> I think there may be a disconnect between individual "farmers", who are perceived as rugged individualists, and well-connected farm companies with deeper pockets and lobbyistsDisagree. Small family farms provide the votes, farming companies provide the lobbying $. They're symbiotic, and both benefit from subsidies (to the extent that small family farms own the land they farm, which many do).
In any case, the "rugged individualist farmer" myth is a myth. And as long as my tax dollars subsidize their profits, I'll continue to point out the hypocrisy.
99.9% of farming really is just one more inter-connected industry these days. There's nothing wrong with inter-connectedness and inter-dependency, BTW. But it is extraordinary hypocritical to appeal to one's self-sustenance as a justification for preferential legal/policy treatment when you're working in an industry that relies not only a myriad of other industries, but also huge federal subsidies.
> Would large farm lobbying groups fight against Deere's practices, when harming small family farms drives business to larger agri-businesses?
Sure. Decreasing maintenance costs helps their bottom line too. And decreasing their operational costs is probably a more sustainable and probable way to drive out family farms anyways.
> It seems like John Deere's restrictions are more harmful to small family farms than to large agricultural corporations, right?
Really only in the sense of diminishing marginal utility of money.
(As I said above, I'm not siding with John Deere. So we agree. But I'm also not siding against John Deere because of any level of sympathy for farmers' romantic self image of "independence".)