now the transition will be easier because at some point it will be forced upon us. This got me to thinking(and I know that could be dangerous), shouldn't this decentralization start with the political power structure? It makes sense to me. It would also conform to the Constitutional idea of federalism which you know is so very close to my heart. Power to the States, our salvation.
Actually, more centralized government power could help to force decentralization of food production...
I guess the key word there was "force", no?
A strong central government could "force" us to do anything they thought we should be doing. Sounds like a utopia.
I would also like to point out the error in your thinking, csm. Most of the regulations enacted by our strong federal government go a long way to reducing the chance of a de-centralization of food production because small local food producers cannot afford, or at least have problems complying with, the food safety regulations of the FDA(including the ones in the new Food Safety bill). Large food corps have less of a problem with these regulations and actually like them because of the anti-competition aspect to them. The same goes for food subsidies handed out by the federal government. No one argues the vast bulk of that largesse ends up in the large food corps treasuries, not the small farmer's local bank account. But of course that isn't the "rhetoric" that comes out of Washington, the helper of the "little guy".
I never meant to imply that I was in favor of a large centralized government forcing this issue... just pointed out that it could.Regarding large corporations and food production, safety of the food should only be part of the correction that is needed. We also should be policing the large co-ops and their dumping of pig shit (for example) into the ecosystem. A small farmer wouldn't be doing that, and complying with a rule to make sure they aren't shouldn't be too hard.
What a small farmer wouldn't do anything to cut corners? Human beings are human beings and some of them, whether working for a large corporation or a small family farm, will take the chance to earn a little extra by not following the law.
Of course, you are correct. But a little bit of pig shit in the river is not as problematic as a big pile of pig shit.
Post a Comment