Re: Tennessee milk blues

April 11, 2002

----- Original Message -----

From: " Idol " <Idol@...>

< >

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 9:18 PM

Subject: Re: Tennessee milk blues

>

> >What great benefit would Tennessee have by being inflexible to the over

> >all health benefits of the people?

>

> Campaign contributions and other related forms of influence dictate

> policies like the ban on raw milk. It's not that there's a giant central

> conspiracy, but many huge moneyed interests deforming the system for their

> own ends via propaganda and outright corruption.

Money does not corrupt politics; politics is inherently corrupt and money at

most determines who benefits and who is hurt by it. Once you surrender the

principle and accept that the government has the right and responsibility to

dictate which food may and may not be sold or consumed, it's a given that

somebody will try to use this power to benefit himself at the expense of

others. The solution is not to make sure that we control that

power--government is a two-edged sword at best, and this is why I oppose the

WAPF's goal of banning the use of soy-based formula--the solution is to

revive the idea that what we eat and what grocers stock on their shelves are

none of the government's business.

> The solution, though, is not less government as a principle (though in

some

> cases of course there's too much) but wresting control of government --

OUR

> government -- back from our foes. Government is the only force which can

> hope to oppose those foes on any kind of regular basis.

Less government as a principle is always a good thing. Our foes are powerful

only because they can enlist the aid of the government to oppress us. Think

about it--without laws against raw milk, if a small, independent dairy

wanted to sell raw milk, what could Darigold do to stop them? Refuse to buy

their milk?

Live free and prosper.

Berg

April 11, 2002

In a message dated 4/11/02 9:48:27 AM Central Daylight Time,

panamabob@... writes:

> Wasn't the original quest permission to do raw cheese classes and wasn't

> that permission given? It would appear that the powers that be are willing

> to listen, doesnt it?

>

Actually the classes weren't approved. Demonstrations were. I'm not all that

sure that it is OK by them for us to let other folks stir the milk in the

pot. We shall see. I would also want to give folks samples of the cheese.

This is a really serious offense. It is something that I can't understand.

When did gov't become able to tell us what we can give away?

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

April 11, 2002

Perosnally I am of the Libertarian persuasion, Government govern best that

governs least... Unfortunately you have human nature that crops up from time to

time, ,,

The government as it is now has grown through a process of evolution. Do I

appreciate it? In most ways no. However it does exist and always will because

for most people they like the living they have under the current rules. What I

am suggesting is to address the problems in a human scale since the cogs of the

great government machine are human. Address the cogs in a reasonable manner, and

you may be surprised to find that they are really wanting to help you. Of course

you could ignore and rant and demonstrate and end up shoot or worse by the

defense mechanism. I would rather get what I want. Quietly, and without fear of

reprocussion.

Remember that government, from soldiers to clerks, are made up of people. Plain

people doing what they think is Right and Good. They are not always correct..few

of us can claim to be. Have patience and compassion and you may see the ugly

head of government transform itself into a more tolerable state.

I have personally lost several million, been gased, peppered, shot with

buckshot, threatened in my face with serious painful death, incarcerated and had

acquintences killed and their property burned by actions of the a US goverment.

Pretty serious stuff huh. If I can continue in my faith that they are " trying to

help " then perhaps you can take the same view and survive, as I did.

Anytime you have three humans together, politics will be born. Its best you

learn to deal with it like the rainstorm and the draught, since its on a biger

scale than most of us can move. :-)

Wasn't the original quest permission to do raw cheese classes and wasn't that

permission given? It would appear that the powers that be are willing to listen,

doesnt it?

Its in our blood to be revolutionaries, not to want to be beholding to anyone or

have anything over our heads...I truly understand that and resonate. However the

majority are satisfied with the system, proof that the system exists. While that

exists, the system will exist.

Folks get the government they deserve :-)

- Original Message -----

From: Baruch HaShem

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:31 AM

Subject: Re: Tennessee milk blues

Don't think I can either based on the recent death experience we have

had....and the investigative powers who stepped in to, in their eyes, " improve

things " .....God forbid if this is improvement...

----- Original Message -----

From: bianca3@...

Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2002 8:34 PM

Subject: Re: Tennessee milk blues

On Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:50:24 -0500 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

I understand your anger. Pretty much the same deal in Florida.

You have to understand that the Government does things in an attempt to

help improve things.

++++++++Hmmmm......don't think I can go here with you.

Somewhere in the past someone got hurt from unpasteurized milk, etc. A

law was then passed, The Law may not even have started in Tenn or

Florida, but legislaters hearing of what seemed like a good law would

adopt it so they would appear " like hicks " .

++++++++Numerous people have been hurt by pasteurized milk, in fact many

more than raw milk over the last 40 years and no one is clamoring to pass

a law to ban pasteurized milk. There are many reasons political bodies

pass laws, rarely is it to " help " people, although the language of

compassion makes it much easier to get one's agenda implemented.

What needs to be done is a new study on the dangers of milk; pasteurized,

un pasturized, grain fed, grass fed etc.

Im sure you can imagine the hassels that will be for the status quo. You

may even shake the foundations of germ theory and health...which would be

really hard sell since " everyone knows " that germs exist. Many will think

you are stupid for going against such a basic " rule " . A hard fight at

best, impossible at worst.

*****several groups are already on the battle lines, www.realmilk.com

readily comes to mind as does Aajonus Vonderplanitz' group out in

California. The current popular germ theory is already being questioned

and has been for some time. You might check the archives for the

discussion that occurred here. If the government got out of the way then

people like myself and others who enjoy and thrive on raw milk could go

our merry " stupid " way even if others disagreed. But when you enlist the

power of the bullet (i.e " gubbermint " ) to enforce your market position

(i.e. the pasteurizers) then it makes it quite difficult for those of us

who take a dissenting position.

I don't have a problem with the pasteurized milk folks marketing their

product. More power to them and lets battle it out in the marketplace of

ideas. My problem is when they enlist the power of coercion (i.e. the

" gubbermint " ) to create a market monopoly for themselves so that life is

very difficult or non existent for those who want to produce and sell raw

milk.

just my two cents...

Bianca

April 11, 2002

> lets look at what we want to do , and assume that those around us for the

most part are doing > what they think is Right. They may be wrong but arent

trying to be malicious...

There is little difference between those who willfully exercise power while

cloaked in ignorance and those who exercise power while awash with malice.

Not only is the effect the same, I believe the moral culpability is also the

same.

It has always been my understanding that the concept of " karma " doesn't take

into account the notion of intent that the concept of " sin " does. I believe

that's much more useful. I frankly don't care whether the person standing

in front of me with a loaded gun pointed at me is *trying* to shoot me, or

simply doesn't understand gun safety. Either way they are dangerous and

need to be stopped. Peacefully if possible...

April 11, 2002

> The solution, though, is not less government as a principle (though in

some

> cases of course there's too much) but wresting control of government --

OUR

> government -- back from our foes. Government is the only force which can

> hope to oppose those foes on any kind of regular basis.

Government is absolutely necessary, but LESS government as a principle is

definitely what needs to happen. Bureaucracy cannot be controlled by the

people. It has a complexity threshold that prevents the common citizen from

being able to adequately understand and process the issues. Simplicity in

governance is critical to freedom. Free people *must* have the final say at

the ballot box about the issues that govern them. Complex government

inherently divorces them from the issues to a level that, even if they're

still *technically* franchised voters, there is a defacto

disenfranchisement.

As long as we have government controlled bureaucratic organizations like the

USDA, they will always answer to the most organized and wealthy power.

There is no way to organize a government that will prevent that...other than

inherently limiting the government from engaging in those activities to

begin with. Of course, we tried that too, but it only stopped them for

about a hundred years. Next time around it needs to limited in a more

absolute manner.

April 11, 2002

>>>I have personally lost several million, been gased, peppered, shot with

buckshot, threatened in my face with serious painful death, incarcerated and

had acquintences killed and their property burned by actions of the a US

goverment. Pretty serious stuff huh. If I can continue in my faith that they

are " trying to help " then perhaps you can take the same view and survive, as

I did.

***Is that why you are now *panama*bob??

Suze Fisher

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg/

mailto:s.fisher22@...

April 11, 2002

>From: bilherbs@...

>Actually the classes weren't approved. Demonstrations were. I'm not all

>that

>sure that it is OK by them for us to let other folks stir the milk in the

>pot. We shall see. I would also want to give folks samples of the cheese.

>This is a really serious offense. It is something that I can't understand.

>When did gov't become able to tell us what we can give away?

Shortly after it became able to tell us what we can sell. Give them an inch,

and they'll take the shirt off your back, if you'll pardon the mixed

metaphor.

Live free and prosper.

Berg

_________________________________________________________________

Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

April 11, 2002

do you have a phone number for the person you dealt with? perhaps permission or

a waiver could be attained.

As far as giving away...remember that the perception is that what you are

prodiucing is not wholesome since it hasnt been pasturized to kill off the

" germs " . Wouldnt be appropriate to give consent since technically the sick

folks could come back to the guvmint compalining why they werent protected

against 'dangerous " food producers. Failure of Government to doits job (insure

good food practices are used...part of whats behind restaurant sanitation

inspections) Actually it provides a comfort level to the general population in

not having to personally examin the kitchen and sources of every restaurant they

enter, knowing that the government big and strong has done this for them and

insured serious penealties to those that might ignore the accepted guidelines.

----- Original Message -----

From: bilherbs@...

Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 1:58 PM

Subject: Re: Tennessee milk blues

In a message dated 4/11/02 9:48:27 AM Central Daylight Time,

panamabob@... writes:

> Wasn't the original quest permission to do raw cheese classes and wasn't

> that permission given? It would appear that the powers that be are willing

> to listen, doesnt it?

>

Actually the classes weren't approved. Demonstrations were. I'm not all that

sure that it is OK by them for us to let other folks stir the milk in the

pot. We shall see. I would also want to give folks samples of the cheese.

This is a really serious offense. It is something that I can't understand.

When did gov't become able to tell us what we can give away?

Belinda

LaBelle Acres

www.labelleacres.com

April 11, 2002

hehe, very good Suze...you get the star. I pick the battles I have a chance of

winning :-)

I dont curse the sun for being hot, I just act accordingly.

April 12, 2002

panamabob wrote:

>I hope for the sake of everyones well being that your impression of

>a malevolent and purposefully mean government is more for dramatic

>effect than truth. It can seem some times that there is a masterplan

>or conspiracy at work... but remember we are all humans playing in

>Gods sandbox :-) No ones plans ever come off that well with all the

>possible help you can give. That fine fellow seems to muck up

>the best made plans.

I don't think Bianca was arguing for a conspiracy. Many times what we

take to be conspiracies are actually groups of people all

individually following their self interest. It only looks like a

conspiracy.

>What great benefit would Tennessee have by being inflexible to the

>over all health benefits of the people?

Have you ever studied public choice theory? " Tennessee " is not an

actor, here or in any other case. The actors here are legislators who

passed certain laws to ingratiate themselves with some group of

consumers or producers, and officials of the TN Dept. of Agriculture

who are ingratiating themselves with their bosses.

> You sometimes gotta follow out the logic to its end to see its

>fallacy. I daresay this poor legislative cog does not get to go

>nitely into the protective " bunker " of the high mucky mucks that

>decided to poison every person through bad food, water and air. I

>would bet she has the same general concerns that most have regarding

>the dreaded " C " word, and would not knowingly subject her family or

>her self to these poisons if she indeed recognized them and was

>convinced they were there and a real threat greater than anything

>else in daily life.

Right. The problem is that everyone legislates beyond their own

expertise. Legislators can't know everything. They get educated by

lobbyists from industry and consumer groups (like us!). But faced

with contradictory claims, they will take the path of least risk.

Above all, they will not let the consumer decide. The nature of

government is that imposes one-size-fits-all solutions.

>

>lets look at what we want to do , and assume that those around us

>for the most part are doing what they think is Right. They may be

>wrong but arent trying to be malicious...

you're right. But the system itself doesn't encourage Right. The

market encourages right, because people want to live. There's nothing

wrong with millions of people voluntarily making themselves guinea

pigs for raw milk.

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Representative government -- where many crooks get to vote

one crook into office. " --ny Hart in the comic strip " B.C. "

April 12, 2002

> >What great benefit would Tennessee have by being inflexible to the over

>>all health benefits of the people?

>

>Campaign contributions and other related forms of influence dictate

>policies like the ban on raw milk. It's not that there's a giant central

>conspiracy, but many huge moneyed interests deforming the system for their

>own ends via propaganda and outright corruption.

>

>The solution, though, is not less government as a principle (though in some

>cases of course there's too much) but wresting control of government -- OUR

>government -- back from our foes. Government is the only force which can

>hope to oppose those foes on any kind of regular basis.

I respectfully disagree, because " We have met the enemy and he is

us. " It's not as simple as them vs. us. " They " offer us goodies,

which we gleefully eat up and vote for more. The yummy rat-bait of

extra government services is laced with the Warfarin of raw milk

bans. Some different special-interest group (and we ARE a

special-interest group, as much as the NRA or AARP) will have

different bait. If we get them to stop poisoning our goodies, they'll

still be poisoning somebody else's, and we'll support it. In other

words, we DO have the government already. This IS a democracy, right?

So how many of you support government restrictions on white sugar, be

it only a tax? (Cutting out price supports doesn't count, as that's

removing a subsidy). If you do...what right do you have to ask the

State to let you drink raw milk?

--

Quick

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" Representative government -- where many crooks get to vote

one crook into office. " --ny Hart in the comic strip " B.C. "

April 12, 2002

>Belinda asked:

>Actually the classes weren't approved. Demonstrations were. I'm not all that

>sure that it is OK by them for us to let other folks stir the milk in the

>pot. We shall see. I would also want to give folks samples of the cheese.

>This is a really serious offense. It is something that I can't understand.

>When did gov't become able to tell us what we can give away?

Sometime before the Microsoft antitrust suit.

April 12, 2002

On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 00:11:57 -0400 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

I hope for the sake of everyones well being that your impression of a

malevolent and purposefully mean government is more for dramatic effect

than truth. It can seem some times that there is a masterplan or

conspiracy at work... but remember we are all humans playing in Gods

sandbox :-) No ones plans ever come off that well with all the possible

help you can give. That fine fellow seems to muck up the best made

plans.

******I wasn't arguing about some master plan or conspiracy, and frankly

I don't care what the *intentions* of our government might be. It is the

nature of government and the end result regardless of their intentions

that concern me. If they run me over even out of a supposed concern for

my self interest what do I care? They still ran me over.

There may in fact be conspiracies, but even conspiracies result from

someone's own self interest. So whether its a group of conspiring folks

or a number of self interested people with their own agendas (good or

bad) isn't really the point.

What great benefit would Tennessee have by being inflexible to the over

all health benefits of the people?

*****I'm not sure there is such an entity as *Tennessee*, there are

legislators and state bureaucrats in Tennessee who respond to the various

lobbying groups who want to see their own agenda implemented, including

groups supporting the use of raw milk. Politicians want to stay in

office, to do so they will take the path of least resistance. That may or

may not be in *our* best interest, but it will certainly be in their best

interest, regardless of where the actual truth may lie.

You sometimes gotta follow out the logic to its end to see its fallacy. I

daresay this poor legislative cog does not get to go nitely into the

protective " bunker " of the high mucky mucks that decided to poison every

person through bad food, water and air. I would bet she has the same

general concerns that most have regarding the dreaded " C " word, and would

not knowingly subject her family or her self to these poisons if she

indeed recognized them and was convinced they were there and a real

threat greater than anything else in daily life.

*****But thats the point. Regardless of her " concerns " she may or may not

be right. And given that there are conflicting positions she is going to

adopt the one that is in her best interest. It would be political or

economic suicide (loss of a job) for her to do otherwise.

We don't need government telling us how to eat, but we invite such

scrutiny when we allow them to tell others how to eat and live (through

taxation, subsidies, and outright laws). People aren't going to make

choices long term that will poison them. That is one reason why the

market is always a better way to find out what is right, rather than the

dictates of some government dictocrat.

We all know that you can die in car accidents, yet we daily use this

killer form of transportation because the alternatives seems worse. Are

we brainwashed by on high to ignore the death potential of driving? By

the same token this poor lady probably hasnt given a seconds thought to

the milk product in the store and wether its better or worse than the

milk produced back in the day of Davy Crockett. She assumes that it

doesnt kill you immidiately, so its probably just as safe as million

other products out there.

******Probably. But what I choose to eat and drink is really none of her

or her colleagues business.

There are many that would argue for the sake of your very life that only

human milk should be consumed by humans. What was designed to grow calfs

should not be ingested by people; cows milks has all kinds of hormones

that humans were not designed to ingest. This doesnt mean raw milk, or

pasturized, or clabbered, etc. It means ALL milk, period... and you must

admit it makes pretty good sense...after all what logic has it that

babies need to latch on to other species for breast sustenance ? :-)

******Your logic here is greatly flawed, but this has been taken up

recently in several posts so I will not comment.

<snip>

Now someone is telling this poor well meaning civil servant that

pasturization is bad and not necessary for milk. Hmm. And your

credentials are ? Can you blame her? I know for a fact that presently

there is another movement to ban milk all together. Proof irrifuteable

that it brings nothing but harm to humans. They make very good points

too. Check out some of the websites in that camp. Very convincing

arguements. If it was big business trying to get you to drink only

pasturized big business milk then this new camp would be counter

productive , wouldnt it?

lets look at what we want to do , and assume that those around us for the

most part are doing what they think is Right. They may be wrong but arent

trying to be malicious...

******No doubt they are doing what they think is in their best interest.

The problem is they want to impose their best interest on everyone else.

Freedom necessitates the ability to make good and bad choices. If I want

to drink raw milk, so be it, and Leviathan should have no say whatsoever.

Bianca

April 12, 2002

I hear you and perhaps I was focusing too much on that trying to compensate for

the feeling people sometimes get that it is hopeless to fight city hall or to go

against the " conspiracy "

Of course your right...if you get run over doesnt really matter to your greasy

spot that it was accidental and not premediated.

But at least you have the comfort in knowing that they are NOT out gunning for

you :-)

That to me means it isnt hopeless to try talking with the government reps to get

a change...

we have a saying, " ...through talking comes understanding "

All im suggesting is talking reasonably to the powers that be before getting the

old family rifle and set up the barracaide. Many times it can be resolved

through simple dialogue...again they arent looking tohurt you so you can relax.

:-)

most enjoyable discussion... no ones been shot yet .

bob

SLF

----- Original Message -----

From: bianca3@...

Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 1:48 PM