Joel Salatin: Why America Needs a ‘Food Emancipation Proclamation’
|
Time
Text
We need a a food emancipation proclamation.
And and and so I'm I'm not an abolitionist.
I disagree with some of my friends in this that we want to outlaw Monsanto, we want to outlaw glyphosate, outlaw ractopamine in pork, all you know, I don't like that stuff either.
But when you look for solutions in a society, we we you know a culture's got a problem.
Asking for a regulatory solution is is the worst option possible.
Yeah, you want a market solution.
That's what you're asking.
Exactly.
Yeah, yeah.
You you you want a liberty solution.
You want can we solve this with freedom?
So I'm not interested in being an abolitionist necessarily.
What I do want is a viable underground railroad.
So that those of us who want to escape the shackles of the of the regulatory system and and take ownership of our of our food choices can do so.
And if we did, the the price of local food would drop by 30 or 40 percent.
Um so suddenly now really good food is available to non-wealthy people.
Food deserts would go away because empty lots could be turned into you know food things and people could make food in their kitchens and um and and and and offer it there in the community, then there would be an on ramp for thousands and thousands of young farmers with small acreages to be able to make a full-time living on their farm.
There isn't really a danger to this large scale farming system through this, is there?
It doesn't feel it feels to me like some something that can work side by side and it's a little reverse.
And it'll help and it'll help them because it will you know kind of challenge them to become better in ways that maybe they're not being challenged right now.
But they don't want to be challenged to be better.
Like my point is you don't you're you don't need to create the regulations to stop the big farms from doing what they're doing.
You don't need to do anything.
Let them do let them do their thing.
Just let these people do their thing.
Food buyers would leave the industrial system in mass if alternatives were cheaper, more available, and more abundant.
Well now, but now you're telling me why they should be scared.
And they should be.
They which is why they don't want this to happen.
Right.
If they admit a lot of people are gonna a lot of people are gonna buy from these guys, then you have to admit there is a yearning in the marketplace for this that you're stopping.
Yeah.
Right.
And so, you know, they tend to want to eliminate I think they want it simple.
They've got a system, they've got it going, they don't want trouble.
You know, they've got a good steady stream of cash.
Yeah, you know, I but you know, then this is disruptive, as Uber obviously was all sorts of.
Oh, look at look at the chauffeur industry and how they how they um were you know well in the medallions in New York City and on all of this, right?
So so it's disruptive, but but at the same time, I think it would be very positive, right, for everybody.
Oh well, it would be positive.
If you really had a liberty-centric system, who wins and who loses.
All right.
Who wins?
Well, the average person wins.
Um farmers who want to participate win.
Who loses?
Well, maybe people aren't as sick anymore, so hospitals lose.
Um people are gonna choose chicken that's not Tyson's, so Tyson loses.
It's the the entrenched oligarchy, frankly, that loses in a free market system.
The ones that win are the ones that offer opportunity and choice.
I would argue that these large scale operations that are you know, sort of deep deep in the system and and you know, providing the food to America as we speak.
I mean, it would help them to get better.
And I think that's positive.
Absolutely.
Oh, I do too.
I mean, yeah, philosophically, absolutely.
If they were suddenly pressured by a hundred thousand little little competitors, we would see changes very fast.
This is really the best part of capitalism, isn't it?