Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Rural productivity is vital to urban concentration. Raw material does not come from the depths of the subway system, nor do the land and seaports magically produce goods. Food, fiber, fuel, etc come from the rural reaches. We pay a premium to buy food from the rural US in the form of common import tariffs that stifle or eliminate competition at the expense of the consumer and to the benefit of agricultural interest…
"Large volumes of food need to come from some rural area, but if left to its own devices, the market would never demand that so much of it come from the rural US, or that the rural US make so much from the crops it produces." Why not? The US exports a lot a food and consumes a lot of food (per capita). If we were to cease exports and even some domestic production, then prices will rise. The worldwide demand isn't goi…
To clarify, removing tariffs and agricultural subsidies might not affect our overall agricultural output much (I wouldn't want to make a prediction on that) but it would lower the cost of goods which were previously subsidized with taxes or tariffs.
> Not to mention if we become an importer because of this, we could outbid other nations and instigate famine in the poorer nations.
It's worth pointing out that almost all economists of all political leanings are opposed to agricultural subsidies (it's one of the rare political things economists agree on) and one of the commonly cited reasons is that buying food produced by third-world economies at a true market price would be a natural and valuable step in helping those countries develop and grow out of poverty. The number of powerful people (including people who would normally give lip service to free markets) who, when confronted by this consensus among economists, basically don't give a shit is... disheartening.