Libertarians who buy organic produce

During my conversation with the visiting Bruce Klein last week, somehow the subject came up of libertarian life extenders who insist on buying organic fruits and vegetables.

I was struck by the paradox that represents, considering that libertarians' own belief system seems to require them not only to defend the use of pesticides and genetic engineering in our food production, but positively to praise it. You can find article after article in libertarian publications (e.g., Reason magazine) extolling the wonders and benefits of pesticides in modern agriculture, whereas I think you'd be hard-pressed to find articles by libertarians criticizing agribusiness for using those very chemicals. Even if a few such articles have appeared over the years, the pro-pesticide ones would outnumber them by several orders of magnitude. If libertarians really believe what they publicly state about pesticides, why would the more health-conscious ones try to minimize their exposure?

I think the argument is that on a macro-scale, modern farming has brought more food to more people of the world, while using less land. (a lot of people would consider that a good thing...not just libetarians) Modern farming methods are why Malthus, Ehrlich and all the doomsayers have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions. Ehrlich once predicted that by 1990 (or 1984, or some year in the late 20th century), the U.S. would only have 23 million people, and those left would be dying of starvation and pesticide poisoning. In regards to that prediction, I can see why some people would praise some aspects of modern farming techniques. 270 million people in the U.S. were saved!

In fact, modern farming has been so successful that people are more likely to have health problems from being overweight than from chemical poisoning.


I don't think it is illogical to praise some aspects of modern farming while being wary of others.

During my conversation with the visiting Bruce Klein last week, somehow the subject came up of libertarian life extenders who insist on buying organic fruits and vegetables.

I was struck by the paradox that represents, considering that libertarians' own belief system seems to require them not only to defend the use of pesticides and genetic engineering in our food production, but positively to praise it. You can find article after article in libertarian publications (e.g., Reason magazine) extolling the wonders and benefits of pesticides in modern agriculture, whereas I think you'd be hard-pressed to find articles by libertarians criticizing agribusiness for using those very chemicals. Even if a few such articles have appeared over the years, the pro-pesticide ones would outnumber them by several orders of magnitude. If libertarians really believe what they publicly state about pesticides, why would the more health-conscious ones try to minimize their exposure?

The only thing libertarians are committed to is minimizing the government's use of force and coercion. This includes forcing businesses to not use pesticides. That some libertarians refuse to buy non-organic does not contradict libertarianism. These people are voting with their wallets. This is exactly how libertarians feel the marketplace should work. The government should not prevent you from eating produce or smoking pot, injecting stem cells or injecting heroin, drinking beer or drinking cyanide. Libertarians think the burden of responsibility for making these choices ought to be upon the consumer, not the FDA.

One motivation behind libertarianism is the fact, with which all can agree, that governments have historically made monstrous errors in exercising their use of force. Some magazines, such as Reason, emphasize this fact by focusing upon how things, such as pesticides, might be safer than the government would insist. Reason is a high quality publication but it is not infallible. Their claims about the safety of goods--whether Coke, caffeine, pot, or pesticides--are secondary, however, to their claims about freedom. Even if you could convince Reason that pesticides were dangerous, libertarians would still insist upon letting the consumer choose.

I think the argument is that on a macro-scale, modern farming has brought more food to more people of the world, while using less land. (a lot of people would consider that a good thing...not just libetarians) Modern farming methods are why Malthus, Ehrlich and all the doomsayers have been spectacularly wrong in their predictions. Ehrlich once predicted that by 1990 (or 1984, or some year in the late 20th century), the U.S. would only have 23 million people, and those left would be dying of starvation and pesticide poisoning. In regards to that prediction, I can see why some people would praise some aspects of modern farming techniques. 270 million people in the U.S. were saved!

Unfortunately this farming system is going to break down, and probably fairly quickly, during the civilizational crash caused by declining world oil extraction. The preponderance of evidence suggests that Peak Oil is happening now. Most of the protein in our bodies incorporates artificially fixed nitrogen from the Haber-Bosch process or something comparable, which requires very concentrated energy sources like oil, natural gas or coal to produce. The crash of natural gas supplies in North America (predicted by Sempra Energy in California, for example) is already starting to make nitrogen fertilizer prohibitively expensive as natural gas prices skyrocket. American factories which make the stuff having been shutting down, one by one, like something out of Atlas Shrugged.

Unfortunately this farming system is going to break down]Atlas Shrugged[/i].

yep. fun times are ahead.

The only current solution that could solve this problem is widespread use of nuclear power. Nuclear power is dramatically safer than it used to be. Unfortunatly people are scared of it.

Nuclear fission power plants are excellent sources of energy, the issue is dealing with the nuclear waste. I saw a CNN segment that said there was a company that turned nuclear waste into inert waste through a process of adding a chemical cocktail, but I can't remember the company's name for the life of me. Anyway if that holds true I would support a massive construction effort to build dozens of nuclear power plants.

I would also not give up on the ideal goal of nuclear fusion power plants, clean abundant energy. If we can guarantee that 100+% of input power, is being outputted, we can have a cyclic process through which we harvest a huge amount of power.

Edited by cosmos, 15 October 2004 - 12:07 AM.

I saw a CNN segment that said there was a company that turned nuclear waste into inert waste through a process of adding a chemical cocktail

I didn't see the CNN segment, but I read something similar where they cook the radioactive waste with other chemicals to make a "concrete" brick that's like 20% radioactive material, and the brick is strong enough and resists flaking so that it can be safely stored for tens of thousands of years (in theory, anyway).

Nuclear fission should be able to get us through rather comfortably for a good half century easily, enough time to develop functioning fusion reactors. Between fission, fusion, wind, tidal, and solar power, we should be fine for millenia at least, even with increasing power demands. In fact, with fusion power, the real problem will be heat dissipation, not running out of fuel.

yes, i think prediction of a civilizational collapse is a far fetched idea at best. simply put, we have many alternatives at the moment, but none of them are fully developed or thought through, because that would be a hindrance to the trillion dollar a year oil business. i can guaruntee that the moment people realize fossil fuels are drying up (which im sure will be painfully obvious as the prices go up and up) that there will not only be an outcry for these sources to be developed, but there will be many many many people trying to make themselves the next oil. this is of course if oil itself hasnt already thought this through, with their vast amounts of money, which i would think they probably have. so my idea of a worst case scenario is at most, mabye a decade of transition, where stuff is fairly depressing. as well, "civilizational collapse"? if you hadnt noticed, i think that the only civilization that will be in danger of collapse is going to be ours. others might have a difficult time (a few others at most) but america is the only one who uses fossil fuels to sucha a degree.
oops, but anyway, back on point, yes it has been nailed already. libertarians dont always want organic or pesticide filled produce (Mmm, pesticidey), they want the right to choose between the two, simply.

More evidence that the libertarian belief system requires defending the use of pesticides in producing our food supply. So again, I ask: Why would a libertarian buy organic produce? Maybe he lacks awareness of the contradiction and hypocrisy that act implies.

http://www.techcentr...om/092905E.html

Manure vs. Machine
By Tomas Brandberg 
Published 09/29/2005

The marketing of "organic" food is where environmentalists and hucksters converge.

By most definitions an "organic" product must not contain genetically modified organisms and its production must not involve synthetic chemicals such as pesticides, herbicides or synthetic fertilizers. We are supposed to think that organic products are healthier and also better for the environment. However, there is little evidence to support either of those claims. It is true that farmers usually depend on toxic chemical substances in order to keep insects and weeds at bay and it is likewise true that traces of some of these compounds can be found in food and also in humans. However, there is no indication that the measured levels are harmful.

Mark, think about the value system of libertarians. They value freedom above all else....even health. The issue of organic food vs non organic is one of freedom of choice. A libertarian's goal is to allow people to choose whatever the heck they want. They believe no one should be forced to eat organic food and no one should be forced non-organic food, nor should any farmer be forced to farm in a certain way.

More evidence that the libertarian belief system requires defending the use of pesticides in producing our food supply. So again, I ask: Why would a libertarian buy organic produce? Maybe he lacks awareness of the contradiction and hypocrisy that act implies.

All this statement implies is that you do not understand the libertarian belief system.

Mind stated it perfectly.

Manure vs. Machine
It is true that farmers usually depend on toxic chemical substances in order to keep insects and weeds at bay and it is likewise true that traces of some of these compounds can be found in food and also in humans. However, there is no indication that the measured levels are harmful.

I hate these kind of crap arguments. They're not measured to be harmful because the body is able to fight off the bad effects and detoxify after short periods of this kind of pollution. Even so, if something is not shown to have any benefit, and it's harmful in high doses, it WILL be harmful in lower doses.