Cautionary Tale

[oxbowfarm]

Dec 3, 2012 22:11:43 GMT -5 castanea said:

Banning the free exchange of seeds is easy, has happened to some extent, and may well worsen.

As a counter argument, I'd propose that banning the trade in cannabis seeds is relatively easy. Banning and maintaining a ban on tomato seeds is extremely difficult logistically and politically.

There is no way the US post office is going to be installing x-ray machines across its system. By its own calculations it doesn't even make enough money to continue to deliver mail on Saturday, how will it afford all the X-ray equipment and training etc?

[johninfla]

I wonder if you could send a bean bag chair made from cannelini beans?

John

[steev]

The USPS will get its scanners and training budget from Homeland Insecurity.

You can send that beanbag; arrival, not so sure.

[castanea]

Dec 4, 2012 6:29:49 GMT -5 oxbowfarm said:

Dec 3, 2012 22:11:43 GMT -5 castanea said:

Banning the free exchange of seeds is easy, has happened to some extent, and may well worsen.

As a counter argument, I'd propose that banning the trade in cannabis seeds is relatively easy. Banning and maintaining a ban on tomato seeds is extremely difficult logistically and politically.

There is no way the US post office is going to be installing x-ray machines across its system. By its own calculations it doesn't even make enough money to continue to deliver mail on Saturday, how will it afford all the X-ray equipment and training etc?

I have a semantics disagreement with you. Banning anything is extraordinarily easy. Maintining a legal ban is also extraordinarily easy. Enforcing a ban is where things get sticky.

The problem we have when the government bans anything and especially when the government institutes bans that are difficult to enforce, is that the government engages in selective enforcement. They aren't going to enforce the ban aghainst anyone with money or power nor are they even going to enforce the ban all the time. They will enforce the ban in a manner to persecute individuals they do not like. Thus, 90% of Americans will see no problem with the largely unenforced ban while the government uses it to target the other 10%.

[steev]

I agree with the selective enforcement problem; this is always where the BS is expressed. The white college kid with a little pot gets a reprimand; the un-white un-college kid gets his butt in the slammer. Selective enforcement is a bitch because those who have the power/savvy to change things don't have the motivation because they don't suffer the downside.

[oxbowfarm]

I guess I see what you are saying, I just don't see why you are concerned. Governments are big, we are small. They are strong and we are weak. We are hidden, they are exposed. Its a basic guerilla warfare situation except I just want to trade seeds. I personally don't see any point in poking the powers-that-be with a sharp stick in the eye. I plan on quietly going about my business without even actively concealing what I'm doing. I order seed from GRIN, I trade seed back and forth international boundaries. The three employees at my post office know all about it, they've got my daughter's crayon drawings on the wall next to the register. If it suddenly becomes illegal to mail seed, I feel quite confident that I will continue to mail and receive packages with a wink and a nod.

Its a question of money. Just about every government agency is seeing a loss of funding, even parts of Homeland Security. And you can bet the first part of Homeland Security they reduce funding to will be anything to do with agriculture. Just not sexy enough to induce anxiety and/or make a decent press release.

[Joseph Lofthouse]

Plus we can do what people have always done. Take advantage of loopholes... Read the customs declaration form, and when it says a customs form is required on packages, but not on envelopes, we will send things in envelopes. And if the envelope should be less than 3/4" thick, then our envelopes will be less than 1/2" thick. And If the letter should be less than 16 ounces, then our envelopes will be less than 15 ounces. etc.

[castanea]

Dec 4, 2012 21:26:23 GMT -5 oxbowfarm said:

I guess I see what you are saying, I just don't see why you are concerned. Governments are big, we are small. They are strong and we are weak. We are hidden, they are exposed. Its a basic guerilla warfare situation except I just want to trade seeds. I personally don't see any point in poking the powers-that-be with a sharp stick in the eye. I plan on quietly going about my business without even actively concealing what I'm doing. I order seed from GRIN, I trade seed back and forth international boundaries. The three employees at my post office know all about it, they've got my daughter's crayon drawings on the wall next to the register. If it suddenly becomes illegal to mail seed, I feel quite confident that I will continue to mail and receive packages with a wink and a nod.

Its a question of money. Just about every government agency is seeing a loss of funding, even parts of Homeland Security. And you can bet the first part of Homeland Security they reduce funding to will be anything to do with agriculture. Just not sexy enough to induce anxiety and/or make a decent press release.

I'm concerned because the power of the government just keeps growing and growing and growing. Agencies may be underfunded but that only means they can harass fewer people than they would like to harass. It doesn't mean that they stop harassing people completely.

A few years ago my wife got a surprise knock at the door from a customs guy who had confiscated seed that had been sent to me from China. Luckily my wife knew nothing about the seed and told the guy so. He was nonethless quite rude to her. He DEMANDED that I call him when I got his message.

Before I get to the phone call I should tell you that I did NOT order any seeds from China. I has simply asked a seed company what their prices were and how much they would charge for seeds, postage, a phyto, etc. They asked my address so they could price everything. Then I didn't hear from them. What they did then was to send me sample seeds without even telling me what they were doing. It was these unrequested samples that were confiscated by a customs agent in a city that was nowhere near my city. My local post office had nothing to do with the confiscation.

Anyway, I called the customs guy and he was a jerk. I pointed out to him that I had not ordered the seeds and that had I done so I would have either used my small lot seed permit or obtained a phyto. I told him to check and confirm that I had a small lot seed permit. He was completely ignorant of the small lot seed permit program. I told him I could send him the email where I asked for the price of a phyto.

Bottom line is that government bureaucrats are ignorant, arrogant, and a serious danger to the freedom of Americans. Just because they aren't bothering you does not mean they are not bothering someone else. This goes back to the old saying, which too many people forget:


First they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the gypsies,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a gypsie.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.

[oxbowfarm]

I have to say that equating getting hassled by a customs bureaucrat as the precursor to jack-booted thugs hauling you off to a concentration camp is totally over the top. JMO, I may have my head in the sand here.

There is the opinion that government bureaucracies are hostile, malevolent entities actively seeking to destroy human freedom. My view is that they are uncaring, incompetent entities actively seeking to perpetuate themselves and bloat their influence. The end result is a net loss of personal freedom either way, of course.

[steev]

The trouble with bureaucrats is that they're people; some think their job is to serve people, others think it's to serve the government. Depends who you happen to be dealing with. Optimism helps.

[templeton]

I've got a totally different take - but then I think most people are nice, but flawed.
All the bureaucrats I know are decent people, with kids and husbands, and well-cared for pets, and decent values. But they need to bring home pay, they worry about losing their job - they worry that their boss will give them shit, that they might be in the next round of funding cuts, that a bad report from their boss is more important than a bad report from the public. Like most people, they need to feel that what they do is important, and can be tempted to over exert their limited power. Done it myself.
I usually thank them for their diligence, apologise for wasting their time on such a minor matter, and try to make their job as easy as possible. I try to get into a conversation with them. Next time, they might turn a blind eye.
As my (benign) boss said to me the other day when i had my dander up about a slack colleague "Is this the hill you want to die on?"
T

[castanea]

Dec 4, 2012 23:24:44 GMT -5 oxbowfarm said:

I have to say that equating getting hassled by a customs bureaucrat as the precursor to jack-booted thugs hauling you off to a concentration camp is totally over the top. JMO, I may have my head in the sand here.

There is the opinion that government bureaucracies are hostile, malevolent entities actively seeking to destroy human freedom. My view is that they are uncaring, incompetent entities actively seeking to perpetuate themselves and bloat their influence. The end result is a net loss of personal freedom either way, of course.

I say this with friendship and respect, but your head is firmly immersed in the sand. No matter what the government agency is, it's all about incrementalism. Every year, without exception, the federal government expands its influence and power. Power corrupts. Always. The more power, the more corruption. What starts as a "friendly" intrusion into your personal life ends up as as an inquisition where you are fined or jailed. It doesn't matter whether they wear jack boots or whether you call them thugs, the result is the same, government intruding into your personal life. Have you missed the various articles about government agencies tearing out people's gardens and fining them for collecting rainwater? And that's just a tiny part of the problem.

Yesterday a friend of mine was contacted by a USDA inspector who wanted to know where he got the agricultural products he was selling. My friend had committed no infraction of any kind but he was still hassled by a bureacrat who had too much time on his hands and way too much funding. And it's going to get worse, not better.

[castanea]

Dec 5, 2012 8:09:36 GMT -5 templeton said:

I've got a totally different take - but then I think most people are nice, but flawed.
All the bureaucrats I know are decent people, with kids and husbands, and well-cared for pets, and decent values. But they need to bring home pay, they worry about losing their job - they worry that their boss will give them shit, that they might be in the next round of funding cuts, that a bad report from their boss is more important than a bad report from the public. Like most people, they need to feel that what they do is important, and can be tempted to over exert their limited power. Done it myself.
I usually thank them for their diligence, apologise for wasting their time on such a minor matter, and try to make their job as easy as possible. I try to get into a conversation with them. Next time, they might turn a blind eye.
As my (benign) boss said to me the other day when i had my dander up about a slack colleague "Is this the hill you want to die on?"
T

It doesn't matter at all whether people are decent people when they have too much power. They will use and abuse that power as they do every day in the US. They may turn a blind eye today but not tomorrow. Being subservient toward them is no guarantee they will not fine you or jail you the next time they see you. There should be no need to act in a subservient manner to a petty government official.

[oxbowfarm]

We're probably going to continue to disagree here. It may be a matter of perspective from relative experience. You live in California where state and local government has taken rather aggressive postures in meddling in people's lives. Some of the stuff Holly has spoken of as far as county officials and certifiers and the permits and fees they demand has boggled my mind. Here in upstate NY state and local government have deep and ongoing funding and staffing shortfalls. There are lots of laws and mandates to fall afoul of, but in my personal experience no one is paying attention.

For example, open burning of trash has been completely banned (with a minimum $500 fine for the first offense) statewide since Elliot Spitzer was elected. My otherwise very nice neighbors continue to burn their foul garbage several time a week in the front yard next to a busy county road with a daily state trooper traffic.

That isn't to say you cannot be persecuted here, if you want to get a view of a government bureacracy on a "jack-boot" kick try and start up a raw milk cow-share operation in this state. Nothing pokes NY Ag and Markets in they eye quite like raw milk.

[steev]

Did someone say "selective enforcement"?