top
Global Justice
Global Justice
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Berkeley Lawyer Advocates Legal Ban of non-Fair Trade Coffee

by fwd: Paul Hein (pahein [at] email.com)
Another neo-liberal lawyer advocates pushing Berkeley one step closer towards a militant left-wing police state where even coffee is regulated by the government.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/hein4.html

The Bean Caper
by Paul Hein

Rick Young thinks about coffee a lot. He has time to do so because, only about a year out of law school, he’s been laid off by the law firm which had hired him. "When I’m drinking my coffee," he declares, "I’d rather not be destroying the environment or exploiting workers." Three cheers for you, Rick!

Our neophyte lawyer isn’t content with merely saving the environment and the workers all by himself, however. He wants us to do so also. In fact, he wants to force us to do so, and to this end has introduced a law in Berkeley, where he lives, that would prohibit the many coffee houses in that city from selling any coffee which was not produced the way he thinks it should be: "fair-trade," organic, and shade-grown. As a lawyer, he realizes that government exists to force people to live the way he, and other enlightened individuals, think they should. Make no mistake, force is what it’s all about. Coffee which suits Mr. Young’s criteria is available now, but constitutes only about 1 percent of the 18 million bags of coffee beans imported annually. Obviously, left to their own resources, people will make the wrong choices, but Mr. Young will set them right – or else.

Actually, the whole brouhaha is scarcely about coffee at all. It’s about ideology, with coffee merely serving as the justification. "Fair-trade," for example, refers to coffee grown by farmers who are paid a living wage, but certainly Mr. Young isn’t concerned only about coffee farmers, is he? Should they be paid better than other farmers? No, but the coffee farmers are an opening shot, and coffee houses are conspicuous in Berkeley. Tobacco farmers, on the other hand, can just starve, unless they want to switch to coffee. Of course, that might tend to produce a coffee glut with falling prices, but maybe another law could be passed requiring people to drink twice as much coffee. There’s never a problem that government, i.e., force, cannot solve!

If words actually mean what they say, as I naively like to think they do, then the problem of coffee farmers not receiving a living wage would solve itself as the unfortunate farmers, well, died! If the term "living wage" is an exaggeration, and the farmers receiving less than that amount are not actually starving, but nearly so, then they might consider going into another line of work, rather than hoping that someone like Mr. Young will come along to force people to drink more expensive coffee.

Mr. Young would also like to force the coffee shops to sell only "organic" coffee, meaning coffee grown sans herbicides, pesticides, or fungicides. The organic movement has been around long enough to teach us that raising crops organically means lower yields per acre, with no compensating benefits of better taste or nutrition. The distinguishing feature of organically grown produce is its higher cost.

And "shade-grown" coffee simply refers to coffee beans grown on plants shaded by a canopy of taller trees. The "benefit" of this technique is that the tree canopy provides a habitat for more than 150 species of migratory birds. Obviously this has nothing to do with coffee per se, but with birds. What would happen to these birds without the canopy? We’re not told, but the obvious conclusion we’re expected to draw is that it would be avian catastrophe! It would be highly improper to doubt it, of course.

In fact, the whole scheme is based upon rather wishful thinking, and forcefully stated, but unproven, ideas. Organic farming, as I’ve mentioned, offers no advantages over traditional farming, and significant disadvantages. We’re told that the shade-grown coffee would provide habitat to 150 species of birds, and we have to take that on faith, along with the assumption that the birds would suffer horribly if the coffee were raised without such a canopy. It is reasonable to assume that coffee plants grown out in the open provide habitat for various critters who would not do as well under a canopy, but they’re out of luck until some group comes along to assist them – at our expense.

Without the "fair-trade" many farmers have done what you would reasonably expect them to do: switch to another crop. The crop chosen by many is coca. Well, we can’t have that! Coca is most definitely not a politically correct crop. No, the farmers have got to stick with their coffee, and the drinkers have got to pay more. Caffeine, si!, coca, no! What could be simpler, or more logical? Free choice, like free markets, is simply unthinkable to Mr. Young and the 3000 naïve Berkeleyites who’ve signed his petition to put the coffee bean on the ballot in Berkeley.

Young admits his proposals are rather radical, but reminds us that "When you look at seat-belt laws, that was shocking – people freaked out. But now people accept it as a matter of course." No doubt the frog would have "freaked out" at the thought of being placed in a pot of boiling water, but accepted as a matter of course the soothing, warm water – that was gradually heated.

Strip people of their freedom in a single fell swoop, and at least some of them will object, perhaps violently so. But inch it away gradually, over issues not worth fighting about, like coffee, or seat belts, and they’ll grow to accept the idea "as a matter of course." In fact, the 3000 mush-brained idiots who’ve signed Young’s petition prove it.

July 9, 2002

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is a semi-retired ophthalmologist in St. Louis, and the author of All Work & No Pay, which will soon be available at Amazon.com.

Add Your Comments

Comments (Hide Comments)
by anon
It doesn't sound like this Rick Young is "neoliberal". If he were, he would probably consider the very idea of "Fair Trade" coffee as a "non-tariff trade barrier" interfering with the profits of coffee importers.
by activist
I like the analogy of the seatbelt . . .

C'omon, peoplel, there's lots of other limitations out there that no one is making this much of a big fit about - like the lesser of two evils for pres or gov, or the lesser of one evil newspaper in SF, or the only option being Walmart in towns that aren't big because they've screwed every small business out of their savings, etc., etc. Oh right, I forgot, the *market* decided on these wonderful limitations, not us, with our right to make propositions. if *we* try to set up a limitation, for a good cause, everyone has a fit. But the market? Well, no stopping that, get with the program, pull yourself up by your . . .

Leave Berkeley alone, for chissakes and go spend your time on something useful!
by chp
Yeah... investigate the term neoliberal for a few minutes. That would most definitely not be what Rick Young is. It is a sort of complex term. For instance, a neoconservative is not the opposite of a neoliberal. George Bush, as an example, is a neoconservative who holds the neoliberal position. 'neoliberal' more accurately describes a body of ideas while the terms 'neoconservative' and 'paleoconservative' originated to describe a split of actual conservative people, the second group being traditional conservatives with a populist bent who emphasize social issues and who favor nonintervention in foreign countries (see Justin Raimondo http://www.antiwar.com/justin/justincol.html or Pat Buchanan) the former group being conservatives who don't hold the traditional conservative positions but who emphasize corporatism, the current US policy of america-first intervention etc. (see George Bush, and William and Irving Kristol are representative of this school) (neoconservatives tend to be a very american invention. You don't see nearly as many of them in other countries).
Here are some descriptions of neoliberalism. http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?articleid=376 At indymedia you will probably see that used as nearly a synonym for the idea behind the current centralized global economy institutions - e.g. the IMF, World Bank, the WTO. Many people criticize them because they're not democratic at all, nor are they 'liberal' in the most frequent definition of the word.
If you see leftists use the term 'liberal' in a disparaging sense, it is important to realize the definition that is being used, and also to realize that it is something a bit different than neoliberalism. Many regular people who don't spend their time babbling about politics all day use the term 'liberal' as a synonym for left-wing and conservative for right wing, and this is acceptable, but many leftists view liberals as moderates such as Clinton who include absolutely no concept of socioeconomic class in their view of issues, and rather have a very simple political perspective where they only care about a few social issues relating to identity politics, where they strive to have the gov't make a few reforms to solve the situation. For example, liberals would care deeply about the pro-choice position but would concentrate their energy on electing Al Gore so that the right person was put on the supreme court, even though neoliberal Al Gore would support the WTO which helps impoverish women all around the world, and the democrats supported the recent welfare reform which was done in a way which doesn't help out children particularly. Liberal are environmentalist but express this solely by their purchases of the right thing at the supermarket and their personal recycling habits, and then think they are doing all that anyone can do even though they could be striken by lightning that day and their death would have no impact on the environment, meanwhile there is an entire institutional system which needs to be altered
by activist
The thing I've been noticing - here on Indymedia and on places like Infoshop - is that sometimes there is so much discussion about the nuances of ideology that I sort of wonder if it isn't middle class people finding ways to keep themselves from actually *doing* something. It's great if people are informed, and I've learned a TON from reading all these things, but it would be good if people can keep it short and not spend hours and hours arguing (that's mostly infoshop) about whether certain groups can be considered the same as the ISO or whether diversity of tactics is reasonable.

We all have a lot of work to do and I think everyone needs to and take a moment to see how much time they're spending in ideological fillibustering of eachother.

While the anarchists are arguing, the NYTimes is printing jokes about them - the latest one shows an anarchist with a nose ring ordering a latte and criticizing the 'capitalist' worker.

The piece above about neo-liberalism was good, although could have been half as long. I really appreciate the free lessons, and hope this critique is useful.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$330.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network