“But but but think of all the starving children Monsanto has saved!” says the Monsanto bootlicker. “Monsanto ended world hunger?” I reply. “No,” says the crony capitalist lover, “But it would be a lot worse without Monsanto!” “Really? Wouldn’t it be better, and actually follow conservative principles, if we stopped paying farmers to dump milk and not plant fields? Couldn’t we also stop sending money and food to third-world dictators so that their subjects would feel the need to rise up Funding Fathers’ style and end their own problems?” Says the Monsanto fan to me, “Ron Paul lover!”
*I can’t stand Ron Paul, but that’s a catchy comeback for them.
For this accomplishment they have received exactly what they sought: money.
You don't like the methods, you don't like the crops.
Fine.
Buy a farm and grow ones you like, or buy from a supplier that you do like.
I'm not sure what farm subsidies have to do with this - supporters of farm subsidies would argue (in my opinion falsely) that the subsidies are the only things enabling them to compete with Monsanto.
If they went away, Monsanto would survive.
While we can debate the merits of ending the international grain trade, food shortages do not cause people to "rise up Funding [sic] Fathers' style" - the Founding Fathers did not take up arms because they were hungry.
In fact, they would probably have been more worried about food than suffrage if they were hungry. It was their prosperity that enabled them to sustain the long war.