I am in sales. It has been a very bad year. For reasons completely outside of my control (customers moving to different cities, bad housing market, bad weather) my sales are down significantly. I am not sure how I will be able to pay all of our bills. It really is just not fair. I am not at fault, why should I suffer the consequences like this. My government should give me some money to make up the difference.
Huh?
None of the above is true; I am simply hoping to make a point. The place where I live is experiencing the worst drought since the 1880's. Crops are not growing as they normally do. Local farmers are suffering. I am very sympathetic to them, but I disagree with them crying out for federal aid.
Why is it the government's responsibility to bail them out? How did we get to the point where the federal government has become some huge charity? In essence, if the government gives them any money (which I am sure they will), then my government is forcing me to give handouts to these farmers. Don't get me wrong, we should want to help each other in times of need, but it is not the government's role to serve this function. By forcing me to participate in this type of charity activity, then they are taking away my freedom to give willingly. Therefore, the government is violating the one thing it was created to protect - freedom.
In my opinion, it is morally wrong for the government to give out any subsidies - farmers, airlines, etc. Not only does it violate our freedom by forcing us to participate in charitable activities, but it is not fair for the farmer down the street who "stored his hay in barns for such a time as this".
If farmer A invested in a very expensive irrigation system just to prepare for a situation like this and Farmer B did not, then why should we reward Farmer B? We are providing a disincentive to be proactive in their business. The irrigation system is a huge expense for Farmer A which he was hoping to recoup when his competitors, who did not invest in such a system, were not able to produce as he has (such as in a drought condition). But now, the government puts the proactive farmer at a disadvantage by giving his competitor money. Farmer B is happy, but now Farmer A suffers because his prices have to be higher to pay for his irrigation system. Thus, despite being prepared for the drought, he now suffers financially when he should have been rewarded.
Southwest Airlines came up with a business model that has proved to be successful in an industry that has lost money year after year after year. Is it fair that the government gives money to their competitors (Delta, United, Northwest, etc.) because their business model is not as effective? No. This is craziness in my opinion. By bailing out farmers, airlines, etc., they are in effect providing a disincentive for these businesses to do what is necessary to become profitable on their own. Why invest the money yourself when you know the government will give you a nice, fat check to get your bottom-line in the black for you?
Why stop at farmers and airlines? Seriously, if I have a bad year in sales due to conditions beyond my control, why won't the government send me money? Why is the farmer and airline stockholders given such preferential treatment?
So, our government giving subsidies is both morally wrong and practically ineffective.
Heartless you say? By no means. My heart does break for the farmers and their families. I just don't think the government should have any role in providing relief. So, what should be done?
1. As mentioned before, the farmers could have proactively prepared for a drought. What if they would have installed the irrigation systems necessary to give them the water they needed. Of course, the cost to install and operate them will create higher food prices. Fine. Let the market dictate what the prices should be. That is how it should be in a free society. (I am no farmer, and maybe an irrigation system is not the answer, but I would guess that something could have been done proactively to produce good crops even in a drought - irrigation system, special fertilizer, special crop rotations, etc.)
2. What about some type of coop. What if farmers all around the country banded together. Each year every farmer contributes to some kind of "drought relief fund" so that in times of need, the coop decides to pay out to farmers who they deem to be in need. This is not an unrealistic option - we see it at work everyday in our society. Just look at labor unions. When the workers in a particular plant go on strike, their union is able to pay out some relief to them in the absence of a paycheck from their employer. This money comes from the dues they have paid over their careers and from the dues being paid by the workers in their union who are not on strike.
3. Isn't there some type of insurance a farmer can buy for times such as this. Instead of investing in an expensive irrigation system, what if a farmer decides to put a significant amount of money toward an insurance policy that paid out when the accumulated rainfall dips below the average by a predetermined amount.
4. Save for a rainy day. Why not just put money back each year so that you can pull from your own reserve fund in times of drought - simply, become your own insurance company? If I decide to go into farming, I would know that my income is probably going to fluctuate significantly from year to year. Instead of spending all the money I make in the good years, why not put some back for the lean years?
5. Their community should step up. If I were in a relationship with a farmer and his family and I saw them suffering due to such extreme conditions, then I would want to do all I could to help. The churches and neighborhoods should provide the safety net - not our government. If our churches and neighbors step up in times like this a lot more happens than just money being passed around - relationships are built, hearts grow bigger, and the kingdom of God expands just a little more.
Yet, we watch the news. We see the cracked soil, the short stalks, the two second shot of the scorching sun beating down, and then the farmer and his family standing near their idle tractor. Our hearts break as they should. We feel compassion as we should. But why do we automatically assume the government should provide the relief? What has that farmer done to prepare for a time such as this? Why are the members of his church and community not stepping up to give them the relief they need? I think we are in very dangerous waters whenever our government starts serving the role reserved for ourselves, our churches, and our neighbors. It is a slippery slope that will eventually lead to collapse from within.
