Adrian found a documentary called Food, Inc, and we watched it. It was really well made, particularly in that it didn't seem politically biased. There were both Republicans and Democrats involved, and government was criticized as well as big business. The whole point of the movie was more-or-less modern Upton Sinclair stuff. In that, the facts don't really surprise me. But it presented quite a bit of interesting information that I think goes beyond food, and becomes a commentary on business and government.
I know that, officially, Fascism had something to do with Mussolini and Italy. But, more than that, I couldn't tell you at this point. I suppose I could just go look it up in the dictionary, but I have a vague memory of having already done that... multiple times... and still I draw a blank - so would it really help? Anyway, some of the Ron Paul/libertarian types that I listen to define it as the marriage of big government and big business. That is the def that sticks with me. I have been desperately searching for a YouTube clip of Nobel Prize winner in economic, Milton Friedman, stating something to the effect of: "One of the reasons why I'm so against big government is because of what happens once industry gets control of it." ...and then goes on to discuss government-industrial-complexes. But, alas, I cannot find it!
Anyway, this video showed one way in which government regulations backfire. For instance, the government subsidizes corn. It probably started out as a way to "help poor farmers" and make sure America didn't go hungry. But like most government acts, it never went away. This makes American-grown corn artificially cheap for consumers, including corporate consumers. There are many consequences of having such a ready supply of cheap (below production costs) corn:
1. Farmers in third world countries growing corn can't compete with the artificially low prices of US taxpayer subsidized corn grown in America. They go out of business.
2. Mass production developers rely on cheap corn to produce all sorts of unnatural additives such as: Calcium lactate or stearate, Calcium stearoyl lactylate, Dextrin or Dextrose, Ethyl maltol, Fumaric or Lactic acid, Gluconolactone or Glucono delta-lactone, Glucose, Glycerine, Hydrolyzed vegetable protein, Lecithin, Linoleic acid, Malt, Maltodextrin, Maltose or Maltol, Mannitol, Polydextrose, Polysorbates, Potassium gluconate, Propylene glycol, monostearate, Sodium ascorbate or other ascorbates, Sodium stearoyl, fumarate, Sodium-, Magnesium-, Calcium- or Potassium-fumarate, Stearyl citrate, Tocopherol (alpha-Tocopherol, vitamin E)... and , of course, who can forget: high fructose corn syrup.
3. Energy researchers (particularly gov't researchers), spend (waste?) lots of time and money to develop ethanol from corn. And, it's essentially a worse product than gaosline (both for the envorinment and as a fuel)
4. Feed lots rely on cheap corn to feed the cattle, thus creating many nutritional problems abd health risks (as Food, Inc explains)
So, the simple, seemingly-well-intended desire to use gov't power to "help poor farmers" has led to all of these unintended, negative, consequences. Another point to ponder is that key members of the FDA are actually special interest representatives for huge food corporations. Or, in case of idusty action being confirmed by government action (instead of the other way around): There are now 13 main meat processing plants in the US (according to Food, Inc). I remember hearing about a bill, not too long ago, that would require all meat that is legally bought and sold (and perhaps even all meat that is simply eaten by humans) to be processed at the plants, and these plants only - in the name of safety (fewer production facilities are easier to regulate - no?). But with with a corrupt FDA that essentially creates a monopoly for their own profit, excluding safe, small, local producers, we are once again brought back to Plato: "Who will watch the watchmen?" I'm afraid Plato's naive approach isn't going to work. (lol - but, please, don't confuse me with Vizzini for saying so!)
Thomas Jefferson (or maybe Gerald Ford) said:
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." Anyway, whoever said it, it strikes me as very true. Now, above, I've just outlined how liberals-for-big-government can cause problems. But, I think it's worth asking if conservatives-for-big-government can't create big problems too?
Food, Inc talks about how Monsanto lobbyists have managed to pass a bill that allows their genetically modified seeds to be patented. Since they own the patent, they can also prohibit farmers from saving seed each year to replant the next year (thus forcing the farmers to buy new seed form them each year). Furthermore, if farmers who decide to grow heirloom varieties are adjacent to Monsanto seed farmers, and their crops get "contaminated" (ie pollinated) with Monsanto seed DNA, they aren't allowed to save their seed either. An independent third party who simply "cleans seed" that is saved, can be brought to trial and put out of business as a result of this whole situation. It's seems to me a very interesting coincidence that all of this was preceded by a government that was a) big enough to attempt to prevent the growth and use of all marijuana in the nation, and b) big enough to protect the profits of big music companies from copyright infringement, even to the point of shutting down third party facilitators such as Napster? Not exactly the product of liberals (well, I did read a story once about Hillary trying to get Universities to report students who illegally downloaded music - but I have no idea how I'd find it now).
While I'm at it, why not consider this question too:
Is a government that is big enough to attempt to stop all abortions also, perhaps, big enough to enforce a policy of forced abortion, such as China has?
In the case of The Patriot Act, which I think many conservatives supported because a) the Bush administration came up with it*, and b) they were afraid of terrorism, what happens when we get a president like Obama in power? So far... nothing. At least not that I'm aware of. But, when passing a bill like that, didn't ANY small-government-minded conservatives stop and think that Bush wouldn't be president forever? The terrorists wouldn't be a threat forever? But those laws will remain on the books. (And, of course, Obama supports should think about the future shift of power that will inevitably occur, and how the masses of laws put on the books by this administration may come back to haunt them). Political power in America is cyclical by design. And, partly, that is a blessing-in-disguise. But, it's interesting to me that both sides have their own aims, and want to use the power of government to solve their problems. They all think they can take the tiger by the tail, and not have it come around and bite them in the jugular. It's like the ring in Tolkien: Using the power seems like a good idea at the time, but in the end it will enslave you. Unfortunately, maybe not just you. Maybe everybody.
...and just because I hate to end with such a somber tone, let me re-summarize this way:
"It seemed like a good idea at the time" (imagine this in the context of how it was said in The Magnificent 7), but "This can only end in tears!" (imagine this as said by the little henchman creature in Disney's animated Anastasia)
* "Leastwise, I ASSUME the Bush administration came up with it. Who else would be up there? In her room???" (said like the nosy neighbor lady in Disney's original That Darn Cat). Come, come! Haven't I done enough research and fact checking for one blog? An internet blog? One that, I might add, it appears, and for all practical purposes, NOBODY READS!!!! (Waaaah). You see, now I'm having an argument with myself again. Doesn't it make sense how I can hold bored people in such contempt? The only time I am bored is when I am forced to do things I do not want to do. Left to myself, I am NEVER bored. Lonely, perhaps, on occassion, but never bored!
Boringness is in the eye of the beholder. So while I may disagree with someone for calling something else boring, I don't suppose I quite hold them in contempt. But to be bored is to consider one's own company boring. Which is... alternately laughable and contemptuous (if you can't stand your own boringness, why foist it on me??). It's like... "You keep saying that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." (Princess Bride), or "Stop saying that! Would someone PLEASE make him stop saying that?!" (What's Up Doc)
No comments:
Post a Comment