capslock--thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful replly. I don't have the time right now to answer you, and I don't disagree with you entirely, either (which may surprise you)... It's my view, however, that there is a "social good" in keeping family farmers working the land, EVEN if they are not quite as efficient as large absentee owners who use hired hands to work the land. I believe that for 2 reason: one, family farmers who work the land they own will take much better care of it (just as homeowners take better care of their homes than renters), and because food is a necessity of life, it seems to me that the government would be wise to ensure that our soil is in the hands of those who will take the best care of it; two, if and when our food production is in the hands of a few giant corporations, then we will be at the mercy, as eating is not a choice.
I do believe, as you do, that compelling reasons should exist before the government subsidizes various industries (like it does with the mortgage interest deduction, for instance, which subsidizes homebuilders and realtors, in addition to consumers), but in the case of family farmers, I believe those reasons are compelling...
Thanks again for your thoughtful reply. |
