What’s going with the Dutch farmers’ protest? On Tuesday, Netherland lawmakers voted to declare farmers propagators of climate change. Their emissions are planet-destroying pollutants, and they’ll have to cut back on everything from livestock to how much they harvest. Any farmer on the margin is going out of business.
It’s all for the good of the planet. Says the politicians spewing more toxic waste when they speak for five minutes than all the nitrogen oxide and ammonia Dutch livestock produce over a lifetime.
Like Canadian truckers, Dutch farmers have driven their tractors to parliament. Prime Minister Mark Rutte says they have a right to protest but not to “create dangerous situations,” which include “intimidating” government officials.
Does Rutte not realize a classical liberal truth? A principle that defines a free society.
“When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.”
I’d say Rutte hasn’t been intimidated enough.
Nonviolent Occupation Is Justified
Perhaps I’m hinting at something too extreme? The state is an institution of violence, so it’ll play that game better. An armed populace is necessary, but I’d argue so is a copy of Gene Sharp’s The Methods of Nonviolent Action.
Sharp outlines 198 real-world examples of where nonviolent action has worked. Numbers 31 through 34 involve pressuring government officials, including taunting them. Numbers 162 through 173 discuss nonviolent occupation.
The Dutch want their agriculture and livestock industry to be cut by 50% over the next eight years. That’s what this Dutch farmers’ protest is about. They’re not the extreme ones. The government is.
Do livestock and agriculture contribute to the greenhouse effect? Yes, but it’s a closed system. Ruminant animals have been here longer than industry. And agriculture can be regenerative. We have all the knowledge, and it is possible to feed the world on grass-fed beef.
But central planners will never wrap their heads around this concept. The corporate state will never give up its power and authority for a decentralized network of farmers. They’d rather factory-farm insects and profit while the yuppies think eating bugs helps the environment.
In reality, this insane drive to reduce emissions at all costs will only result in one thing: starvation.
Did Joseph Stalin, the patron saint of the Soviet Union, mean to kill millions of Ukrainians?
Many on the left, including professional historians and journalists, ignored the Ukrainian genocide for the longest time. They pretended like it didn’t happen. It didn’t fit their narrative that the USSR was a socialist worker’s paradise.
But eventually, they couldn’t ignore the truth. So now the goal posts shifted. It’s a question of whether Stalin meant to kill all those people.
The same with Mao’s rule over China. There is a plethora of evidence against Mao. The man was a psychopath. His reign of terror saw the death of hundreds of millions of Chinese. He destroyed historical artifacts to “cleanse” China’s traditional culture and adapt to a new socialist future.
Did Mao mean to starve all those people to death? Does it matter?
As Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau is fond of saying, it’s the current year. Are we going to have this debate?
We know free markets, private property, and the rule of law generate freedom and prosperity.
We know top-down authority results in unintended consequences. Even if the wishes of the rulers are wholly sensible and their intent is pure. There’s a real-world problem with organizations that are a) too large and b) immune from losing money.
Without the ability to tell lawmakers to get lost, Dutch farmers must protest. And because the stakes are so high – literal starvation – the politics of nonviolent action have to be extreme.
Complete occupation. Politicians should be afraid to leave their homes and offices.
Dutch Farmers’ Protest: Hemp Solution
Agriculture worldwide does have a problem with pesticides and monocrops destroying the soil. Monocropping hemp won’t solve these issues. But hemp is a vital food source to move us away from mass-produced corn, soy and canola.
Also, hemp absorbs more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than typical crops. Hemp can also decontaminate soil that’s been hit hard with heavy metal pollutants.
Where corn yields four tons of biomass per acre, hemp yields up to seven tons per acre. It also produces more fibre per hectare than cotton. Before the 1930s, hemp fibre was more popular than cotton.
Hemp is naturally resistant to insects, requiring fewer pesticides, the very thing Netherland lawmakers are so up in arms about.
Hemp is also a complete food source. Even the seeds contain 25 grams of protein per 100 grams. This is comparable to meat and fish. It has nine essential amino acids, iron, and vitamin E. It’s rich in all the good fatty acids: polyunsaturated, linoleic, and alpha.
And the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 is ideal, better than fish and meat.
Not only can we prevent the starvation of the West by investing in regenerative farming and hemp, but we can also solve world hunger.
Dutch Farmers’ Protest Solve World Hunger?
Lawmakers and corporate “journalists” demanding a reduction in emissions are asking for genocide. The solution isn’t going to be a top-down policy that people must obey. The solution is going to be bottom-up. It’s going to be grassroots.
And it will likely be radical enough to displace many government workers. Individuals who want their inflated taxpayer-dependent income (and fat pensions) will do anything to keep them.
When the Dutch farmers’ protest succeeds, and the government backs down, here’s what they can demand next. Farmers worldwide should take notice, too, as this problem isn’t isolated to the Netherlands.
Want to solve world hunger? Want to restore food security in the West? Eliminate all taxes and licensing requirements for producing and selling food.
Supply will instantly increase, prices will fall, and a greater variety of foods will appear on the market. Competing voluntary accreditation agencies will take the place of compulsory government licensing — if farmers believe that such accreditation will enhance their own reputation and that their consumers care about reputation and are willing to pay for it.
There is no coherent argument for government bureaucracy. Government plans to control agriculture must be opposed every step of the way.