Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Constitutional Right to … Food?
One of the more interesting ballot questions last Tuesday was Question 3 in Maine. The 43-word constitutional amendment, overwhelmingly approved by voters, reads as follows:
“All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lants, or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.”
It’s a little hard to figure out precisely what this means.
The coalitions supporting and opposing the initiative were bipartisan and unusual. Democratic legislators joined Republicans in support. Animal rights organizations joined the Maine Farm Bureau and Maine Potato Growers Council in opposition.
But no one seemed to care enough to invest much money in the campaign. A total of less than $8,000 was spent by both sides to influence the outcome.
But it also get to the question how safe do I have to keep myself to keep from impinging on my neighbors? Going Vegan, aerobic exercising three times a day, taking vitamins, doing yoga, and getting a hypoallergenic dog?
You do all that and you’ll end up in the ER. So…you know…smoke a joint and have a nice day or something!
Well, heck. I’ll defend Monsanto.
The offer a superior product, at a price that is not so low that non-users will necessarily go bankrupt. Their business model is to maximize the value from their product. Unlike many other industries, they do not use government as a coercive force to limit your choices.
Nobody is forced to buy Monsanto. They are competing and they made superb profits.
Yes, they do. They use patent courts to deprive hapless farmers of their farmland when Monsanto pollinators are air carried into their crops.
And like Microsoft, they obliterate (our) property rights to maintain market dominance.
Ah, but they do not have market dominance! Except in the sense of making better seeds than anyone else. You do not have to pay for them!
Think of it this way: yield per acre is up something like 2 orders of magnitude since the middle ages. The world went from subsistence to suffering from too many calories per head. How can we not allow innovators to actually capitalize on making it even better?
I don’t know enough about this issue to understand it completely.
I’ve seen a lot of competitive shenanigans in the business world that make me tune out the disparaging stories about the Monsanto company. Public relations is a constant battle for all companies. It is like politics. The opposition is out to get you. :-)
But that’s hardly objective, and I try to be objective. So I haven’t formed an opinion either way.
What I do know for sure is that they have a big and worsening PR problem that they need to address.
In return for their margins and business, I would be thrilled to have their PR problem.
They are creating enormous value for their customers and their shareholders. Monsanto are a model for what innovation can deliver to those who take the risk. Very, very, very few companies achieve anything of this magnitude.
My only beef with Monsanto is their attacks on farmers who haven’t bought their seeds but end up with variants on their farms due to natural cross-pollination. That Monsanto won those lawsuits is a crying shame.