Australia mostly leaves food to the market, in the sense that it has some of the lowest agricultural subsidies in the developed world, and it's a net exporter of food with no famine and no civil unrest.
I'm not sure that subsidies are the best government intervention, either. Strategic grain reserves are probably more useful and less distortionary.
You might be right that strategic reserves would be a better policy. I'm definitely not a fan of what corn subsidies have done to the food supply.
Interesting re: Australia. I was mostly looking at the history of the US before the subsidies. There were a few extremely tough times for farmers. And in other countries' history, most revolutions seem to start with a bad year or two for crops.
> most revolutions seem to start with a bad year or two for crops.
This is the main thing. The farm subsidy can be considered an exorbitant, market distorting subsidy. But food is too important to the very fabric of society, that it has to be available at reasonable prices at all times.
I'm not sure that subsidies are the best government intervention, either. Strategic grain reserves are probably more useful and less distortionary.