On Sat, 21 Dec 2002 12:48:40 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Friday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

On Fri, 20 Dec 2002 07:39:41 +0000 (GMT),
("David G. Bell") wrote:

On Thursday, in article

"Torsten Brinch" wrote:

One can't argue against all subsidy, it is inherent that each and
every specific case of subsidy might arguably have demonstrable
benefits to society. It is important to realise, however, that
it is no longer considered beneficial to society to subsidise farm
production.

Why?

Saying "free market" is not an explanation.

No, it is the assumed default among reasonable men. It is the
presence, not the absence of a subsidy that must have a special
explanation attached to it. It does not make sense to ask, why some
enterprise should -not- have a subsidy.

Sir, you are begging the question.

No, you are just trying to shift the burden of the proof. It should
not be a problem to you if someone says farm production shouldn't have
a subsidy. Either you can agree, or you are able to argue why or in
which way you think it should.