“Thus he thought that if he used the brute force of the government to increase demand for goods, the economy would somehow be fixed. This he did to a fanatical extent, ordering imperfect oranges, apples, pears, and peaches to be torched at the side of the road while skeletal onlookers, starving to death, breathed in the scent of destroyed food they could have made good use of. Worse yet, his Agricultural Adjustment Act forced farmers to follow federal regulations on how much food they could plant. One farmer who planted eleven acres of crops without asking FDR and his cronies was fined and took…   his case to the Supreme Court, which ruled against him in the case Wickard V. Fillburn, fining him a severe amount of money for producing more FOOD at a time when people were STARVING TO DEATH than the government told him he could. Explain to me how FDR is a good man now!Read more”

It's important to look at the context in which FDR's policies, like the Agricultural Adjustment Act, were implemented. The Act was designed to stabilize crop prices, which had plummeted during the Great Depression, by controlling surplus production. While it may seem counterintuitive to destroy crops or limit production when people were starving, the goal was to prevent further collapse of the agricultural sector, which would have had even more severe consequences for the entire population.

As for the Wickard v. Filburn case, it highlights the complexities of implementing policies…  Read more during a time of crisis. The intention was not to punish farmers indiscriminately, but to establish a fair system that would benefit the agricultural sector as a whole. It's worth noting that subsequent agricultural policies have evolved and learned from the shortcomings of the past.