EC:
Do you really think that the pleasure of hunting, for instance, is worse than the mass exploitation of animals in a factory farmed situation? Is it somehow "unnatural" to feel some pleasure in a successful hunt, when it is truly providing for ones self and family? I don't (nor do I hunt). I truly believe sustainable hunting, gathering, fishing and agriculture to be morally superior to factory farming, stripping the oceans for profit and large scale agri-business that has displaced such activities.I am not trying to tell anyone how much meat they can eat. I am ADVOCATING eating less of it, and pointing out the cruelties and injustices of the current methods. I believe there are better solutions than are employed by the current system based on greed.
Stu:
: It's true that people are removed from the more visceral aspects of life. What do you propose to do about it - turn back time?
EC:
Why do people always equate visceral aspects (i.e. "real life") with an evolution of time? What has "time" got to do with such things? Does not rain still fall from the sky? Does not food still come from the ground as a result? People who do not understand what I stand for often use this "time" question. I only look back in time to learn the lessons of their successes and follies. I prefer to look to the future. Rain will still come from the sky, and food will still grow from the ground (provided today's folly does not ruin this gift). I am only debating how should we get food from the field to the table. Should it "belong" to the highest bidder? The group with the most guns? Or should we fairly and equally decide? Is it fair for a small minority to withhold food from hungry people in order to get this hungry mass to do tricks for them and wait on the minority hand and foot? I don’t believe so.
Stu:
Do you wish to discourage eating anything you didn't kill yourself? Does that extend to wives who eat their husband's kill? How about the kids? If you can't draw the line at immediate family, where will you draw it? If you can't draw it anywhere you must accept that society has regulated it's self on this issue.
EC:
Do you think "society" has a voice in the matter now? The regulations concerning this have been established firmly by those who profit from the current system of mass production, consumption and exploitation. “Society” has only to accept what the establishment tells them to. I propose a system where everyone has a voice, not every dollar has a voice. If you believe society has “regulated” itself on this issue, what about other issues? Do you think society has “regulated” itself on every issue?
Stu:
: I wouldn't want to imply that it is "underclass" to butcher and package
: meat for a living. Or that it serves only the upper class. Everyone in the social order eats meat. If you're not careful, you'll get your way and the "underclass" will lose it's job. Ponder that.
EC:
You seem to be stuck in the relative comfort of the US, where most people do eat meat (at the expense of the world’s poor. I would say that relatively speaking, the “dirty work” at the slaughterhouse is done by the lower paid (and harder working; funny how that works) workers. The wealthier you are, the less likely you will get blood on your hands (and the more likely you are to cause blood to run; funny how that works, too!).
: Stu:
: How much land is too much? Who is going to decide that issue? Are
: you? The people who own no land now have a prospect to own land. There is PLENTY of it for sale, like you say. No one will appreciate what they have unless it is earned. No system of wisdom or ethics has ever said otherwise except yours - which has never worked in practice.
EC:
Again, you assume the world’s poor can afford a 2 acre parcel in Arlington, Washington for $75,000, if only they would just work a little harder! Here in our home state of Washington, Weyerhaeuser “owns” more land than anyone or any other entity. You are truly out of touch with the real patterns of ownership of land, but then you would have to be to support the current system. I know you would not do it out of malice, as I believe you are sincerely concerned with humanity.
: Stu:
: When does something stop being small and become big? Who is going to
: decide this issue? You? Great! MicroManagingMike!
EC:
When it stops being accountable to the public good. Corporations were originally formed for this purpose only. Have you ever heard me say, “Mike for dictator?” I support democratic accountability. If we decide to have a “large” undertaking, it should be democratic.
Stu:
There are people working in government who have spent far more time studying food growing and handling than you or I. If you can't defer to their judgment on this because you perceive them to be collaborators with "big" interests, tell me why millions of pounds of hamburger are pulled from the market because of a POSSIBILITY of e-coli.
EC:
They are indeed collaborators with the big interests. They are hired by them (supported in “elections”) and focus not on nutrition and health, but on storage ability and uniformity in appearance for marketing. I will NEVER defer to their judgment, as it has been proven wrong time after time after time. Archer Daniels Midland is who they work for, not Joe Farmer.
Stu:
With respect to additives and such, It may be that these things affect quality but, who is going to determine quality? You? The market will determine what it wants without your help.
EC:
Just like the market decided cigarettes were safe for decades? (When the tobacco plant itself is alot less harmful than the mass produced and additive laden cancer-sticks, whose true health problems were suppressed for profit!!!) Why can people NOW see through RJR, but not NABISCO?? Its the same thing! (They told us that smoking would make us "Alive with pleasure!")
: Stu:
: If every person had an equal share of it, would that seem fair to you?
: It seems to me that freedom requires the possibility and the inevitability of unequal distribution.
EC:
(Year of jubilee notwithstanding)
Stu:
Every one of my comments were geared toward showing that you and your philosophy will get in between a person and his freedom. I value freedom way beyond any notion of "economic justice".
EC:
I equate them. There can be no justice without freedom, nor freedom without justice. Economic or otherwise.
Mike, The Everett Citizen
