Many thanks for a very informative and stimulating conversation. I just wanted to add a few points:

1. Large farms or small farms are not inherently good or bad for communitites, environment, stewardship of resources, etc. it’s all how they are managed. I know a large hog producer here in Indiana that raises corn to feed his hogs and uses the hog waste to fertilize his corn, etc. Yes, he has large combines, etc. But he asserts that the quality of the soil, etc. is better since modern farming techniques have been implemented than was the case a few decades ago. I guess the point is that a small or large farm poorly and wastefuly managed can be a net drain on resources.

2. On the other hand, I think that large manufacturing can be more efficient (more output for each unit of input, either labor or raw materials, etc.), this does not automatically translate into better satisfaction of need… Yes, I can get lower cost dishware made in China from Walmart but I cannot get unique designs or high quality ceramics this way. In fact, to say that globalization only supports the mass production of cheap goods ignores the fact that globalization also allows (via Web and worldwide finance and logistics) access to customized, quality produced (or even hand produced) goods from thousands of small producers all over the world. So a small producer of custom-made knives in Indiana can sell them to Tokyo or Berlin. This proliferation of micro-markets for higher quality, unique, smaller producers is an opportunity to help sustain local communities. So let’s be careful about branding globlization the great destroyer of value and community…yes, it can do that, for sure, but it does have some compensating advantages which need to be tapped.

3. Bigger production is not always more sustainable or more resource efficient; it depends on what’s being produced. Amory Lovins, for example, has long argued (persuaively, I believe) that more decnetralized production of energy can be far more efficient for our society as a whole. than building giant poweer generation facilities and wasting half of its power in moving it to end-users.

Thanks again, for such a high quality interaction.

I think you have hit a key idea there with community and corporations. There is no community for a corporation in the long run if it is in the manufacturing industry that last longer than the facility that is used to manufacture.

I have noticed in my wife’s home country that there is urbanization going on a community is being lost there as well. Large cities and suburbs are ultimately the death to community unless you have someone in a local neighborhood trying to keep it going.

I wonder how many people on this blog are still located where they grew up. Mobility + Urbanization = no community.

I suggest there is no such community for such people. Not in any functioning sense. At some point doesnt mobility of people and/or their money (relative to the majority of the populace in any given place, who dont have anywhere near that same degree of mobility) make community, and the accountability only possible within a functioning community, meaningless?

I think Christopher Lasch mentions this in one of his last books.

Thank you for your kind response. I should mention that a large amount of the support for the organization I work for comes from West Texas so I do like the people who live there.

I also would agree that having more does not make people happier and in many cases makes life worse.

I would also add that I too would farm if I could just get things to grow in my garden and not get eaten by insects and squirrels or destroyed by fruit flies. Also the land is way to expensive though recently I have been thinking that I may be able to buy some swamp land and grow rice.

So in reflection we are probably very close to the same opinion on life but we may disagree on the usefulness of large corporate farms when managed properly for the benefit of all of society.

Thanks for your reply. I don’t often have the opportunity to engage in this kind of discussion in the real world, so I appreciate and enjoy your thoughtful points and questions. This is the kind of reasonable conversation that I wish we would see more often from our political pundits and leaders.

While I would acknowledge that it might be technically possible for a corporate farm to be good for the environment, I think that it is pretty rare at this point in time. I’m also not entirely convinced that it is really possible. Many corporate farms are vast monocultures that engage in farming practices that are not good for the soil, and consume high amounts of fossil fuels. As to rural communities, I am really only speaking from my observations here in West Texas. Most rural communities here are heavily reliant on agriculture, and seem to be slowly drying up and blowing away with the topsoil that has been destroyed by excessive cotton cultivation (sorry, I couldn’t resist the poetry of that image.)

I’m sorry, I didn’t adequately express my point. I was not saying that small farming communities are necessarily the best quality of life. As has been made clear in this exchange, quality of life is somewhat subjective. I was merely saying that the fact that people are not all running out and starting small farms or moving to rural environments is not proof that it isn’t a superior quality of life to the one they currently have. That may not have been your point though, and I would not argue with your point that people don’t think this is the highest quality of life. Since I’m sharing my opinion on the subject though, I would say that I believe a simpler way of life is a higher quality of life.

I also did not necessarily mean to say that we should all have only jobs that are 100% enjoyable every day. At some point in time, work is work. I do think that something can be satisfying or fulfilling without always being enjoyable. It sounds like you are very satisfied with your job, which I would say has a greater effect on your true quality of life than the stuff you can buy. It seems like you probably agree with this to some extent, as you mentioned that you had turned down jobs that would almost double your salary.

While I don’t argue that small farms are necessarily the highest quality of life for all, I do see it as being a good quality of life. In answer to your questions -
1. Probably not. I would not argue that there is no point where a lack of goods, money or food starts to have a negative effect on your quality of life. On the other hand, I have a friend who has been working with the Peace Corps in Africa, and he said that he has been amazed at how happy some of the people there are with relatively little material possessions. I think that there is a balance.

2. No, I am not. I am currently working on changing that though. If I had the resources I would be right now. My wife and I don’t want to go into debt to start this endeavor, so for now we wait, save, and do what little “farming” we can do on a small garden plot.

I enjoyed your response and the different perspectives. You responded to my thoughts on large corporate farms with:

“I think that it is not obvious that this makes more sense when you look at the question as a whole. It only makes sense when you view the situation from a single perspective, that of efficiency. It is definitely true that this is more efficient. In my opinion it doesn’t, however, make more sense from the perspective of the environment, or of the person who desires to have a small farm, or from the perspective of developing healthy rural communities.”

We both agreed that corporate farms are more efficient. I would also argue that corporate farms if run for food production and society should also be better for the environment than individual farms. I will acknowledge that as they are usually run (profit motive only) this is not the case but I was looking at corporate farms as they should be run. As for developing healthy rural communities based on farming I would agree that large corporate farms would ruin this. But many rural communities are based on things other than farming. These communities should still work well and provide for the quality of life that those who need rural communities.

I will admit that I got confused in your second to last paragraph regarding small farms. Did I understand you correctly that small farming communities are best quality of life? I am not sure if it is or isn’t. My point was that most people do not think that it is because if most people thought that farming was the best quality of life more people would farm and we would be a nation of small farms. Instead more people look to creature comforts for quality of life, hence chasing the almighty dollar and the goods it can provide.

I am sorry to hear that many people do not do what they enjoy doing for a living. I assume you meant that by your comment “Further, I think that few would argue that what they are currently employed doing represents the highest quality of life”. I would agree with you that as most people do not define highest quality of life with what they do but with what they have.

I must admit that I to a certain extent fall into that category because what I would love to do is go diving every day and as such I should go work for a company that does diving every day like a dive shop. On the other hand I do enjoy my job greatly and have turned down offers that would almost double my salary. I personally would not want to be a small farmer for a living but I would love to have an acre here to farm for food for my family (I did get some tomatoes and watermelons planted this weekend). I do own a small farm overseas but currently it is rented or farms hands are hired to run it (I am not sure which).

So I will ask two questions for those who seem to argue that small farms are the highest quality of life.
1. Do the subsistence farmers in Bangladesh have the highest quality of life?
2. Are you currently a small farmer producing a majority of your family food needs from your farm?

“Large corporations (regardless of their profit [evil] nature) are able to make the best use of resources. It makes more sense (and cost effective) to build one big factory and institute one pollution control system than to build numerous factories with numerous pollution control systems. It makes more sense for a large wheat farm that is 100s of thousands of acres and farmed by 15 people on huge machines than it is the 40 acre farms being farmed by 1000s to get the same yield.”

I think that it is not obvious that this makes more sense when you look at the question as a whole. It only makes sense when you view the situation from a single perspective, that of efficiency. It is definitely true that this is more efficient. In my opinion it doesn’t, however, make more sense from the perspective of the environment, or of the person who desires to have a small farm, or from the perspective of developing healthy rural communities.

“Now for farms and the quality of life. My personal quality of life is watching my attempts to grow vegetables fail, attending church and working Kairos Prison Ministry weekends but I am wise enough to know that I cannot decide what quality of life means for others. My assumption and it may be wrong is that most people currently believe that quality of life is about consumer goods. If it was about farming we would still be a nation of small farmers. I do not believe that there one definition for quality of life for everyone.”

I agree with you completely that there are different things that will define quality of life for different people. I think that you are also correct that most people do define, (mistakenly, I believe) quality of life by consumer goods. I tend to think that a lot of our consumer driven lifestyle could be adequately described in Thoreau’s description of modern inventions as an, “Improved means to an unimproved end”. Further, I think that few would argue that what they are currently employed doing represents the highest quality of life, so your argument that we would be a nation of small farmers if that was the best quality of life isn’t necessarily supported logically.

I have enjoyed reading the comments on this post and have learned a great deal and look forward to expanding my reading list based on some of the writers mentioned here. I’m thankful for this forum to be exposed to some very intelligent and thoughtful writers.

I am thankful I was allowed to participate and I look forward to learning from those who are able to spend more time on these issues. I think it is minds like yours and and the other writers on this blog when properly expressed will move the country/society to make responsible and well reasoned choices. I look forward to what you all say. =)

I’m writing not to push our exchange further (not right now anyway!), but just to say that I think your questions and challenges are a great contribution to the serious discussion we’re trying to have here. This is a medium that invites hasty expression of thoughts that need careful articulation, and you’re a model of patience in reading and responding.

Glad to have you on the porch.

I should state that I read you post on this blog “The Human Meaning of Poverty”. I will admit that I am still trying to get my hands around what is being said there but I plan to reread it many time so I fully understand.

On your point that corporations encourage evil because there is no personal connection is well stated and cannot really be argued against. I would still state while corporations encourage evil, the evil must be done by a person making the choices. I would use ATT at the beginning of this century. It was harassed by Wall Street but the CEO said he would do things the right way. ATT is still here while many of their competitors who were the darlings of Wall Street are not. It is the CEOs after the quick return (and their own large bonuses) not the corporations that are doing the evil.

I would also argue that the real value in a corporation is not the value that a stock is trading at. The real value is how good or bad it is making the best use of resources available to produce goods and services.

Now for farms and the quality of life. My personal quality of life is watching my attempts to grow vegetables fail, attending church and working Kairos Prison Ministry weekends but I am wise enough to know that I cannot decide what quality of life means for others. My assumption and it may be wrong is that most people currently believe that quality of life is about consumer goods. If it was about farming we would still be a nation of small farmers. I do not believe that there one definition for quality of life for everyone.

On the other hand large farms do use the least amount of resources to produce the largest return on products. It seems to me the responsible course is to leave more natural resources for our Grandchildren so they can decide what quality of life means to them. It may mean they want to have small farms and they will then have the option of arranging it or it could mean even a larger avarice for consumer goods.

It is already the case in the current course of things that our grandchildren will have less because we want more today. I can’t see how this will not result from the position Brett is defending, of prioritizing the availability of abundant consumer goods premised on international transport.

I flat out disagree with Brett on two points. One is that corporations are only as evil as those who run them. The very structure of the corporation encourages evil, if evil is the willing participation in the destruction of what is good. Someone has stock in Hershey, which is a mainstay of its hometown. Profits at Hershey stagnate for a few years. This person and 100 others (or their fund managers without consulting them) sell their stock in preference for something marginally more profitable. They end up earning an extra $50 a year and Hershey, because of the law of supply and demand for stocks, lays off 50 people to shore up its efficiency. It is precisely when people sever their connection to the business that they most influence its decisions, and CEOs repeatedly tell us they have no choice, because this is the way the market works As I said before, the acquiescence to evil is the norm, and it takes extraordinary vision and courage to resist for good ends.

The second point I disagree on is that it is better for a few people and machines to farm large tracts than for a lot of people to farm small tracts. (Part of the reason for this disagreement is explained in the last part of my post.) Admittedly, it is (in some ways) better in terms of short term efficiency — having more now — but not in terms of long term sustainability — enabling our children to have as much. But it is not at all better in terms of quality of life, unless you measure quality of life in terms of consumer goods (which seems what is implied in Brett’s argument). Moreover, small diversified farms produce less waste than large monoculture operations.

Therefore I assume that the discussion of distributism is really looking at distributism in the USA. Here is where I believe that distributism in today’s world will fail. As we redistribute the property (and wealth) in this country through whatever means whether it is political or societal or both and reduce the size of corporations we reduce our purchasing power. The cost of raw commodities will go up. As we buy raw materials at a higher price our ability to produce items will fall. While a big corporation will purchase raw materials for 10 items, a small business can only buy enough for 8 at the same price. This results in the end with a net loss of 2 items. This is lost wealth to overseas companies who will continue to be able to buy at better prices and make the 10. Without protective tariffs the consumer buying the same product would pay more for the one manufactured locally. If the quality is better that makes sense but in most cases the quality will be the same. The local population would then have to decide to live with less to buy the local product. “Buy American” as we have seen does not work that well. Using the auto industry as an example most believe that foreign cars are better made than American cars even though the price is about the same.

Here is one of the conundrums of globalization. Do we think it is smart or wise for people to buy more expensive products that are not better quality? If we decide to level out the playing field by using tariffs we are always going to be punishing someone locally as we help someone else. The tariff issue before the US civil war was so bad that some historians identify it as one of the key contributing factors to that war. Also with tariffs we have the government deciding who gets helped and who doesn’t. This does not leave us much different than today with the government deciding what is saved through bailouts and other laws. I personally do not believe that Attorney’s are the best for making these decisions.

This leaves us with two choices if we leave the globalized marketplace which it seems is what Mark Mitchell is suggesting with his choice for human freedom. One we slowly lose wealth over time as we are able to produce less and less and cannot compete in the world marketplace as our products become more expensive but in many cases will not have a quality factor to make them purchasable. As time goes on this means that our grandchildren will not have the economic means to maintain our lifestyles. I do not want my grandchildren to have less because I want more today.

The other choice is that we let the US government decide what industries it wants to promote through subsidies or tariffs. This is not much different than what we have today where the US government makes those decisions. I have assumed that we were looking for a change from our present problems versus just a redistribution of wealth so I have not really addressed this issue much.

It seems that distributist have tried to simplify the problem to a era in history when we were not so globalized. When trading was not really done between countries as it is today. When earlier that it was not so easy to buy things from overseas but instead you bought what the merchants thought would give the largest return. Today even as a small business person (and I am one) I will buy from overseas for the same product I get here if it is the same quality and the price is better.

Large corporations (regardless of their profit [evil] nature) are able to make the best use of resources. It makes more sense (and cost effective) to build one big factory and institute one pollution control system than to build numerous factories with numerous pollution control systems. It makes more sense for a large wheat farm that is 100s of thousands of acres and farmed by 15 people on huge machines than it is the 40 acre farms being farmed by 1000s to get the same yield. The issue that I think many are trying to solve is that because corporations are usually only interested in profits they eventually cause more problems than they are worth to society. History does not seem to really support this idea as recessions and depressions have always been a problem in history even before corporations became so large. Corporations are only as evil as those who run them.

So that leads to the issue of the rise of the federated state in the USA. This issue is not an economic issue but a political issue and your solution (if it needs one) to it depends on your view of the cause/rise in our federated state. I personally believe that the federated states always comes from people wanting more security. People as a general rule give up their rights for security as we have seen after 9/11 in this country. As time goes on the government becomes more consolidated and takes on even more power. Eventually the government gets to the stage where it is becoming a controlling factor in our daily lives. From here it moves to a dictatorship serving the needs of only a few citizens while most citizens have given up their rights. Finally a revolution happens and a new government is set up. This revolution could be violent (as China appears to be headed for) or non-violent and even led by an individual (I will use Teddy Roosevelt for this example).

As this cycle moves in a circle there is no one spot that is correct. There is no perfect solution for all time/situations. There may be good solutions for the problems today (and maybe a quick visit to distributism would be a nice revolution) but those solutions will not deal with the issues we have tomorrow and looking for a final solution (a one shoe fits all) will limit man’s ability to innovate to move forward (or backwards as the case may be).