Farmers don’t need to be controlled

One reason farmers are often misunderstood and sometimes criticized is they perform a simple and distinctly American function every day – they produce something. The dilemma is compounded because what they produce mostly is food, either for humans or animals.

Food is as essential for both humans and their animal friends as it has ever been, and most farmers regard its production as an honorable profession. But some in today’s world find it more satisfying to criticize farmers and seek to control their use of basic tools – often pesticides – than to applaud and thank them for their commitment and continuing dedication.

Thoughts about exercising control often lead citizens to their political representatives. After all, control of something or somebody is often high on the agenda of those who have a seat in government. The process might begin when they promise to improve the lives of their constituents, and then the opportunity appears bright and clear the day after they’re elected.

You might think the walls of politician’s offices are adorned with dozens of levers. Pulling the right lever puts a newly elected politician in touch with veteran lawmakers up and down the halls of the legislature, each with a desire to enact some kind of control. If enough levers are pulled the neophyte legislator probably will connect with some who share his personal control objectives.

In recent years it seems enough interconnected lawmakers, especially in Sacramento, have worked together to make life miserable for farmers – some of whom are their constituents. Targets for their controlling schemes, often dignified by becoming law, have included water, worker protections, agricultural chemicals, the environment, farm animal habitat and wage and hour regulations, to name a few

It probably is an old fashioned concept, but doesn’t our political system work best when elected representatives celebrate their election by taking legislative steps that benefit their constituents? Neither writing nor supporting legislation that controls the voters seem to be sure vote getters. But it happens again and again.

Farmers understand control. Most of them are masters of controlling the elements that affect their crops — weeds, pests, disease, impurities, contamination, predators, trespassers and thieves. Unless their neighbors fall into the last two of those categories, the issues farmers must control aren’t human.

On the other hand, almost all of the issues their political representatives deal with involve humans and human behavior. Most legislation deals with control that involves human behavior at some level or to some degree. Except for family issues and supervision of hired personnel most farmers prefer to avoid control issues with humans. They’re usually busy enough with other activities.

For farmers and their families it has become clear some individuals are set on dealing with issues of human control. For some, that preference leads to professions and life work where control of other humans is paramount – such as political rule making. To many in the farm community it seems rule makers in or out of political office are a rapidly growing number, and the threat of being under greater control by others is expanding.

So many in the farm community feel America’s basic premise of freedom and free will is threatened by the rule makers and their excessive use of power. While their primary concern is with their rights and their method of farming they suspect those who propose and practice control of others have already achieved their purposes in other important professions such as education, news reporting and some health and welfare professions.

As these threaten to encroach on the farm community, farmers are likely to combine to resist them. Pitchforks at the ready!