MEASURING STEWARDSHIP
Yesterday I had the distinct privilege of hosting 20 navy and coast guard officers from 15 foreign countries attending a U.S. Coast Guard two-month international program. The U.S. Coast Guard officers in charge of this program put Polyface on their itinerary last year as an example of American agriculture ecological entrepreneurism. We had officers from Mozambique, Madagascar, Italy, Poland, Sri Lanka, Moldives, Mauritania and several other countries.
The program has two cohorts a year; the second one visits later in the summer. The hay ride farm tour went fairly normal until our last stop at the Millenium Feathernet when bird flu became the discussion topic and one of the attendees pushed back on my notion that U.S. bird flu policy was dysfunctional. The back-and-forth quickly moved to the government's jurisdiction over the issue.
What exactly is the government's responsibility to investigate, monitor, and enforce a remedy? Here was my line of thought.
How do you determine responsible stewardship? When government prohibits individuals from making decisions about their affairs, two things happen. First, no one has to think about whatever the issue of the day is because someone else is doing all the thinking. Discernment and judgment are like muscles that need to be exercised, and depriving decisions is the quickest way to create lethargic decision-making capacity.
Secondly, it deprives society of the diversified decisions minority views might bring to the table. This is not only the definition of tyranny; it is the definition of mob rule and mob action. What turns a group into a mob is passing the brink of thoughtfulness. Destruction takes no thoughtfulness; construction is hard. That is why in formal debate the affirmative, seeking a change in the status quo, must win both the case (what's wrong with the current system) and the plan (their solution).
The only way to know who the competent stewards are is to let people make decisions and then see the consequences of those decisions. Looking at all these military officers, I asked them how they knew who the slobs are; who the lazies are; who the no-cares are? You determine that by letting people make decisions and then watching how their decisions play out.
If I can't make a decision about my own chickens, then I'm absolved of responsibility for their care. As long as I follow the government's dictates, I'm free of decision-making and society can't tell what my level of stewardship is.
As soon as I'm responsible for my stuff, my property, my chickens, and their care is in my hands, then I'm forced to sleuth the best options. I'll need to read, ask counsel from eclectic sources, and pursue a truth path for me. What's more, everyone, in addition to me, can then see the consequences of my decisions. Over time, people with good track records naturally rise to the top. This is how you build a meritocracy instead of a technocracy.
In farming, who builds soil? Who doesn't need veterinary care? Who has healthy plants? Who has more pollinators? Who has more earthworms? When we have government standards, they inherently preclude both individuals and society of studying diverse decisional outcomes. In short, that makes auditing stewardship difficult if not impossible. Instead of measuring performance, we measure protocols, and that never moves us toward truth.
These are my chickens, thank you. And I'll gladly accept responsibility for their care. Everyone, including me, can see the consequences of my decisions. In freedom we have exposed idiocy. In government intervention, we have entrenched idiocy.
What role should government play in determining, mandating, then enforcing bird flu policy?