“Deconstruction” with respect to “free-market agriculture”

January 11, 2023

I came across this sentence today: 

"With all things being equal, the deconstruction of free-market agriculture will eliminate the need for GMO patents."

Just to remind, the real dispute over GMOs is that they're mainly used to increase corporate control over private farms. 

Let's talk about the phrase "the deconstruction of free-market agriculture" first. 

Physiocracy, that is to say market pricing and a government reserve, was instituted to prevent scarcity. It's easy to talk about free market agriculture if you're raising for the export market, such as soybeans. But the real issue at hand when talking about classic commodities is the division of purposes between the "land use office" and the "laboratory".

The contraindication from the free-market camp is that the system of government reserves constitutes some kind of physiocratic lease on the produce of the farm. Pricing commodities above the level the free-market can afford is sort of a lease on commodities. But this is overly economistic thinking. Building up a fractional reserve is as old as society itself. It's agronomistic.

The phrase "the deconstruction of free-market agriculture" puts the cart before the horse. Agriculture has never been a free market. 

When you set this misconception to rights, it raises the deep-set issue dividing the concept of land use, from the concept of research and development in the food laboratory. 

Namely, would GMOs even be considered without the misconception going around that the farm is a corporate business?