Home | About | Donate

North Dakota Rejects Corporate Farm Ownership by 3-to-1 Margin


#1


#2

Bravo North Dakota! Strong family farms - no Monsatan corporate usury!


#3

And when will these farmers turn out against the Bakken Oil Fields environmental disaster in their state...oh, forgot...there's lots-o-money to be made. Never mind.

As for their stand on keeping corporate gobblers like Dow, DuPont, and Monsanto at bay...I applaud them.


#4

At least one thing should be of interest to the Folks of North Dakota. Farm Bureau is not out there to help farmers. They are lobbing stooges and a front for multi-national corporations looking to exploit the land and peoples of the world!! Thank you ND for standing up to them.


#5

Corporate predators, like zombies, will never sleep, never stop.

We need to recognize: A fundamental transformation of enterprise is absolutely required, to end political involvement by corporations, and sharply restrict enterprise to operate within clear boundaries of ecological, humanistic, community-based democracy. No corporate personhood, no lobbying or campaign contributions, reform of corporate charters, and criminal prosecution of violators.

It's gonna take a clear-eyed, strategic, tough-minded, world-wide mass movement. Small victories need to build toward more comprehensive restructuring.


#6

There are other states with these laws. I think OK is one. They were tested all the way to the supreme court back in the early mid 20thC and they were upheld. Who knows what will happen this time.


#7

Yea! for North Dakota and we could learn how to have state banks also from North Dakota, however, here in Oregon the big bank lobbyists shut us down before we hardly got a start.


#8

A real problem with "representative" government - it is much, much easier to buy off one "representative" than it is the people.

The ND state legislature is opposes the will of its own people. And the State Farm Bureau is against the people too. Guess who's side they are on.


#9

They aren't keeping Monsanto, et al at bay. And in a very real sense this is not the kind of victory people here think it is. Monsanto, et al do not invest in farms, nor do they produce the commercial crops. Monsanto,et al sell products that farmers who choose to employ industrial farming techniques buy. It happens to be the case that in North Dakota, as in most other states of the Great Heartland, that the majority of so-called 'family farms' are actually de facto corporate entities. The legislation is about protecting the interests of the already established de facto industrial farms from competition arising from transnationals such as Fonterra, JBS, and others.
Here's an interesting link providing more detail on just who these de facto farmers are: https://library.ndsu.edu/grhc/history_culture/history/plain_but_successful.html
Some facts excerpted from the link:
"Although many perceive that Hutterites use only natural methods to raise their crops and livestock, most use the same techniques and applications as other modern-day farmers to increase yields in a cost-effective way."

"In South Dakota, for example, Hutterites raise about 50 percent to 60 percent of hogs sent to market,"

".on Montana's hog market: Over 90 percent of hogs raised in that state come from Hutterite colonies. "

".98 percent of Montana's eggs come from Hutterite farms, using state-of-the-art equipment."

". in South Dakota. The colonies raise about 80 percent of the 6.2 million turkeys in the state,"


#10

That's very interesting. There are many groups of agricultural and religious-based communities in the Midwestern States whose concerns don't appear very egalitarian. Sounds like they're more interested in monopolies of certain markets than the general welfare of all. Again, so American and corporate. The Farmers Union is not such an organization, though. The Farm Bureau is all about corporate agri-businesses and insurance sales, etc. Unfortunately they have the deepest pockets here.


#11

Times are really difficult for authentic small farmers who choose not to align with dominating corporate entities.


#12

I'm guessing you're probably referring to the Mennonites, another Anabaptist denomination closely akin to the mentioned Hutterites. Actually, the Mennonites are by far the most prominent group involved in international agribusiness. They frequently work in close conjunction with Cargill. As is the case with the Hutterites, Mennonite farming operations, though often classified as 'family farms', often amount to being essentially de facto industrial farms comprising thousands of acres of GMO corn, soy, canola, and massive CAFOs. Their international presence is significant, too, being identified as a significant driving force in global deforestation. This is especially true in Central and South America. http://biodiversity.tamu.edu/research/regions/chaco/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/05/chaco-paraguay-deforestation


http://amandala.com.bz/news/mennonite-corporation-menace-forests-belize/


#13

Monsanto may not directly own the farms but they do "own" the farmers with their seed policies: " In the United States and Canada, farmers who grow transgenic crops must sign a 'technology agreement.' The no-sowing requirement is clearly expressed. If they don't respect the agreement and violate the patent, they are harassed by the 'gene police' and sued by Monsanto. Clearly transgenic crops are just a tool to control the seeds supply -- which is the first link in the food chain -- by forcing farmers to buy seeds each year."

Seed monopolies = 250,000 farmers to commit suicide in India alone.

Therefore, they belong in the DuPont and Dow realm of factory farming along with ConAgra.


#15

If the Federal Supreme Court has ruled it is OK for North Dakota to outlaw Corporations from owning a farm in their state then it seems like it would be possible to start a ballot initiative in California that would effectively outlaw corporations from owning any businesses in California?
The primary purpose of collecting signatures for an initiative outlawing corporations from owning any businesses would be to draw attention to the fact that the primary purpose of incorporation is to pass on the liability of share holders and CEOs to We the People.
Incorporation is primarily a tool for paying less taxes while ignoring the long term external cost of a company that produces a product or service that harms society and the environment. If we outlaw corporations then share holders and a companies board of directors will be forced to act in a more responsible manner since they will risk going to jail or bankrupting their company for knowingly harming the environment, society, individuals and our democracy.
I assume a legal ballot initiative outlawing corporations would need to change the state constitution by stating that no corporations will be chartered in the State within 12 months of being passed into law by a majority of the voters.
Does anybody know a legal scholar that can help me draft an initiative that would effectively outlaw corporations in California. Such an initiative could really spark a much needed debate on this very important topic.
Many voters are against the Supreme Court decision labeled Citizens United which suggest that Corporations can legally bribe politicians since they have the same free speech rights as mortal citizens. At the same time very few of us ever question the idea that maybe we don't need corporations at all?
What can a corporation do that a company can not do? Simple, they can break the law, commit murder, steal, corrupt our democracy, corrupt foreign governments and destroy the environment with impunity and get away with it. They may pay a small monetary fine that is ultimately much smaller then the profits that share holders and CEOs enjoy from their illegal and immoral acts.