The article describes believes as well as the actions of a farmer who thinks different from what the other people do about animals. The famer feels and practices animal farming, because he believes that animal meat should also be incorporated in their diets.
This was against the traditions of those in the United States as most were vegetarians (Bergson 1948). The farmer respects the animals as he urges that, each and every one of them was important in the ecological issues.
In the farm where he practices this is referred to as a polyface that is to mean, a land of many faces as he raises different types of animals in the farm. The land is said to be there for fifty years. In some way, the farmer had inherited this from his father who was also practicing animal farming.
The farmer desired to do a variety of things that he had no legal right over this is because, the government in the region had restricted on the type of food the people in the region should eat (Lavoie 1985). According to the government in the region rearing of animals as a source of food appeared unusual and hence people had adapted to this resulting to the being vegetarians.
This is demonstrated by the way people viewed the idea of the farmer keeping animals in his farm as not fit. As an ecological engineer, the farmer felt that the animals were part of the ecological system.
He is at one time being interrogated for his rearing the animals where the cow is said to be causing negative contributions in the environmental predicaments but he supports his actions by telling the interrogator not to blame the cow for the harmful effects of industrial food system.
On the other hand, the farmer had the moral rights in the rearing of the animals. This is due to the fact that, he raises animal with a good motive of providing a better local diet to the people, which would have an indigenous flair.
For the farmer, farming is indivisible from faith, natural balance, and attitude as well as from politics which was at the time ruling on the type of diet that people in the area should have. He had not at any time campaigned against consumption of other diets, but instead he educated people in his different books on the importance of incorporating meat in the diet (Lavoie 1985).
He also brings out the role of the animals in the ecosystem as beneficial to the environment as well as to other crops that could be grown perennially. In his speeches he not only elaborates on the importance of rearing animals but tells people to also focus on what can be grown fit in their area with little effort.
In a book by Pollan, the farmer is brought out as a fame man who raises the animals for meat in the correct way (Bergson 1948). It is also through his book and speeches that he becomes an adored speaker. His reluctance to sort out, transformed him to a convincing ethical influence for the food association.
Besides livestock rearing, the farmer also engages himself into other activities as a writer as well as a speaker where he at times comes up as a theorist, an entrepreneur, activist or an ecological engineer as he tries to emphasize on the significance of eating meat as well as raising livestock.
The restrictions in his actions had direct effects on the community’s development as people could not practice his teachings despite the fact that, they were all beneficial to the citizens due to fear as this could be viewed as going against the laws set by the government (Foss 1994).
The limitations in his preaching the benefits that come hand in hand with the raising of the animals played a great role in delaying the progression in the region. In his writings he argues that, in every system in natural world contains an animal constituent for the purposes of recycling.
He as well expounds on the symbiotic relationships that exist between the animals and plants. This gave a clear view as to why he insisted that animals should not be excluded in the farms as they had an additional advantage over providing diet to man.
The constraints gave the farmer a very harsh time in convincing the citizens his reasons behind raising the animals (Lavoie 1985). This is because; the people did not see the essence keeping these animals and eventually killing them for the purpose of eating.
This was greatly drawn back by the government failing to consider the farmer’s point of view. The government’s own interests in promoting the food system in the area had a vast contribution in dragging the development in the region. In his website he had elaborated further on the matter of respecting as well as valuing the animal one raise. This appeared ironical because their destiny was them being slaughtered.
The irony in it as seen by the people, demoralized his efforts and this proved hard to convince the citizen hence no development could be attained easily due to peoples’ perception on the message he brought forth (Foss 1994). In the region for this to make sense to people, there ought to be somebody else who should be concerned with the limitations in order to ease the negative pressures on the farmer. This would help in promoting development in the region.
According to Orval Watts, “the economy of a community is dependent on each and every member contribution”. He elaborates on the significance of free markets as well as governments’ interventions in eradication of famine. By this, it would be ensured of development in the community hence, the progression will be experienced in the whole region.
He portrayed this more as he was a director of economic education hence had the opportunity to pass the message across to all. Besides this, he also looked into the importance of acknowledging those who has vision in developing the community. This shows the need for the government in the United States to have recognized the efforts of Salatin as this could aid in the progression in the region.
John Locke intricate on freedom by quoting “To understand political power right and derive it from its’ original, we must consider what state other men are naturally in.” this relate to Salatins’ situation where despite that he had good plans for the community he was not given freedom to expound his effort as what he was doing was not allowed in the society.
He also quoted that, “He who appropriates land to himself by his labor, does not lessen but increase the common stock of mankind.” By this he was putting emphasis on the issue of working hard as always hard work leads to better products.
This relates to Salatin’s hard work he did as in the article, besides giving out speeches, he spent a lot of time on his livestock and if this was done by every member in the society it could lead to development in the community (Bergson 1948).
According to FA Hayek, cultural advancement is a course in which a society and motive developed at the same time and not due to an individual’s motive deliberately building.
This in relation to Salatin, he had the capability to promoting development in the society but since it calls for contribution by every member in the society, this could not easily be experienced as no one in the society had the same opinion as his (Lavoie 1985).
The reasoning of the government and the whole community at large would have lead to the progression needed in the community if only all played a part in incorporating new ideas to add to the efforts by Salatin.
In conclusion, the development of society is dependent on the kind of the government in the region and also its contribution in the regions development.
For a community to progress, the effort of the members also matter a lot as this is what determines the destiny. Consideration of people’s efforts is a key factor to be considered as this is what determines the outcome of the society that is either development or no development at all.
References
Bergson, A. (1948). Socialist economics. In H. S. Ellis & B. F. Haley (Eds.), A survey of contemporary economics. (pp. 412-421.). Homewood: R. D. Irwin Publishers.
Foss, N. J. (1994). The Austrian school and modern economics. (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Hillsdale College Press.
Lavoie, D. (1985). Rivalry and central planning: The socialist calculation debate reconsidered. (7th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.