Farmers are concerned about what they consider overreach of the EPA in the Waters of the U.S. Rule.
And the world’s largest welfare recipient goes to the trough one more time. Maybe the EPA Waters of the uS rule will be what it takes to make them realize that they never should have got into bed with the FedGov in the first place. Echos of FDR and Dishonest Abe (who created the Land Grant University System). — jtl, 419
Not every issue important to farmers got a seat on the bus yesterday. The continents of the omnibus spending bill completed last night supports a repeal of country-of-origin labeling (COOL), modifies the dietary guidelines, and allocates a significant amount of money to agriculture research and food safety. Great news, except the broad sweeping $1.1 trillion spending package lacks the riders that would prevent state GMO-labeling laws and block the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. Rule.
It’s Congress’ unwillingness to oppose the EPA rule that has farmers worried, and they expressed their frustration this morning to “AgriTalk” host Mike Adams. “It’s just a complete and utter disappointment,” said Jack Lavers, a farmer from California. “It is just a bunch of empty cash being thrown at a problem and it doesn’t fix anything.”
Farmers are concerned about what they consider overreach of the EPA in the Waters of the U.S. Rule. Despite a recent hand slap for public coercion via social media, the agency hasn’t faced much opposition from the Capitol about the new rule. Many agriculture groups lobbied to have a rider that would block the rule included in yesterday’s spending bill, but it didn’t make the cut.
“Here in the real world, we are going to be hammered down by the EPA from now on,” Lavers said. “God help us that we win it in the courts, because if we don’t we will be in serious trouble.”
With the lack of legislative action, the only way the rule can be overturned is through the courts.
“If the courts are the only solution to the problem, I guess that’s OK,” said Missouri farmer Mike John. He said a failed checks-and-balances system is how this issue came to be.
While it is clear most farmers are upset about the rule, Don Lamb from Indiana suggested farmers focus on what they can control — how they farm.
“I think in general right now, there are just so many things going on that we tend to get overwhelmed,” he said. “There’s so much on the national scene that we can’t control. I think you need to get back to the attitude of ‘what can I control?’ I can control what I do right here. I can control how I raise crops and how I take care of water.”
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.