Re: more Tennessee milk blues (was radio / rights)

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2002 13:36:26 -0400 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

You: I hear you regarding the freedom we should have to decide for

ourselves what we do, including what we eat.

Again I'm a die hard Libertarian believing that people should be able to

make their own mistakes (and pay the consequences) and have minimal

government. (Also that private enterprise should handle ALL in a society

with open free markets...let Adam s invisible hand dictate, I am

ish by the way. ) It is however, a whole lot more work for most

people to follow these tennets, since it requires more time educating

oneselves.

*****You are right. It is a whole lot easier to have the civil government

relieve you of your own personal responsibilities (be it family, health,

personal defense, etc.), forcibly move your neighbor to give up his life

energy (i.e. money in the form of taxes) against his will to support

programs and causes he otherwise never would ( Jefferson called

this demonic), and lull you into thinking they (the gov't) got your back,

i.e. your best interest at heart. The only problem is that this

eventually leads to slavery, which is what the founding fathers wanted to

avoid, having seen such stuff in England.

You: Our learned forefathers did not think we could do it on a day to day

bases and selected a representative government rather than a democracy so

we could elect educated people to do our " thinking " work, freeing us so

we could do our day to day tasks... don't take it the wrong way.

******This is not true. There was an intense debate between the

federalist and the anti-federalists. They both had the *same* concerns -

i.e the overreach of gov't. The difference was that the federalists

thought they could devise a system that would keep the central gov't in

check, the anti-federalists thought this was a fool's dream. After two

centuries it is clear the anti-federalists were right.

Further, before Lincoln, our government looked nothing like what we have

today, and had very little, if any impact, in the lives of the United

States citizens. Representative gov't then is in no way equivalent to

representative gov't *now*.

<snip>

Yes, we should be able to eat and do what ever we want, but in our

compassionate society, if you get deathly ill from your adventure in

freedom, society will be picking up the hospital bill, and in more dire

situations, provide you with a stiphend for life and possibly support for

your dependents (not saying its much but still its there) .

******First of all I don't define compassion as a gov't program, which

you seem to be doing. Sending a dollar down to Washington, D.C., of which

most of it never finds its way back to the intended recipient, is not

compassionate, but a power play using the language of compassion.

Second, " society " when it picks up this tab, does so because of gov't

intervention, which is precisely my point.

Third, society won't be picking up my tab, and many others like me, who

have insurance to take care of such contingencies, and which would be

*much* more affordable if gov't got its hands out of the health care

business.

You: Since society, ie the government, is providing you a basic safety

net, they feel they have the right to minimize the risk... Only fair isnt

it? Hence their establishing rules that they feel will in the long run

reduce risk.

****Well the gov't and society are not the same, which is a common

mistake that people make, but since we are already venturing OT/OL I will

refrain from commenting.

Whatever safety net the gov't is providing is against my will and the

will of many others. That is what I mean about a legal monopoly on force,

which the gov't has, and it seems from what you wrote you have

experienced, and groups are able to enlist this coercive power through

politics. So given how this circumstance came about in the first place,

no it is not fair. Anymore than stealing my wallet, taking $100, and

given me back $20 so I can get home, is fair or " enriched " to put it an a

food context.

The rules are established to keep them in power, and ruling in every area

of our lives is certainly a way to stay in power.

<snip>

You: But just want to remind that the initial intention was to find ways

of getting what we want , ie permission to drink " raw " milk and utilize

it in our daily lifes.. and subsequent allow our good neighbor in La

Belle Acres to practice and teach (for pay) her artisan skills and sell

her production.

********Part of getting what we want is to drink raw milk whether we have

permission or not. When enough people are doing that it doesn't matter

what the powers that be want or think. They will have no way to control

or enforce such a restriction. La Belle Acres needs to do what it needs

to do in order to continue what it is doing now, but your solution is not

long term, only more of the same problem.

You: I could be wrong, but I think addressing the point rationally with

the proper folks WITH the supporting evidence will get the results

everyone wants.

******I hope not but you could be very wrong. This can do optimism in

face of Leviathan strikes me as hopelessly naive.

Bianca

[Guest guest]

I think we agree in many many areas...and I think you may have mis understood my

intentions in regard to governement. My hope was to help explain it so we can

deal with it. Humanize it from the demon-headed monster that inept activist try

and create, so their ineffectiveness at really doing anything useful can be

mis-directed or excused.

There are millions of folks that would like less regulations in their lives,

and God knows in many ways we would probably be better off transfering the

huge government payroll into private enterprise that would be far far more

efficient and who knows how much better ahead we would all be..

As you apptly stated, 80% of social programs budget gets eaten up in staff

/admin. Any non-profit spending their contributers money in the same fashion

would have the Feds on their butt immidiately. :-)

But so far, there hasnt really been the election numbers to change...and its my

humble opion as an experienced coup maker :-) that if the mass of people arent

mad enough to risk life, then you have no business trying to change the status

quo. All that will happen is you ending in jail at best, or at worst have the

pissed off powers that be gunning for you...

So, back to seeing what needs to be done to get whats wanted. agreed.?

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Apr 2002 15:53:32 -0400 " panamabob "

<panamabob@...> writes:

I think we agree in many many areas...and I think you may have mis

understood my intentions in regard to governement. My hope was to help

explain it so we can deal with it. Humanize it from the demon-headed

monster that inept activist try and create, so their ineffectiveness at

really doing anything useful can be mis-directed or excused.

******I have no problem with recognizing that people make up the civil

government and you have to deal with them as a such. On the other hand,

that doesn't change the nature of gov't and if one doesn't recognize such

they are liable to be crushed.

I'm not a government activist, nor do I believe the hope of mankind lies

in politics. Nor am I interested in making a protest for protest sakes.

<snip>

But so far, there hasnt really been the election numbers to change...and

its my humble opion as an experienced coup maker :-) that if the mass of

people arent mad enough to risk life, then you have no business trying to

change the status quo.

******Disagree. You don't need the mass of people or elections to make a

difference. People think that if they believe politics is the historical

agent of change, which I don't. But a lot of ordinary people working

diligently in their own spheres for freedom and liberty, over a lengthy

period of time, can affect great change, and often do. Such activity

often builds to critical mass, but the mass came about a little at a

time.

All that will happen is you ending in jail at best, or at worst have the

pissed off powers that be gunning for you...

******If you take them head on you may end up in jail. But plenty of

people in the alternative medicine field have ended up in jail even

though they were minding their own business.

So, back to seeing what needs to be done to get whats wanted. agreed.?

****As I said earlier, Labelle Acres needs to do what it needs to do, but

*your* solution is not long term, but only adding to the problem by

granting the high ground in the first place.

Bianca