Little of that has anything to do with "pure" libertarianism. Corporate welfare, which, arguably, includes the drug subsidy you propose, is not libertarian. What you describe are the natural outcomes of a mixed economy. We intervened for farmers and consumers, destroying the market in agriculture. We intervened for health providers and the sick, destroying Americas health care system (leaving aside Nixons wage and price controls). These interventions cause disruptions, such as the concentration in agriculture, which lead to more political power and more subsidies. In my rural township, we have exactly one remaining dairy farm. He happens to be the single worst farmer in the area, but he knows how to play the gov subsidy game so he continues.

I had a convoluted dream last night that I was able to stick it to subsidized corporate farmer Ted Turner last night, weird.

I think it's a mix of social and corporate welfare.

Heh, that's a great dream. As someone from a rural area, did you or your relatives, friends, etc. find advantages to the farm subsidies? I mean, I understand the practical reasons why they were first imagined up, but I'm curious if they had the intended effects, or if all the ones getting aid are like the dairy farmer you described.

Heh heh, I woke up feeling all smug then gave myself a wtf?

We'd be hard pressed to find any farm operation of significant size thats not getting Federal payments for something. I'd guess the most universal subsidy is for crop failure which really should be a private insurance issue. Heres a site we've had fun with before on the Cellar. You can look up particular areas and see who is being subsidized there.EWG

My cousin and uncle are dairymen who do a lot of different things like running a sawmill and finding other uses for their equipment so its not idle which keeps the farm profitable. They received a payment not long after my cousin took over the books but there seems to be a growing feeling that the subsidies are counter-productive, of course knowing my politics, they may be editing a bit when I'm the one they're talking to. ;)

The subsidies early on were probably intended to slow or stop farm consolidation by keeping small farms solvent during the rush to mechanize, when labor was at a premium because of the draft. Unfortunately, the small "backward" farms were the least likely to seek these payments since they probably weren't educated enough to play the system. Many farmers who failed to modernize did so because they feared debt payments which really aren't compatible with the vagaries of natural events like drought. Because of the constant war demand, many farmers of my grandfathers generation ran dairies right up to the 70's with only minimal equipment, until the creameries demanded bulk tanks and a minimum size herds as demand for milk sank to peacetime levels.

I have a friend at the Dept of Ag who explained to me that the departments often conflicting goals are not really supportive of agriculture in the hill country where I live. The department policy line is that the farms here are not enviromentally sustainable. They have a point when it comes to run off etc. from conventional (ouch the Mrs. just gave me taste of her fresh from the garden salsa) farming but the DoA isn't all that friendly to unconventional operations.