• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: November 19th, 2023

help-circle
  • Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.mltoMemes@lemmy.mlSo anyway
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    2 months ago

    so they could pay less taxes and due to a grievance about parliamentary representation

    They did primarily because they wanted to expand their settler colonies further into native lands while the British government had tried restricting settler expansion.

    The “free state” was never about preventing oppression of the citizens or launching an insurrection against the state. I don’t know where this bizzare view comes from, since the constitution literally defines treason against the state to be punishable by death.





  • If we are talking about an industrialized country, then absolutely, farmers need to be taxed just like everybody else. Farmer subsidies leads to overproduction of food, much of which is then intentionally destroyed (by the farmers, or supermarkets) to keep prices high. If you think that the elimination of farmer subsidies will lead to higher food prices and thus hunger, do note that it is possible to redirect subsidies into food allowances for the poor. For instance, the US spends about $14 billion per year in agriculture subsidies (barring covid, during which subsidies jumped to above $40 billion). On the other hand, for the entire world, the cost of eliminating (or drastically reducing) hunger can be as low as $7 billion per year depending on the approach.

    And this isn’t even the radical solution. The actually radical solution for eliminating the food problem entirely would be to nationalize the agriculture industry and switch the whole country to a vegetarian diet. If we do this in the entire industrialized world, and fund aggressive hunger elimination programs, then the question of food instability, even taking climate change into account is solved.