Chris, It doesn't matter what it is that makes the land stay fallow. It is the staying fallow that is the point I don't care whether it is a wealthy big land owner or a small poor one as long as the ecologically correct process is followed. You have small farms, I presume since it is a small county, and so your cats are less fat, but I don't care. The reason the soil blows away is because there is TOO much farming. On the other hand, people should be compensated for doing something that is against their own immediate interest in favor of the greater good. As for Tom Paine. Sometimes he's right and sometimes he's just old fashioned. But Tom Paine is dead so what is surprising about that?
There are principles that make sense even when they are old. One principle is that when someone does something of general good for the society, they should not be penalized but encouraged and the best encouragement is to reimburse them for what they do. That is the basis of all Not-for-profit work here in the U.S. When the wealthy are not re-imbursed, they simply farm the land, sell the painting rather than donate it, or invest their money rather then give to a hospital or spiritual institution. Taxes are the way that we demand rent for the use of the society and its upkeep. Not-for-profit and other subsidies are the way that we pay for "Public Goods" that the private sector would play games with, free ride on, or simply ignore. Roads, Parks, Dams, Sema-Tech, Opera Houses, Hospitals, Space Programs and ecologically correct farming are only some of the things that we try to stimulate that would otherwise be ignored and turn the country into what has happened in Northern Africa in the Sahara. That is the biggest example of these "Free Marketers" policy on the list. They construct their theories but the outcome is still the same. The Earth turns to desert and we all ultimately get screwed. Ray Evans Harrell ----- Original Message ----- From: Christoph Reuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 9:41 AM Subject: Re: subsidies and "fatcats" (was Re: A Canadian philosopher's views on the WTO) > REH wrote: > > No, you read it Chris. I'm here and you are there. The removal of > > American farm subsidies will create havoc for the environment as they will > > not leave fields open but plow them all for the profit. Not meaning to be > > grouchy but you missed my point. > > Ok, now your point is clear, but it's still wrong. :-) > > I do not advocate the removal of farm subsidies -- the WTO does that. > I advocate a *shift* from fatcat-feeding anti-environmental subsidies to > small-scale-farming-supporting pro-environmental subsidies. You just > have to look at the size and practices of American farms to see that > American farm subsidies are in the first category. (or read e.g. the > article at http://www.tompaine.com/opinion/2001/11/27/1.html ) > If you think they are in the second category, then *you* have "bought" > the (fatcats') PR on American Farm Subsidies... > > Chris > >
