This article is reprinted by permission from the January 5, 1978 issue of the Montana Farmer-Stockman, of which Mr. Cade is Montana Editor.
The current farm "strike" is an expression of frustration over low farm prices. No doubt about it, farm prices are low, farm expenses are high and the result is desperation. Economic security is flimsy, unpredictable, as changeable as the weather.
All of agriculture is now on front and center stage as the strike makes headlines in magazines and newspapers and on TV and radio. The 200 million plus audience wonders what is going on, what is causing all the concern. If viewers are impressed, the strike could turn out to be a plus; if viewers get disgusted, the strike could turn out to be a liability for all of agriculture.
Participants hope for results in the form of better prices. But is there a chance of this happening? And if the whole incident turns out to be a badly engineered dream, to where does the credibility of the American farmer go?
Meetings around Montana have been emotional. Very little has been presented in the form of basic questions or of basic answers. Since the strike strategy is so new for agriculture, there are many questions that should be faced squarely.
Strike leaders want 100 per cent of parity and their focal point is President Carter and Secretary Bergland. And the questions start coming. Since when is Uncle Sam in a position to determine the full price of a commodity—and pay it too? Since when is Uncle Sam to serve as a substitute for the market place? How does the message from the strikers to Congress and the President compare to the message of the farm organizations which have been concerned for years and years about farm prices?
One leader in Montana agriculture asked the writer recently, "Where were these people when we needed them?"
Presumably everyone involved in agriculture believes in private enterprise, which exists on the assumption that opportunity and risk go together. Are strikers asking for government to take the risk, but leave the opportunity to individual hands? Will the result be one step closer to government taking over all of agriculture?
Another agricultural leader commented to the writer, "What ever happened to the right to go broke?"
Is there a possibility that the focus of the strike is on the wrong topic at the wrong time? Could it be that excesses of the federal government are the real culprit, and just now we are forcing a late payment out of the farm sector?
Excesses of the federal government have been enormous and continuing right up to the farmstead office where the books are maintained. The list of excesses is long and frightening. We are now a half-trillion dollars in debt—$60 billion more this year alone. Before election, candidates talk about balancing the budget—but they never get serious after election. The Social Security system is a rip-off of the first magnitude because it is basically a welfare program. There is absolutely no proof that the past government farm program, or the present farm program, will help agriculture one tiny bit, yet government continues to give this impression.
Government is out of control with all of its controls—the new federal estate tax law is considered by many an outright fraud—it is far worse than the old law, yet was enacted as "reform."
Could it be that the problem is really the federal government with all its excesses, and that the real problem is being bypassed, ignored, not recognized?
More questions. If the strike movement is successful in getting $5 wheat, then who gets to sell? And who doesn’t? And what then will be the price for the individual who doesn’t get to sell?
If $5 wheat reduces consumption—and a higher price always does—then what price for additional bushels that might be produced? American agriculture has an enormous capacity to respond to higher prices. The price of grain right now is without a doubt a direct result of the last time wheat went to $5. Even at the present $3, the market doesn’t want all that grain. How much less will the market want at $5? And then what is the price of grain when some is sold at $5 and some not at all?
If picketing actually stops the flow of agricultural commodities, could the situation be made worse instead of better? For example, assume that picketing stops the flow of beef, a very perishable product. Producers will keep the beef off the market at an increased cost. Sooner or later the beef will have to enter the market with a rush. Every farmer knows that a rush on the market means lower prices.
Or take grain. Suppose the strike prevents wheat from getting into export channels. Buyers don’t have to buy their grain from us; there are other sources. So they go elsewhere. Which leaves more, not less, grain in the U.S. without a market. Could the strike, if effective, make matters worse instead of better?
Has the law of supply and demand been repealed? Some strike leaders say the law isn’t working now. If it isn’t working, then how can it be that as more bushels of grain are produced the price goes down? Or, as demand increases, as it did when the price went to $5, the price went up? Or as the beef supply increased, the price went down? Or as there was a demand for animals a few years ago, that the price of beef went way up? Some get the idea that the law of supply and demand is working as it should for agriculture, but that it isn’t working in other segments of the economy. Not so.
Headline—"25,000 steel workers out of work because foreigners will produce it for less."
Headline —"Foreign cars take a greater share of the market." Headline —"Fewer Americans now belong to unions."
In some situations, the law works slowly, in some more rapidly. But as far as anyone knows, the law has not been repealed, and is still working. More questions: Is it to be assumed that the market must take all of the production of an industry at a stated price whether it wants it or not? If striking farmers can somehow cause the market place to take their products at 100 per cent of parity, then do the same rules apply to producers of toothpicks and fencing pliers? If Rule A states that in private enterprise the market has to take all of a commodity at 100 per cent of parity, then presumably, it would apply to both farmers and producers of toothpicks and fencing pliers.
Or is the market place the best place to determine how much of a commodity should be produced? The farm strike has all the earmarks of (1) assuming that the law of supply and demand has been repealed, (2) asking government to take over agriculture even though this is not the view of many producers, (3) ignoring the basic purpose of the market place which determines, through price, how much of a commodity will be produced, (4) making the situation worse instead of better by ignoring so many of the basic forces at work.
The selling price of farm commodities is the problem that stares the farm bookkeeper in the face. But it isn’t the basic problem. The basic problem is the excesses of the federal government that has over-spent and promoted rapid inflation; deceived the farm population into thinking that government can do things it can’t do; legislated an economy with unfair advantages and disadvantages. Legislators in Washington should be hearing the reason for low farm prices, not just the story that prices are low. Sooner or later the bills have to be paid, and American agriculture is now paying the bills for the past excesses of the government.
***
No Special Privileges
In the limited government society, where government gives no special privileges or subsidies, but confines itself to defending personal freedom and the right of private property, men will naturally form voluntary associations where group effort is more efficacious than solitary action. Voluntary associations do, then, indeed make prodigious contributions to the progress of mankind. They diversify, enrich, harmonize, and stabilize society. In a regime of unlimited government, however, strong private associations expend their effort in a quest for special privilege and advantage. Disguised anarchy, large-scale power structures, and chaos are the necessary long-run consequences.
The fundamental duty of the state in a free society is to prevent any person or group from infringing on the rights of others. Failing to perform this task—and our government is today failing to perform it—the modern state is guilty of the most profoundly damaging dereliction of duty. Instead of being the servant of the community, it becomes a co-conspirator against the community. Instead of waging unceasing war against the enemies of society, it joins with them in a league of mutual assistance against society.
SYLVESTER PETRO, "The Perversion of Pluralism"