MAPLETON, UT | 10 April 2008 | In the current climate of rising commodity prices, there is a change sweeping over the American heartland. After years of leaving large tracts of land unused in exchange for government handouts, thousands of farmers are clearing the overgrowth and planting crops again. What opponents of the policies of the Dept.of Agriculture could not do for years is now being done voluntarily, as farmers turn down the guaranteed annual payments for a chance to profit from the recent boom in wheat, soybeans, corn, and other commodities.

Environmentalists, who had praised the government program for paying farmers to let their fields go wild, are concerned about the reversal. They are already lobbying to raise the amount of government payments to compete with the more profitable use of farmland for farming. Jim Ringelman of Ducks Unlimited said in response to the refusal of farmers to choose the promotion of wilderness over their own self-interest, “There are overriding environmental issues here.” Such environmental tyrants, lacking an effective means of persuading farmers, would simply prefer to dictate the use of private property by force.

Key Points:

• Founded as part of the 1985 Farm Bill, the Conservation Reserve Program involves 35 million acres of land — about 8 percent of the cropland in the country.
• The purpose of the C.R.P. is to promote the reversion of farmland to protected wilderness by renting the land from the farmers.
• Participants bid to put their land in the program during special sign-ups, with the government selecting the acres most at risk environmentally.
• Average annual payments are $51 an acre. Contracts run for at least a decade and are nearly impossible to break.
• The program peaked late last summer, with more than 400,000 farmers receiving nearly $1.8 billion to let their 36.8 million acres (an area larger than the state of New York) sit idle and unused.

Commentary:

The economic history of farming has shown how crop prices fluctuate with the forces of supply and demand – too much farmland resulted in lower prices, which led farmers to seek other uses for their land. Too little crop production has resulted in price increases, which has the natural effect of attracting more farmers to produce more crops.

In an attempt to manipulate these market forces and prevent any downturn in the profits of farmers, the Dept. of Agriculture has sought to use federal funds to offset farmer’s losses (an untenable position, allowing for success while prohibiting failure). Over the years, this has resulted in a legislative behemoth called the Farm Bill. This bastion of central planning is under attack, as complaints over rising food prices grow louder.

Randy Schuring, a dairy farmer with 200 acres in the program, said there was no possible solution that would make everyone happy. “If the government lets the land out [of contract] and then crop prices fall, that’s going to hurt a lot of farmers. If it doesn’t let the land out and prices keep going up, that will hurt a lot of consumers. If only we had a crystal ball.”

This comment reveals the paralysis inherent in the socialist theory – that the best policy is one that ensures no one gets hurt. To the socialist, the only way out of such a predicament (since there are equally valuable opposing interests) is for the government simply intervene on behalf of the greater victim (or the squeakiest wheel), and therefore justice is done. Hooray for democracy, where we can best decide how to violate principles based on the majority opinion! (or at least the deepest lobbyist pockets)

Before the invention of the Farm Bill, every farmer had to decide for themselves what would be the best and most profitable use of their land. The aggregate decisions of millions of farmers, each with an interest to govern their own resources, made up the local and national economy. If the farmer felt it was in his interest to rent the land out to someone else rather than farming it himself, he would do so. If conditions and market prices were such that it was worth it to raise a certain crop, he would do so.

Not surprisingly, many farmers have changed their minds over the years about the value of the Conservation Reserve Program, as economic conditions have changed. In years where the farmers stood to make less money on their own efforts than they would be paid for doing nothing through the C.R.P., they have been in favor of it. In years where commodity prices have made farming the land more profitable than what is offered by the C.R.P., they have sought to be released from their contractual obligations with the government on the grounds that “the public needs the food”. Both of these opinions reflect the desire of the farmer to profit, but ignore the moral basis for the C.R.P.

Though the media will often frame the debate over the C.R.P. as a battle between environmentalists and farmers, the truth is that this, like so many other economic manipulation schemes, is a battle between tyranny and freedom. If the farmers are to be free to profit under the protection of their right to utilize their private property, they must also be free to fail when market conditions change. If the stewardship of farm resources is to be determined by government mandate, under the pressure of environmental lobbyists and those who would gladly mooch from the treasury as payment for doing nothing, then they must reap the harvest of tyranny – in this case, widespread shortages of vital commodities, skyrocketing costs, and the loss of freedom to use their land as they see fit.

Many farmers have become wholly dependent on the Department of Agriculture for their financial security. This leaves their livelihoods and their futures at the mercy of the political expediency of policies which are under constant pressure from other looters seeking to further their own tyrannical agenda. Any proposals to dismantle the bloated and corrupted architecture of farm subsidies and other interventions are met with furious resistance – a reaction to be expected from those who would respond as if pulling the plug on a life support machine.

Principles govern, and try as they might, the socialists cannot bend the rules without reaping the consequences. Food shortages will always follow government intervention in the food economy. Without any foundation on principle, this debate will continue to be a political tug-of-war between farmers, consumers, and environmentalists – with dominance being a matter of political pull, rallying public outrage over one’s victimhood to demand a readjustment of tyranny in one’s favor. This is the world of the tyrants – where success is determined by one’s ability to exert force over their neighbor, rather than by the fruits of one’s labor.

Action Steps:

• Research the history and content of the USDA Farm Bill.
• Ask your congressman to explain his position on government subsidies for farmers.
• How does force destroy freedom and prosperity in the context of this article?
• What are the consequences of utilizing compulsory tax revenue in an otherwise free exchange in the commodities market?

MRFC Principles:   (3,6,7,8,9,10,11)

References:

As Prices Rise, Farmers Spurn Conservation Program
David Streitfeld - April 9, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/09/business/09conserve.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985
http://http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aib498/