Context:Wider choice for farmers does sound good, but a close look at the enactments would show why their fear of exploitation is real.
Arguments Against the Farm Laws
Suspicion over dismantling Minimum Support Price (MSP):
Policymakers have dismantled it by already setting low prices and lack of accessible product collection centres.
No reforms in MSP will lead to millions of farmers will be forced to sell their products to four or five big agribusiness corporations.
On the other hand, farmers world over receive government subsidies like
China, European Union, United States and India spent an estimated $185.9 billion ($101.3 billion, ($48.9 billion and ($11 billion).
Prohibits redressal mechanism: for farmers if a corporation violates a contract.
Benefits big agribusiness corporations: new laws do not provide a level playing field to farmers.
Removes restrictions on stockpiling food grain by corporations that were put in place to discourage firms from artificially raising prices.
Providing more choice always is not desirable: it results in sorites paradox – e.g.
China gives workers the option of working in export-processing zones in exchange for basic labour rights.
Each individual decision to give up basic rights in exchange for a job may enhance that person’s welfare. But when lots of people do it, all workers may be worse off.
Similarly, the US’s law on ‘freedom’ to opt for slavery is often described as “warranteeism”.
Way Forward
India does not need market fundamentalism but a market that functions freely, within broad parameters of well-crafted laws.
Need for antitrust enforcement to level the playing field for farmers and regulate monopsonies ( need of which is expressed by even supposed free-market bastion of US).