Joel Salatin is a Virginia farmer and a book writer. He passionately defends small
farms, local food systems, and especially the right to opt out of the conventional food
system. In his essay Declare Your Independence he emphasizes the need for people to
go back to a more traditional way of living and farming. He talks about why we should
change our ways of hunting and whole food shopping to an older more 'natural' form
of living. He also argues to ignore the government rules, because they do not have are
only concerned with helping the food systems. That the government makes rules to help
the system but cannot regulate all of us.

I see him trying to establish some credibility by first trying to explain his position
and why he feels this way with the 'What Happened to Food?' section at the beginning
of the essay. He continues to establish credibility by making historical references to the
Dred Scott ruling, that slaves were not human beings, and how the same type of person
was making the decision on which food is safe (Salatin 187- '188). I do believe that part
backfires, as you will realize that he is comparing a ruling in a slavery case to that of
what foods we should eat.

He tries to make a connection with 'true' Americans by saying what is the point
of having freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and assemble if you can energizer
the body that utilizes those rights (189). He wants to enrage people by saying we are
having our rights taken away from us. Not by new laws, but by our physical limitations
that the government is trying to weaken by these below average products.

I do think he has earned some credibility when he does talk about how to grow
food. This is because he is a farmer so he should know about growing and raising his
own food. If he didn't he and his family would be in some serious financial trouble. Not
to mention he is also living what he is preaching. He isn't saying you should grow your
own food. Meanwhile, he is buying his from a supermarket somewhere, and because of
that he has instant credibility with readers. If he didn't live like he was preaching then
that would lead to an exodus of even his most devoted of followers.

Salatin is trying to convince people not just to give up processed foods but we
should fear it. He also plays to people's rebellious side. That little voice that says, ' I
know it's against the rules but I should do it anyways.'(194) Finally he wants people to
be outraged by what is happening to our foods now a days. He wants people to get mad
and do something crazy like write their congressman.

He does utilize enargeia. He uses words like cheat and disease to describe food
and where it comes from. He says that the foods are treated with any thing ending in
'cide' are being treated with 'death.'(191) He paints a picture of your body by calling it
a 'three- 'trillion- 'member internal community' (198).

He wants people to fear food, and fear is a powerful motivator. This can be
proven to be a very powerful motivator especially when a loved one is eating processed
foods. Like I mentioned earlier he wants people to rebel against the government not by
rioting in the streets but by saying 'defy, don't comply,' when it comes to breaking
ordinances about growing your own garden. He says to sell your foods locally and forget
food safety laws. He thinks that the reality with our government today is that they don't
have enough money to hire enough 'bureaucrats' to check up on everybody (194).

He wants people to get outraged. He wants people to get angry at the factories
making money off of exploiting food and how it's made. He also wants people to get
angry with the government for not just allowing the factories for doing what they do,
but for also trying to stop individuals with ordinances and other types of laws(194).

He is using a combination of all of these methods. I believe he does this so
people won't know the difference between the actual scientific reasoning and the false
reasoning. The most frequently one used is dialectical reasoning. In which, he says
something that makes sense but something seems off about the statement. Like when
he says, 'power brokers encourage citizens to go out into the woods on a 70- 'degree fall
day; gun- 'shoot a deer with possible variant Creutzfeld- 'Jacob's disease, drag the carcass
a mile through squirrel dung, sticks, and rocks; then drive parade- 'like through town in
the blazing afternoon sun with the carcass prominently displayed on the hood of the
Blazer.' (188- '189) It makes sense when you say it but when you think about it none of
those things would really be a significant threat to your health except for the disease
which has a less then 5% chance of happening. Only a 5% chance of happening in a
specific area of the United States in a specific type of deer
(http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/cjd/detail_cjd.htm). Also no one drives Blazers
anymore so problem solved there.

He also makes a lot of sense when talking about using local land to grow a
variety of foods and sell them locally instead of growing one crop and selling it
worldwide. Yet again though if you think this through logically we need to understand
that we need to grow food not just for us but also for other places around the world.
We are very fortunate to have a vast array of land to grow crops, but other countries
don't have that and depend on other places for their food. It would also negatively
affect our international economy and our international relations with other countries.

Finally what I was saying with him using both scientific reasoning and false
reasoning to balance each other out. You can plainly see that in the Plant a Garden
section where he says, ' People who think nothing of driving around Washington D.C.,
at eighty miles and hour in a fifty- 'five speed limit zone often go apoplectic at the
thought of defying a zoning- ' or building- 'code ordinance.' (195) I believe this is a fact I
can't really prove it but it sounds like a lot of people I know from all over. Then he loses
me with the second half of the quote saying, 'The secret reality is that the government
is out of money and can't hire enough bureaucrats to check up on everybody anyways.'
(196) This statement is a lie the government will always have money for stuff like that, I
just don't think they care enough about the issue to do anything about it.

The argument is very thought out and well put together, but it still didn't sway
me to change my position. It doesn't help that he has to start his article defending on
how extremist it might sound. The main reason is that he tries to convince people to
revolt against the government and their safety regulations on food. To me that is an
argument that takes away from the main topic, and it adds doubt to the whole article.
Next, I feel that even his best points where only half- 'truths, and his weaker points
sounded like they where false.
