The original statement was as followed:

"I should be able to do whatever the fuck I want on my field as long as I don't use pesticides or processing that has been banned by law"

And then someone responded to this by saying that someone signed a contract.

And then you responded by going off about something that is refuted by the original statement.

So, you need to agree that the original response about a contract was wrong, and also that your new statement is irrelevant.

Yes, the original statement was overly narrow in its view of patents and contracts. Not only should you not enter into contracts that restrict how you can treat your fields, you should also not deliberately act in a way designed to infringe the rights of others if you want to be free to do as you please within the law without incurring liability.

For example, you should not deliberately cultivate a patented plant for which you lack a license from your neighbor's plot of land and then treat it in a way that only makes sense if you're doing that. That will incur liability when a judge notices you are trying to dodge licensing. To put it another way, using processing banned under law.

We shouldn't enforce absurd patents like that in the first place. What's the worst that happens? Some old people starve because their retirement investments tank?