I don't think this is quite the wind it sounds like, and while obviously I know I have a right to grow food, I voted against this. Why? The actual text being added to the constitution is:
Section 25. All individuals have a natural, inherent and unalienable right to food, including the right to save and exchange seeds and the right to grow, raise, harvest, produce and consume the food of their own choosing for their own nourishment, sustenance, bodily health and well-being, as long as an individual does not commit trespassing, theft, poaching or other abuses of private property rights, public lands or natural resources in the harvesting, production or acquisition of food.
This defines an "unalienable right to food", includes certain activities and excludes certain things which are already illegal. It does not, however, place any limitation on the "right to food" itself. In a shortage or survival situation, can the government now say that due to everyone's unalienable right to food, my own stockpile must be shared? Or in a less extreme situation, will Mainers see raised taxes to fund more food handouts, and reduced barrier to entry for said handouts?
Perhaps someone with more experience interpreting legal text can explain why these doors are not left open, but that's my interpretation. I will also note that the wording regarding the unalienable right to food was left off of the ballot form, and only the right to farming language was present.
On a more general philosophical level, I feel that rights are indeed inherent, and that a constitution should not serve to grant rights to the people, but to limit the rights of the government.
Hm. Good point, and we know that tyrants will use language in any way that suits them. This is why I am ultimately an abolitionist in regards forcible government; there really is no way to prevent misuse of Power (the "legal" use of initiated coercion against non-aggressors) other than to stop tolerating it. Everything government touches turns to shit.
limit the rights of the government.
Consider how very small and strongly limited our government here in the US was at the start, and then consider the monster it's grown into in just a few generations. Limited government is always better than open-ended tyranny but it doesn't last long.
I see the Maine law as likely beneficial for now but you are right: like almost every law the government gives itself, this one can be used against the people.
Mainer here. The law was proposed by a R state rep in response to peculiar re-zoning strategies playing out in other states that limit what can be grown/raised on private property and commerce/fda regs limiting what can be sold and how between private citizens. It's a way for small producers to get around statutory/regulatory limitations that favor the large agribiz conglomerates whose lobbyists write them.
That said, the wording of the amendment (not law) is vague and will end up only being defined by court cases, meaning an unelected judge will decide what it means. I think the intention of the amendment is good, but the poor execution and imprecise wording will likely mean it has the opposite effect. It will end up being used as a defense for animal abuse and selling contaminated/unsafe food.
Moral: Don't let guys named Billy Bob write amendments
I don't think this is quite the wind it sounds like, and while obviously I know I have a right to grow food, I voted against this. Why? The actual text being added to the constitution is:
This defines an "unalienable right to food", includes certain activities and excludes certain things which are already illegal. It does not, however, place any limitation on the "right to food" itself. In a shortage or survival situation, can the government now say that due to everyone's unalienable right to food, my own stockpile must be shared? Or in a less extreme situation, will Mainers see raised taxes to fund more food handouts, and reduced barrier to entry for said handouts?
Perhaps someone with more experience interpreting legal text can explain why these doors are not left open, but that's my interpretation. I will also note that the wording regarding the unalienable right to food was left off of the ballot form, and only the right to farming language was present.
On a more general philosophical level, I feel that rights are indeed inherent, and that a constitution should not serve to grant rights to the people, but to limit the rights of the government.
Hm. Good point, and we know that tyrants will use language in any way that suits them. This is why I am ultimately an abolitionist in regards forcible government; there really is no way to prevent misuse of Power (the "legal" use of initiated coercion against non-aggressors) other than to stop tolerating it. Everything government touches turns to shit.
Consider how very small and strongly limited our government here in the US was at the start, and then consider the monster it's grown into in just a few generations. Limited government is always better than open-ended tyranny but it doesn't last long.
I see the Maine law as likely beneficial for now but you are right: like almost every law the government gives itself, this one can be used against the people.
Mainer here. The law was proposed by a R state rep in response to peculiar re-zoning strategies playing out in other states that limit what can be grown/raised on private property and commerce/fda regs limiting what can be sold and how between private citizens. It's a way for small producers to get around statutory/regulatory limitations that favor the large agribiz conglomerates whose lobbyists write them.
That said, the wording of the amendment (not law) is vague and will end up only being defined by court cases, meaning an unelected judge will decide what it means. I think the intention of the amendment is good, but the poor execution and imprecise wording will likely mean it has the opposite effect. It will end up being used as a defense for animal abuse and selling contaminated/unsafe food.
Moral: Don't let guys named Billy Bob write amendments
"Theft"=Monsanto patents.