You're making ethical arguments. That's good for discussing what people should do.
However, we live in a world where entities often do not make ethical decisions. They make practical decisions: should I grow coca or coffee beans? The gang with guns wants me to grow coca, and they are willing to kill people who don't work for them... so I guess I grow coca. You can wish for them to be dead heroes, but that's not how you should bet.
At a larger scale, ethics don't win over profits. There are for-profit prison corporations. I bet they have very well thought-out corporate mission statements.
If you want to talk about why people make the decisions they do, you need to think about psychology and economics. If you want to talk about how people can be supported to make better decisions, you need to talk about politics and economics.
I think if I were talking about small groups of people where much of the food production is done onsite, and there is a higher cooperation locally, this can be done. It has been done, even in just a regular neighborhood. I am not necessarily talking about changing large agricorps or policy changes.
However, we live in a world where entities often do not make ethical decisions. They make practical decisions: should I grow coca or coffee beans? The gang with guns wants me to grow coca, and they are willing to kill people who don't work for them... so I guess I grow coca. You can wish for them to be dead heroes, but that's not how you should bet.
At a larger scale, ethics don't win over profits. There are for-profit prison corporations. I bet they have very well thought-out corporate mission statements.
If you want to talk about why people make the decisions they do, you need to think about psychology and economics. If you want to talk about how people can be supported to make better decisions, you need to talk about politics and economics.