Is there room for compromise in the farmer-versus-farmer war of words over the wheat board? In a recent letter, one farmer said there must be some way to find a compromise between wheat board supporters and the “forces of change.”
That’s an appealing thought – shouldn’t everyone be in favor of a compromise to stop conflict?
Unfortunately, when fundamental principles are involved it can be impossible to work out any logical compromise. Sometimes, the best that can be hoped for is that both sides get tired and put up with whatever the situation is at that point.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
In matters of real warfare, for example, there can be no compromise between pacifists and devout patriots who believe in conscription.
Pacifists believe as a matter of principle that people should not use violence. If handed a rifle, they would refuse to use it. The patriots believe it is right for a society to conscript citizens to serve in the armed forces.
Then there is a group that would base its opinion on specific situations.
Many people might support conscription to help stop another Nazi Germany. But few would do so just to help the United States protect one of its friends’ oilfields.
Yet another group might reject both conscription and pacifism, opting for costly incentives to attract the necessary number of volunteers.
But in none of these cases is there a compromise on the principle of whether or not a society has the right to conscript its citizens into military service. People feel, as a matter of faith, either that it does or does not.
“Conscripting” wheat to be marketed collectively is not the same as sending people off to war, but both issues involve a clash of principles.
Do the majority of farmers have the right to compel a minority to market their grain in a certain way for the collective benefit of all? Those who would always answer Yes or No will probably never be able to reach a compromise.
Those who look at specific situations might ponder the recent out-of-court settlement between the wheat board and the CNR.
Without the board, there would likely have been no agency able to win compensation for farmers for the transportation problems of 1996-97.
Incidentally, the letter writer who is seeking compromise defined one of his “forces of change” as being “the massive capital structures of the railways.”
If that’s the case, there should be a lot of benefit for farmers in having a strong, farmer-controlled wheat board to balance such forces. But no matter what the benefit, some will continue to oppose the board on principle.
