Gun registration is often a prelude to confiscation – so is it reasonable to suspect that garden registration could eventually lead to government seizure of independently grown food — including survival gardens?
Any time a government wants to “register” something, it’s reasonable to believe that bureaucrats have eventual confiscation in mind. Think of how the tax collection bureaucracy strives to account for every penny of income people earn, spend, and invest. It’s also worthwhile to remember how firearms registration lists have been used to track down and confiscate personally owned firearms during times of emergency; this has happened during U.S. military operations abroad, such as the 1994 mission in Haiti, and in the aftermath of domestic disasters, such as Hurricane Katrina.
Here is a sound survival axiom in dealing with government bureaucracies: If they know what you’ve got, you should expect them to take it when times get tough. This is the perspective that should inform a proposed garden registry in Utah.
The Utah Department of Agriculture and Food is sponsoring an initiative it calls the “Utah Garden Challenge,” through which the agency is trying to entice 10,000 gardeners in the state to “come forward and document their gardens…. Whether locals grow a tomato in a pot, a row in a community garden, have backyard gardens, a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) program or work a fruit and vegetable farm, Utah is encouraging its denizens to register their gardens! There is no garden too small!”
Why does the state want its “denizens” – an odd and mildly pejorative description for the state’s inhabitants, who are more commonly called “citizens” – to register their gardens with a government agency? One possible answer is found nestled among the buzzwords that litter the initiative.
According to the UDAF, “The 10,000 Garden Challenge is an example of the local movement for sustainable agritourism and living.” “Sustainable” is a term of art that grows out of the UN-centered Agenda 21 initiative, which if implemented would require regimentation, by administrative bodies populated with wise and far-seeing bureaucrats, of all human interactions with the natural world.
This approach is referred to as “sustainable development” – that is, economic and social development supervised by people who are uniquely attuned to nature’s needs, or at least pretend to be. Another potent hint is found in the fact that the project refers to independently grown food as “an important resource to the state” – a phrase through which the state agency implicitly asserts collective ownership over private property of the most vital kind. Official language makes prominent use of the collective possessive pronoun “our” – as if every backyard garden that was cultivated and harvested through individual initiative somehow becomes the property of the collective.
The UDAF is doing its best to draw a rhetorical smiley face large enough to disguise the hammer-and-sickle essence of its proposed garden registry. According to Commissioner Leonard Blackham, IFA Country Stores has “partnered” with the agency “to provide gift certificates as a small incentive to sign up. For each 1,000 gardens enlisted, a $500 gift certificate will be awarded to a participant, selected at random. A $100 gift certificate to the Slopes or The Farm restaurants … will be awarded to an additional participant selected at random for each 1000 registered gardens. In addition, there will also be awards for communities that sign up the largest number of gardens.”
Right now, the state is inviting participation, and offering small incentives; at some point, will it insist – and impose “penalties” for non-compliance? Developing the habit of asking questions of this kind is a vital survival skill.
Read more here.