Do you believe the "majority" should be allowed to vote on laws that dirrectly effect farmers?

Question

The "majority" of people (voters) live in cities. Many of them have never even touched a dog or a cat, much less seen and touched a real farm animal.

Obviously they don't have a clue about the real in's and out's of running a farm, or working in agriculture.

So should the "majority" be allowed to vote on laws that dirrectly effect farms, AND drive many, many small farmers out of business?

Since I'm in the U.S.A. this question is mostly dirrected at folks in the U.S. If you are from another country, feel free to answer about your country, just state what country you are speaking of, and if you are dirrectly involved in agriculture.

Answer 1

This is a pretty vague question...  It really depends on what sort of law(s) you are speaking about.  It would seem somewhat unfair if farmers were allowed to create laws that would favor themselves and not allow anyone else to have any say in their creation.  It would also seem unfair for people not connected to the agricultural industries to come in and mandate things such as purchasing supplies from specific vendors or something of that nature.  You just aren't being too specific here...  Laws relating to the foods that are produced that are sold to the general public later seem to relate to everyone, but I don't know if you mean laws that will only affect farmers...

Answer 2

I would feel safer if only farmers could vote - and I live in the city.

Answer 3

Yes, everyone should get to vote, because ultimately, farms affect everyone.  Everyone eats farm food.  What is easiest for the farmers may not be in the best interest of the country.

Besides, most laws only affect one group of people.  If we want to propose a law to legalize marijuana, should only those who smoke it be allowed to vote?

Answer 4

It would depend on the law, but I would say yes, that everyone should vote on these laws.

There is very little that a farmer does that does not directly effect everyone.  Laws on livestock welfare, and rules regarding which ones may be sent to market directly effect consumer cost and welfare.

Laws on pesticides and herbicides directly effect both the consumer and those land owners that are downstream of the runoff.

Laws on land usage effect all land owners, not just farmers.

Laws regarding aid to farmers, such as fallow farm handouts effect people pretending to be farmers, and all taxpayers as a whole, not just legitimate farmers.

So while I might agree that most people do not understand farming, I would say that nearly everyone is effected by the laws passed regarding farming.

Besides, most laws regarding farming are not even voted on.  They are just regulations passed by agencies that have appointed members.  You should wish that more of these laws were actually "voted" on.

Answer 5

First of all, I take offense at your characterization of city folk never having touched a dog or cat -- not only is that likely grossly wrong, but dogs and cats have absolutely nothing to do with farming. Similarly, can we assume that farmers know nothing about libraries, cafes, and nightclubs? No.

I think the "majority" should be allowed to vote on laws affecting "minority" groups. Keep in mind that such laws will invariably indirectly affect the majority as well.

In this specific case, I doubt people living in cities are as clueless about farms as you indicate. I've always lived in a city, but have spent some time on a few different farms, and have even casually worked there in the past.

I'm from Canada, but I don't think that has much of an effect on my response here.

Added: Fine, you're from a big city as well. So, how does that make you more of an expert than others from big cities, like me? You raise some good points, except that I doubt that being a farmer in North America would suddenly make one more of an expert on whether elephants are endotherms or ectotherms... you're reaching there -- I think the education system has more of a role in that sort of lack of knowledge than whether or not you were raised in a rural setting. Just my two cents.

Answer 6

I see your point--and the current system does need revision.  But in a free country, there are no privileged classes under the law--and that inncludes farmers.  By"privileged class" I mean a group tht receives special status in the legal system, not money or political clout."

What is needed--and not just fo r farmers--is to get the protections and privileges given to large corporations removed.  You don't need to be asking to be given a special status. Instead, they need to recognize that their problem is one that affects most Americans--and work to find that common ground and work together to fix things.

Answer 7

YES, we all should be allowed to vote.

If you feel that the ignorant need to be educated on these bills, do it. You have the Internet and the ability to reach millions of readers/voters. EDUCATE US!!!

Answer 8

If the farmers lived in their own community and never interacted with the outside world, they would have every right to complain about outside interference. They don't. They use manufactured goods from outside and send their products outside. Therefore, what happens in a farming community affects the outside world and vice versa.

I agree that voters, in general, know little about farming. They also know little about science, warfare, economics, and almost anything else you can name. Does that mean that only experts in those fields should be allowed to vote on laws in those fields?

I am not currently directly involved in agriculture, although I have been in the past.

Answer 9

Awhile back (a year or two) in Canada there was media coverage about a new law being promoted which, if passed, would make it illegal for Canadian farmers to purchase seeds from any source other than the one which provides genetically engineered seeds that do not reproduce.  In other words that have only one life cycle.  They also are dependant on specific pesticides which must be present in the environment for them to bear fruit.

It was part of the law that farmers would not be allowed to use the procedures involving mixing each new crop of seeds (to promote durability and share features) that they have been using forever.  Therefore all seeds would be purchased each year from the multinational producing the seeds (which was also connected to the production of pesticides).

What happened is unclear - the article I read was that the deadline was near for the decision on this law.  I did not see any further news about it.  Possibly it is now law in Canada.  I suppose it is only Canadian farmers who would know if this situation has been imposed on them... and on us... and on the planet.

The corruption of power seems to have become absolute.  The powerful don't seem to have retained any conscience and appear to be acting only for their own benefit in every situation - and then pay enormous fees for publicity firms to make them look like "responsible corporate citizens" while, in reality, the drunk on the corner who throws his bottle in the trashbin instead of leaving it on the street - is more responsible than the owners of those corporations, who push forward in blind destruction of land, lives, countries, freedoms.

In the end it is "they" who decide who gets into the running for political power and who therefore make all the laws.  The rest of us, the farmers, the doctors, the teachers, the general population - we are all pawns in their massive chess game.

However, there is hope.  One of those predictions which has come down through the ages:  "...the meek shall inherit the earth..." perhaps is very close to coming true - since it is clear that the "not so meek" are only interested in destroying it.

Answer 10

Yes and no.

Yes in the sense that we eat what farmers produce, and farming techniques lead directly to what we put in our bodies.  For instance, I would NOT want to eat a cloned animal or the offspring of a cloned animal.  Nor would I want to eat foods laden with pesticides or genetic modifiers.  

I understand that I do not know a great deal about agriculture and farming.  And me telling a farmer how to run his/her farm is equivalent to someone who knew nothing about my job telling me what to do at work.  But the difference is, we all consume goods produced at farms so maybe we should have a little bit of say in terms of how they are produced.

Answer 11

I think if the "majority" really understood where their food came from, what happens to it along the way, how their voting affects its production, they'd vote more in line with the small farmer's needs.

The sad thing is, they vote with their pocket books every day, and at the polls every couple of years.

You've hit on a pet peeve of mine, it's right up there with these same folks moving out to rural area and trying to change the zoning because the pigs at the farm that has been there for over a hundred years stink, or the cattle truck that has traveled the road for 50 years before they built there is too noisy.

If I moved into town, I would not expect to be able to raise pigs, chickens, or cattle on my 1/2 acre lot...

Answer 12

No - but I don't think it's the problem of majority of people voting against the interest of farms. I think it's the Corporate america passes the laws to s***w the farmers by introducing new pestcides, artifiial feed, genetic engineering seeds to pass the cost of production to mom-and-pops farms, while the big farms sqeeze out the little guy and making profits.

While in U.S we have plenty of food, the health benefits of the food is not as good as other industrial nations.

In reality most Americans are busy with their jobs and their problems that they care a little of what happens in the farms, as long as it does not directly affecting them. Alas, the food we produce & eat affects us directly.

Answer 13

Farms get subsidies paid for by those same majority. I work for an industrial developer, I don't think most people understand the realities of industril development. Does that mean only industrial developers should weigh in on those laws? Kinda silly.

Answer 14

No ,

but how can we separate the ones that are qualified from the ones that are Not.

Where is the dividing line,

Today we have many Small Holders who practice more sustainable ideas than the conventional Farmer,

On the other hand we need the small family farms to maintain diversity and quality ,unfortunately they are replaced by corporations whose only motives are  profits ,and they have little love for the land.

Thousands of years of diversity of local disease resistant seeds are systematically destroyed for a few hybrids that are addicted to chemicals.as well as making the farmers totally dependent on the seed companies.

This is happening everywhere. Corporations are even invading rural countries far from home.

Answer 15

I think your question is a little vague. It would depend on what the law would be. Farmers may be a minority but their products are consumed by everyone, so the majority should have some say in the standards by which their product is made. Also the methods they use can affect more than themselves, i.e. polluting rivers, etc.

So, should I get a say in if my meat can be injected with hormones and how it should be inspected? Yes. Should I be able to tell farmers that they have to go out and pet each of their cattle every night? No.

Also, it should be pointed out that by and far "the majority" do not get to vote on laws at all, farm or otherwise; our representatives do.