I’m not claiming a dichotomy in that family farms and food abundance cannot coexist; I’m saying you are using a metric (family farms) that is not the intended g

I’m not claiming a dichotomy in that family farms and food abundance cannot coexist; I’m saying you are using a metric (family farms) that is not the intended goal (national food security). So again, I’m asking what is the better alternative for implementing subsidies? I don’t know if we’re just talking past each other, but it’s hard to make sense of your stance. If you think subsidies are a viable solution to some problems but the US govt can’t manage subsidies, are you implying the US should not use subsidies, even on the problems they would solve? If so, can you elaborate on govts that have used subsidies to solve similar problems by better implementation? When govt is, by definition, who wields subsidies these are difficult points to reconcile. Pointing out less than perfect implementation isn’t really helpful unless you can figure out a way to improve it. Just saying “the govt is inept” isn’t helpful when they are literally the only organization who provides subsidies. I don’t disagree with the problems you point out but they come across as flippant “see!? See how bad the govt is!?” Dogmatic axioms might make someone feel good without actually addressing the problem. I’ll give an example. I think subsidies need to have clear metrics to measure effectiveness and sunset clauses. This would help prevent things like alpaca subsidies meant to assist in the Korean War somehow staying in place until the mid 1990s. The point of the subsidies was national security, not “protecting the family farmer” or “minimizing food waste.” To that end, they worked.