Illegal Mexican

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Price controls lead to higher prices. Canadians pay more for milk and dairy products than Americans. Price control also depends on high tariffs against foreign dairy products. The Tariffs not only eliminate the competition which could severely hurt Canadian dairy farmers, but they constrict the quantity and variety of dairy products, including cheese able to be sold to Canadian consumers. And the small Canadian farms have actually greatly decreased. The Canadian dairy cartel protects its existing members from competition, so the idea that American dairy farmers can easily move their farms to Canada is not viable for many. Both American and Canadian small dairy farmers have lost numbers to larger mechanized producers who are the greater threat to the small farms.

So if you think price controls and tariffs rather than free market are the way to go, be prepared for high prices, limited quantity and variety and lack of competition. Which all, of course, lead to the larger, more efficient farm models--you know, the corporatist model that you don't like.

Here's a negative Canadian view:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/w...and-cheese-867

You forgot the illegal immigrant farm workers that enable the corporate business model, no farm is close to highly mechanized. I've been to enough 1000+ cow dairies to know that.

[Pete F.]

Here's an article about the dilemma in VT.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/...t?oid=14631009
Towns that had a school, store, fire department, library and church are empty now.
They used to have 30 farms and now they rent their land.
Sorry but i think rural america and the rural landscape is worth our investment as a society.

[Sea Dangles]

They are all switching over to cannabis.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You forgot the illegal immigrant farm workers that enable the corporate business model, no farm is close to highly mechanized. I've been to enough 1000+ cow dairies to know that.

I didn't forget the illegals. I'm not going to mention them in every post I make. I have repeatedly and consistently been against illegals, for the wall, strengthening border enforcement, strengthening immigration policy, import immigrants who are likely to be compatible with Western and U.S. values, keep numbers related to actual need not artificially created need resulting from social policies that make it viable, even attractive, for Americans to refuse to "do the work that immigrants will", and against the illegal immigration that provides cheap labor at the expense of American workers, blah, blah, blah. And responses to any of us who want that is that we are racists.

Big Agra as well as big dairy farms can still produce more product economically than small farms, even if does not employ illegals.

You had a simplistic solution for the disappearing small dairy farm in America. I pointed out that the problem was not that simple and that your Canadian solution of price supports has unintended negative consequences that can make your solution regressive. You didn't answer that.

[Pete F.]

Milk could cost more
We make plenty of cheese
Big ag is not a good thing, have you seen the difference between a group of 80 cow farms and a 1600 cow farm? There are esthetic, environmental and social impacts that are significant.
Cheap is rarely best
You can build all the walls you want and people will still come if they can do better here, there is plenty of air and water. Perhaps you could build a wall at the north also.
I suppose you could round them up and shoot them, that might deter them, but given our constitution that is pretty unlikely.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's an article about the dilemma in VT.
https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/...t?oid=14631009
Towns that had a school, store, fire department, library and church are empty now.
They used to have 30 farms and now they rent their land.
Sorry but i think rural america and the rural landscape is worth our investment as a society.

You mean the rural landscape of the past? Would that "investment" be at the expense of others who wouldn't be able to live on large, rural, romantically bucolic properties? Should society (i.e. government) invest in saving all the landscapes that please you? Do you want us to "invest" in the actual values that created rural America? Are you essentially a classical liberal rather than a Progressive? You seem to be conflicted. You value Progressive policies that distribute wealth "equitably" by force of government planning or fiat, but want to inequitably distribute public wealth in greater amounts to landscapes that you think worthy of preserving.

Progress is busy throwing your landscapes into the dust bin of history. I suppose protecting and preserving your landscapes could be done in an egalitarian manner by making your rural landscapes government property, sorts of government historical museums or parks which hire workers to keep the places going and who are paid an equitable government distributed wage. These could be partially supported by fees visitors, tourists, pay to enter and admire these parks to see how it used to be.

[wdmso]

estimated the cost of illegal immigration is around $3.3 billion annually.



Ice is spending 3.6 billion to send some back


11.4 million illegal immigrants live in the United States

The right says banning Guns wont stop gun violence

But building a wall will stop murders by illegal immigrants i guess highly educated people know best

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You mean the rural landscape of the past? Would that "investment" be at the expense of others who wouldn't be able to live on large, rural, romantically bucolic properties? Should society (i.e. government) invest in saving all the landscapes that please you? Do you want us to "invest" in the actual values that created rural America? Are you essentially a classical liberal rather than a Progressive? You seem to be conflicted. You value Progressive policies that distribute wealth "equitably" by force of government planning or fiat, but want to inequitably distribute public wealth in greater amounts to landscapes that you think worthy of preserving.

Progress is busy throwing your landscapes into the dust bin of history. I suppose protecting and preserving your landscapes could be done in an egalitarian manner by making your rural landscapes government property, sorts of government historical museums or parks which hire workers to keep the places going and who are paid an equitable government distributed wage. These could be partially supported by fees visitors, tourists, pay to enter and admire these parks to see how it used to be.

What is important to you?
Freedom at what cost?
You will never be totally free to do as you please in this world unless you live on an island by yourself and create your own little world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

What is important to you?

I don't think you care about what is important to me. You don't listen well to all the words I've expressed on this forum including many responses to you. If you did, you would have at least an inkling about what is important to me.

Are you asking this as a deflection from dealing with what I said above? I would welcome an actual discussion on those words, but I don't care to talk about all the many things that are important to me, except that I care very much to have an honest back and forth discussion about political subjects on this forum.


Freedom at what cost?

I have explicitly stated what I consider freedom to be several times on this forum. As Spence would say, "it's in the archives." I don't feel like repeating it again. It takes a good faith effort to do it and to listen and understand it. I don't have the energy nor the motivation to try to convince you of what I mean by freedom. Mostly because I don't think it would strike a cord with you. If you had read it in one of my previous posts, which I suspect you have, you wouldn't have asked "at what cost?".

My understanding of freedom is not burdened with notions of cost in material or pecuniary senses--although there was a terrible cost in blood and treasure to create political freedom and pass it down to us Americans. One cost of securing that freedom is "eternal vigilance." That vigilance requires that we protect and defend the Constitution of the United States--especially now that it is being destroyed from within. That costs the time and effort to understand its structure and how it is supposed to "work." Then it costs the time and effort to understand how it is being undermined and by whom. And to spend that time and effort to defeat those who are doing it and support those who are fighting against them.

If we can win that battle (a cost), pleasant rural landscapes along with a free market and many other blessings will not be threatened. Rather they will flourish.

You will never be totally free to do as you please in this world unless you live on an island by yourself and create your own little world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obviously, "freedom" has meaning only in a social context. Without other people, verbal language, words, would not exist. My definition of "freedom" (check the archives if you wish) is entirely dependent on other people, on a society of people.

[Sea Dangles]

Ice should hire more employees to rid the illegals and make our once great country safe again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Ice should hire more employees to rid the illegals and make our once great country safe again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ice should rids us of priests. send them back to italy so our children can be safe again...

[Sea Dangles]

Agreed,but let’s start with Illegal Mexicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device