Prop 2 -- Another Look
Okay -- I have a soft spot for cancer free non-antibiotic free-range grass fed organic meat being regulated into our food supply.
So the question, is "is the regulation on my fiat-subsidization my friend or my enemy?"
Let's take another look at the Libertarian Vote of "No" on Prop 2 and see which direction is the greatest blow to the subsidization/regulation farming world.
The only one (that I can see) that will be hurt by this is the Factory Farmer.
The real enemy of Factory Farming is the price to health ratio.
Like Walter Blocked argued if consumers/retailers were made to pay for the full cost of plastic bag disposal (say $5 per bag) while paper bags were 1cent (in truth the cost would probably be the same thus encouraging people to use "cloth" re-useable bags) -- then the weighted cost would force most "rational" consumers to buy the paper bag.
Like-wise if retailers had to pay the full cost of selling cancerous chicken (like those found in factory farms) - a "penalty" to cover the health care costs -- being we have socialist medicine (another issue) they'd have to pass it on to the consumer.
So, maybe a yes on Prop 2 will drive the cost up and people will need to turn to free-range animals -- its not like other Libertarian issues where the cage chicken farmer are gonna be selling diseased birds in the black market!!
Is the enemy of my enemy my friend ....or my enemy.
Or how about this. Is the regulation on a highly subsidized industry my friend?
Factory Chickens eat up a huge percentage of Subsidized Grain -- free-range grass-fed organic chicken eat 0% of Subsidized Conventional Grains.
If we increase the costs to the Factory Farmer people will buy less diseased factory chickens and thus "hurt" our greatest enemy of freedom in the welfare world -- Ag Grain Corp.
What do you think?
Hi
I'd just like to chime in with my $.02. If you oppose factory farms (as I myself do) the best way to combat it is to buy locally from organic farmers, or if that is not an option ,raise your own chickens. You yourself should shoulder the responsibility and make sure that the food you eat holds up to your moral standards.
Factory farming, though cruel and inhumane, provides cheap protien for economically challenged portions of the population. There is nothing morally wrong with eating factory farmed meat if you cannot afford to do otherwise, however when you get the means to buy food that was raised with respect towards the animal then you should. Free-Range foods are more expensive to buy because they are more expensive to produce. Whenever you paying more for Free range foods , you are saying that not feeling guilty about the treatment of your food is more important to you than the extra $.40 per pound.
Finally, the concept of animal rights is flawed. Animals have no rights because they are not held resonsible for their actions. We as human beings have the right to kill and use animals for reasons that we see fit, but we also have the personal responsibility to not cause undue suffering to the animals we do decide to use.
CA Prop 2
This is a very interesting thought; I wish I had something intelligent to respond with.
California has a lot of big issues on the ballot this season, and prop 2 is one of them.
On the one hand, my philosophy of limited government would at first glance lead me to vote no on 2.
However, the purpose of government is to protect rights, and if animals do indeed have rights, it is government's duty to protect them.
I'm a fan of the Skeptic/Scientific American writer Michael Shermer, and his book The Science of Good and Evil has a section which looks at animals, including humans, on a continuous scale of civil rights--putting humans at the top, other primates and dolphins underneath them, and other, increasingly less sophisticated animals beneath them.
Well, I've got some more research to do. . . and now thoughts of grain subsidies are rattling around my head!