Should centralized food production be run by governments ?

UncleBuck said:
you'd need at least two acres optimized to the point of impossibility just to feed one person for a year, pedo.
Click to expand...

Even if what you say were accurate, it's not an all or nothing proposal.

For instance, if a person could produce a 1/4 of what they eat it would be empowering.

Curious where you came up with the two acre figure too.

Anyway it sure is funny how fast you liberal forced socialism types run away when a failed socialist state like Venezuela is pointed out to you.
 
I grew up on a large working farm and I don't think some of you realize what's involved in maintaining a farm with the ability to sustain even one or two large families. Its not like a pot growing hobby FFS, LOL.
 
Rob Roy said:
Even if what you say were accurate, it's not an all or nothing proposal.

For instance, if a person could produce a 1/4 of what they eat it would be empowering.
Click to expand...

But they would be 3/4 dead. (or lacking nutrition) 2 acres is about right without protein.
 
Rob Roy said:
The existence of a bureaucracy which purports to do a thing, does not provide evidence that the thing is done. Nor does it provide evidence that you should be forced to pay for it, if you don't use it and don't want it. Also, any regulatory agency which exists as a monopoly (government) will encourage bribes and poor performance, because they have no fear of being replaced and can arbitrarily set the standards they enforce. Ahem...DEA, FDA, and probably some others come to mind.

Would you consider the aggregate of a group of consumers and their feedback a kind of "regulatory body" ? I would.

For instance, if I had a pot seed company and made claims about the weed that consumers found out were wildly off base in a bad way (say my product really sucked) about how successful do you think my company would be ?
Click to expand...
See "Advanced Nutrients"...aaaaaand your point died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top