[gizmo686]

Why should the rest of the country subsidize people who want to live the farming lifestyle?

Btw, hobby farms are a thing. If you want people to be able to pursue hobbies in liu of work, you need a UBI. (Although, a smaller UBI would be suffient to allow for nearly viable hobbies like farming)

[pixl97]

Why should the country subsidize suburban areas?

[gizmo686]

It shouldn't. Suburban sprawl was one of the major "blunders"[0] of domestic policy in the US. There is even less of an argument to be had here. At least rural subsidies can be thought of as the government paying for an overcapacity of food.

[0] scare quotes because it was fairly succesfull in its goal of segragation.

[alfromspace]

I'm not interested in arguing over how best to increase the GDP and labeling all regulations subsidies, or having the meta-debate over how everything is technically a subsidy. I'm talking about animal rights, human happiness, and how those things have very recently been assaulted by finance in an unprecedented way.

There are more important things in the world to think about than how to most efficiently stuff people full of mass quantities of cheap processed meat from suffering animals.

[gizmo686]

I'm not arguing about GDP. If I was, I would be pointing out how it is a poor metric to measure anything by.

The onlything stoping individuals from farming if they want to is the resources to afford to do so while maintaing the farmers desired lifestyle.

In the past, farmers could get those resources by selling their produce. That became less viable as other models (read, factory farming) started to offer produce cheaper. If you want to maintain the old model, someone needs to pay the difference.

If you want to argue that animal welfare is something that we should value and requires collective (eg government) action to achieve, that would be a valid arguement. You could even argue that such a change would be to the benifit of small farmers.