Government and Our LibertiesEssay Preview: Government and Our LibertiesReport this essayThere is a want, and even a need, inside everyone to be able to articulate their individuality. Some may want to prove how different they can be from the world, while others might just be trying their best to fit in. Either way, no one wants someone telling them what they can and cannot do in order to achieve their self-satisfaction. While the American philosophy defines the common good as being fundamentally and principally the sum of all individuals acting voluntarily for their own good, there comes a time when one can no longer act alone but must act cooperatively with the government. While requiring a loss of some personal liberties, the government is put in place to ultimately protect from the dangers of self-interest while still affording the community as a whole to pursue collective happiness.
Being absorbed in the enjoyment of private independence and in the pursuit of our particular interests causes the essentially good man to become corrupt. In 1972 President Nixon and his staff were caught breaking and entering into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate complex. It was revealed that President Nixon had a tape recording system in his offices and that he had recorded many conversations. The FBI connected the payments to the burglars to a slush fund used by a fundraising group for the Nixon campaign. President Nixon acted in his own person interest by spying on the Democratic Party. He pleaded guilty and was removed from office. Those who helped him were sentenced to punishment in multiple trials. With this example it is relevant that there needed to be an organized government, which is consented by the people, to rule over the natural corrupt man to ensure equality and protection of our liberties. It is natural for a man to become corrupt, but with a government in place we are granted the security and protection needed. Having a structured government where laws and institutions govern rather than man ultimately protects from the danger of corrupt individuals.
The government in which we live by is designed to help inspire us to live like we should. They are there to help regulate, provide, and maintain for our nation. There should be a sense of partnership between the government and citizens. In the 1980s, the Reagan administration proposed major cuts to farm subsidies, but farm finances were in bad shape at the time, which prompted Congress to increase farm support. While farmers represent a smaller share of the population today than in the 1930s, the farm lobby is as strong as ever. In 1996, Congress finally enacted some pro-market agriculture reforms under the “Freedom to Farm” law. The law allowed farmers greater flexibility in their planting decisions and moved toward greater reliance on market supply and demand. Farms give us food we need, help the economy, and provide jobs. The governmental action taken helps people operate their farms efficiently
The Reagan law’s intent was to force the government to subsidize all food costs which they deemed noncompetitive. They went to great lengths to do this. They included in the bill the $14 billion reduction in the USDA’s USDA Food and Agriculture Production Trust Fund for food, and increased subsidies for public goods to help farmers control the food supply. The government also increased the minimum wage in food and worked toward eliminating other regulations which had a negative impact on the economy. But, for many voters it is easier for the government to create new jobs than it is for farmers to grow produce, produce, or produce produce.
The government has no incentive to create new jobs or to encourage production and use of food because it does not currently control costs.
It is illegal to buy or sell a farm’s produce, so the farmer is paying for the produce. The U.S. taxpayer also has no incentive to create new jobs, a system that will only increase competition once a farmer’s farm comes on the road to a higher price. This practice is especially unpopular in the U.S. where it has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in job losses each year and is the only economic benefit a farmer can get from its plant orchard.
The government also restricts farmers from growing crops with high yields, particularly in heavy rains. Despite this, the government has set up numerous large, government supported organic and small/medium production farms. In some cases, these government funded farming operations are actually subsidized by taxpayers, and the taxpayer pays the farmers. Many farmers do not even have a home as a part of a big farm. This system only makes the problem worse.
Farmers who plant crops with high yield and low demand pay a higher premium for their land and resources. This is particularly true in rural areas with low or no access to water. The vast majority of crops produce well when water is plentiful. There is no incentive for this.
Farmers who don’t grow their crops with high yields and low production risk are less susceptible to severe drought, flooding, and flooding. The Government is unable to control agricultural supply without damaging it or disrupting the economy.
Farmers are also much less likely to experience a major economic downturn. This is especially true of crop production. In the 1980s, the U.S. Government had no incentive to increase production to meet anticipated growth in consumer demand. This was because demand was so low. At the time the Government decided to go with a lower yield in the 1970s, food had already been shipped home from several U.S. farms. Now, with reduced U.S. agricultural production capacity, the Government’s emphasis on farm production has moved on agriculture to meet future demand.
Farmers who plant their crops with poor yield and high profit margins pay a premium for their farm resources. This is especially true of organic agriculture. The Government’s actions create thousands of acres of highly productive land where there are no landowner-owned farms. In most cases, the government only subsidizes producers through farmers. There are no benefits to farmers from producing less produce from produce which is not produced from farming.
Farmers have no one to blame but themselves for the fact that they are not well paid and suffer a significant environmental impact that affects their land, water, or human health. Without any incentive to do otherwise, farmers are harmed by reduced production yields, high demand for water, disease, and higher pollution from sources like hazardous chemicals, fertilizers, and pesticides.
Why are so many farmers still paying for their land? To try to attract more money to the farm. Many farmers are willing