Is Agrariansim the Best Answer?

               In Wendell Berry’s “The Whole Horse” he illustrates the stark differences between agrarianism and industrialism and describes his perceived advantages of an agrarian economy. Many of these aspects sound really desirable such as the benefits of a close and personal local community and the extreme preservation of nearly all forests and its inhabitants. The opposed economic system of industrialism is stated as being one that is only concerned with “monetary capital” and that it only generates “efforts to sell products for more than they are worth.” Given these chosen descriptive characteristics it immediately becomes clear that one should favor the former economic system to the latter. But when focusing on sound economics, would a drastic overthrowing of the current economy into a farming centered simplistic nineteenth century type system really be beneficial to all people who compose our economy? There are, undoubtedly, some flaws in the current “industrialist” system, there is another approach that could be taken to reduce the negative impact of this system (particularly on the environment) that would also achieve the agrarian principles of a more locally centered society with an economy made up of many smaller businesses instead of a few major corporations. The system I am referring to is free market capitalism.
               Contrary to current popular belief, this proposed system is one that is far different from industrialism, in which large corporations lobby government to pass highly regulative legislation whose compliance costs and fees act to bar smaller firms from entering into the market. This atmosphere allows large corporations to go unchecked in the market and results in the monopolizing of many industries, particularly those whose products are more inelastic in demand. This setting of “crony capitalism” creates a ceiling above which no upcoming smaller firm can compete for market share with these massive favored corporations. This unholy alliance between government and corporations allows these large corporations to defy what would be the natural understood laws of the free market and behave irresponsibly in their operations with the understanding that they are indeed “too big to fail” and that any bankruptcy on the part of mismanagement will be covered through bailouts by the government. What consumers get as a result of this corrupt system are higher prices and lower quality in the goods bought, due to the absence competition among firms in the marketplace.

               With the onset of market competition there would be more incentive for each individual firm to control its own impact on the environment. Businesses are competitive by nature and would welcome any opportunity to point out any shortcomings in a competitor’s improper disposal of environmentally harmful waste and would certainly make an effort to advertise their own unrivaled efforts of careful ecological management, all in an effort to maximize market share and maintain an attractive identity to customers.

               The end result may not offer the radical agrarian their ideal end, but a free market economy that is unaltered by the influence of crony capitalism and large corporate monopolies will produce a balanced effect that will allow for locally driven economies to rely more on small and upcoming businesses instead of large irresponsible corporations. The environment will not be relentlessly burdened by the corporations who previously answered to no one. On the other hand, technology will certainly become innovated at a higher rate and prices will gradually decline. With the resulting lower market prices made possible through a competitive market, households will have more disposable income. This additional income will allow these families the agrarian opportunities of developing their own desired means of sustenance and greater individual freedom and self-reliance.