The Locavore's Dilemma: Why Pineapples Shouldn't Be Grown in North Dakota | Library of Economics and Liberty

An outstanding example of the application of the economic way of thinking to what, regretably, many view as a moral imperative.

This excellent application shows, why for me, the discipline of economics and the application of the economic way of thinking is a moral pursuit. That is, an examination and understanding of the process of liberty, responsibility and choice is moral in and of itself.

Further, behaving in a liberal and responsibile manner when making choices is also moral.

Coercing others choices, as Boyes points out, is immoral.

Lusk et al write:

The decision to buy local foods is a shopping decision, not a moral one. If you can find tasty local food at a price you are willing to pay, then go for it. But it doesn't make sense to cajole others into making the same choice you do, and it especially doesn't make sense to force others to do so. There is a romanticism about buying local food, but the reality is that local-food policies destroy wealth and institutionalize prejudices for one human over another based on such arbitrary criteria as the location of their farm. Local-food advocates imagine the movement providing a host of non-economic benefits, promoting a sense of community and "belonging." But buying local food limits one's community to only those we can physically see and imparts trust to only those whom we personally know. However, a shopper involved in the global food chain is part of a much larger community—one that requires a great deal more trust than one is required to muster at the farmers' market. If we want to foster the civic virtues of trust, trustworthiness, and community, the local-food movement is a move in the wrong direction—it is little more than nativism.
Jayson L. Lusk, F. Bailey Norwood, The Locavore's Dilemma: Why Pineapples Shouldn't Be Grown in North Dakota | Library of Economics and Liberty