A logically confused piece of ecological blather

We obviously have our preferences here but it’s still entirely legitimate to ponder how we’d like farming to be done. Efficiently by machines or lovingly and tending to Gaia by kumbayah. We prefer eating but you can go with the ecological movement if you prefer.

However, there’s still this logical failure in this argument in favour of the agroecological method:

Agroecological innovations in transitions to sustainable food systems are being driven largely from the bottom up by civil society, social movements and allied researchers.

That’s super given that we’re actual and real liberals around here. People do as they wish, experiment, decide what they’d like to be doing and how. Others watch, copy the methods that work and we all become richer as a result. Result, eh? Exactly what we desire from any socioeconomic system, the maximum of freedom, liberty and wealth.

What confuses is this logical error:

Government, civil society and private sector representatives will soon meet in Rome at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization to discuss the future of farming. Who controls the global governance of innovation will be a hotly debated topic.

But given these highly contested views on innovations for food and agriculture, it is vital that everyone is able to exercise their right to have a say on the future of their food supply. Deliberative and inclusive processes such as citizens’ juries, peoples’ assemblies and community-led participatory processes are urgently needed to decide priorities for food and agricultural innovations. This is all the more important in today’s context of rapid global change and uncertainty.

So. Do you want to live in a world in which artificial food is produced by intelligent robots and corporations that put profits before people? Or one where agroecological innovations ensure we can nourish ourselves and our communities in a fair, ecologically regenerative, and culturally rich way?

But why do we have politics involved? Why have a vote? We’re in a bottom up, civil society, voluntary association world aren’t we? What’s government got to do with it, government being that legitimate method of compulsion?

That error rather worries. If agroecology is a better system then it will win in a market system. If it’s not better then why would we use the power of government - or even that tyranny of he majority which is democracy - to insist everyone must do it?