Agstar's Answer

[Kodiak]

Agstar, you didn't answer in the other thread. I thought I'd start a new one. I hope you respond this time so that maybe we can all focus on your ideas and understand the reasoning behind your positions.

We all need to understand your mindset.

When it comes to doing business as a farmer, specifically when it comes to buying our inputs or selling our production through a cooperative approach, do you believe in:

A. Voluntary participation
B. Forced participation

If you would, please briefly elaborate on your answer. If you can give proven examples of where it has worked better (than the alternative) for everyone in the cooperative, that would be helpful.

[agstar77]

Maybe in you should ask the Dairy farmers or the egg producers, that question. Ask if they want to give up there marketing control.

[just_wondering]

I'll pick dairy farmers in New Zealand
Off the gov't teat, Kicking A__ and taking names all over the Dairy world.

[silverback]

still didn't answer the pretty simple question.

If that is supposed to be an answer, how do you propose instituting supply management for the grain industry?

I am pretty sure they will lay criminal charges against people that don't want to adhere to the quota system also.

I seem to be detecting a theme here...

[tower]

Themes, like democracy working, unless it isn't doing what you think it should and then of course it isn't working.

Just out of curiousity how would democracy work in Kodiaks little world? would there ever be a need to force anyone to adhere to the laws of the land?

[Kodiak]

We might get there eventually.

Maybe to get the discussion going - Agstar, would there be a difference between the established dairy and egg producers on one hand, and people wanting to get into the business on the other? I'm thinking especially of young people, probably without a lot of capital, but with ambition, knowledge, and a desire to produce high value food products.

And just a quick, simple second question - Do you think existing poultry and dairy producers need the system they have, and if so, is it because of capitalized rights to be in the business?

[agstar77]

If the test is ,are they prosperous, seems to work for them.

[Kodiak]

Tower,

I don't want to ignore your question. I have a fairly broad perspective on democracy. It is a system where laws are laws, and where manadatory adherance to the rule law is - the rule of law.

It also recognizes that minorities have rights.

In my democratic world, the ultimate authority is the constitution. The constitution (created by the citizens) sets out the ground rules for the democracy, and how people will democratically govern themselves.

For example, Government agencies and departments should carry out the elected government's mandate and policies. The tail should not wag the dog. If an agency or institution is created by an Act of Parliament, for example, it should carry out its duties and mandate until those duties or mandate are changed by the government.

No government agency should be above the government that created it. When its time for a change it should be up to the democratically elected government to make the change, not up to the agency. I can't imagine, for example, that Revenue Canada would be allowed to set taxation rates. That would be the tail wagging the dog. But they can enforce taxation laws and regulations, and collect taxes.

I can't imagine the Department of National Defence deciding when and where to go to war. But I can imagine them carrying out measures as set out by elected government.

I can't imagine the RCMP making traffic laws. I can imagine them enforcing them.

That's how things are in my little world Tower.

[Kodiak]

OK Agstar, so you seem to want to answer a question with a question. But I'll keep trying - and so there aren't too many questions for you all at once, I'll just wait for your answer to silver's question. It's a practical one.

How would you go about setting up and running supply management in grain?

[dalek]

Maybe the difference is that under supply management, prices delivered to producers are HIGHER than they are under the "free market" to the south of us.

Just an off-the-wall thought that occurred to me. Maybe, just maybe, if I'm forced to sell to a monopoly (and about half of our gross income is from dairy) they'd better perform.

[agstar77]

There was an interesting scenario in a farm paper with a suggestion that buyers within Canada be offered a fixed yearly price , possibly higher than market , but guaranteeing supply with the balance marketed at world prices . The World marketed price would allow farmers to take the world market price either on a futures or cash basis. The domestic price would be offered to all on afirst come first serve basis. You asked, I answered.

[tower]

Please accept my apologies Kodiak.

I do however continue to disagree. None of the examples you used are government created agencies which have over time taken responsibility in one area, for action on behalf of one segment of society. If for example our armed forces were run by an elected panel of High ranking officers, would you still expect the rank and file to be subject to forcing of their behaviouur? Or would some small group of soldiers be seen as within their rights to start a small war with Portugal over our rights to the fish off the grand banks?

If the RCMP were run by a democratically elected managing council would the rest of the police be subject to rule of law or would they be able to earn a little extra take home pay by selling the contents of the evidence files from time to time? Not likely eh? because the individual is not above the elected agency.

So I'm not suggesting that the cwb is above the government, that doesn't mean that the government should be able to make an end run around the larger majority of western grain growers that want to be able to market through the board. At the very least the government should follow the rules of interaction beween it and the board. At the best the government should leave the board to it's electing body. Us.