Food, Farm, and the Role of Government

Government Intervention: A Solution or a Problem?

In the midst of a national health crisis, food debauchery, and farm exploitation, many solutions have been proposed. However, none seem to address the root of the problem. RFK, Jr. recently suggested a series of government interventions, including capping drug prices, prohibiting research grants from going to people with conflicts of interest, and reforming crop subsidies. He also suggested banning the use of SNAP (formerly food stamps) for high fructose corn syrup drinks.

While these suggestions may sound good in theory, they raise the question of who will implement such drastic changes within the bureaucracies. The government has already declared that certain cereals are more nutritious than beef. Can we expect a U-turn from such a stance?

The Illusion of Governmental Change

When President Obama was elected and Michelle Obama established a garden on the White House lawn, many in the organic farming community were hopeful. However, the reality is that the vast offices of the USDA are unlikely to change. This is the Achilles’ heel of such optimistic rhetoric.

Dr. Joel Warsh's recent column in the Epoch Times, "America's Health Crisis: Expanding on RFK Jr.'s Plan to Make America Healthy Again," also suffers from the same government interventionist mindset. He proposed a "National Emergency Declaration of Health," which would likely lead to extensive wrangling, focus groups, and lobbying. His other suggestions include recreating the food pyramid, mandating wellness programs in corporations, and banning junk food ads during children's TV time. While these ideas may sound good, they are not feasible. They simply perpetuate the same thinking that created the problem in the first place.

A Different Approach

Instead of relying on government intervention, we should consider private certification, independent research, and individual choice. For example, Congressman Thomas Massie's Constitutional amendment could revolutionize America's food system. This amendment states, "The right of the people to grow food and to purchase food from the source of their choice shall not be infringed, and Congress shall make no law regulating the production and distribution of food products which do not move across state lines."

Currently, many farmers and non-farmers are unable to engage in neighborly food commerce due to regulations. If these regulations were removed, consumers could exercise their right to choose their food sources. This would decentralize America's food system and reduce government overreach.

Additionally, all government intervention in health care should be eliminated. It is not the government's job to dictate health protocols. If health is truly about "My body, my choice," then this liberty should be extended to all aspects of health, not just unwanted pregnancies.

Lastly, all government intervention in food, welfare, and education should be eliminated. This includes everything from SNAP to corn insurance. The federal government should also be removed from education, as it often serves as a breeding ground for nonsensical thinking.

Bottom Line

While these ideas may seem radical in our current cultural climate, they offer a consistency of thought that is easier to defend than simply replacing one federal agency with another. Instead of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, we should change course and avoid the icebergs altogether.

What are your thoughts on this matter? Do you agree or disagree with these ideas? Share this article with your friends and let's start a conversation. Don't forget to sign up for the Daily Briefing, which is delivered every day at 6pm.