| « | Bastions And Batteries Part 3: The Megaphone And The Marshals |
»
|
|
Thursday, July 29, 2010
I Did Not Know That
This post wasn’t originally written to go here, nor was it written in response to Our Curmudgeon’s recent (and ongoing?) series, “Bastions and Batteries.” But, on reading it over and polishing it at BabyTrollBlog, I realized it really should be posted here at ER as a part of this ongoing converstation.)
I DID NOT KNOW THAT THESE RAIDS WERE going on across the nation. But now that I do, several things occur to me. (Exposition at link.)
First: these are an infringement upon liberty.
The Ninth Amendment insures that unenumerated rights are not to be disparaged. In the Declaration of Independence, the writers (some of whom also participated in the framing of the Constitution) affirmed that among our (including but not limited to...) inalienable rights are those of life and liberty. Therefore, it can / may /should be argued that the Ninth Amendment specifically affirms and protects a right to liberty.
Liberty: autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence
freedom of choice; “liberty of opinion”; “liberty of worship”; “liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases”; “at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes”
personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression
We may, therfore, take it as given that the right to liberty is a part of our Original Intent. So definitely a part that the Framers held it to be Self-Evident.
Included in liberty must surely be the right to engage in free commerce with all and sundry, in any object and at any price the market may allow, without hesitation, delay, or let on the part of the state. Yes, this does imply that laws against markets in drugs are unconstitutional. It also means that the state has no lawful authority to limit the citizens’ access to arms. Suck it up.
Second: in the article, it is alleged that officials from several states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois) colluded to institute a strategy of raiding private associations for the distribution of farm products. This is a conspiracy in restraint of trade. If the Congress can claim to be legally permitted to force a farmer to destroy crops raised for his personal consumption because his consumption of it denies his custom to interstate commerce, certainly we can claim that the states have no authority to regulate agriculture, since it impinges on interstate commerce, which is the exclusive purview of Congress.
And, yes, I will quite easily turn right around and argue that Congress does not have the lawful authority to regulate private exchanges wholly contained within one state. Arguing different theories in the same case in different venues is a long-established legal practice on which no shame should attend, especially not in the defense of liberty. The purpose of governments, (this, too, is a part of our founding intent), is the preservation and defense of liberty, and all activities which neither defend or protect liberty are perversions, not to be tolerated under any circumstances. All tactics toward these ends are appropriate.
So let’s hear no more about “compelling state interests.”
However. There is in the United States Code a law requiring that those who conspire to deny the free exercise of civil rights are subject to fines and/or imprisonment. There is even a provision for doing so under color of law, which disposes of the idea of sovereign immunity. These are the sections in code so famous in these parts: 18USC241-242.
Third—and here’s the part that is—in part—in response to Our Curmudgeon’s call for comment: the assumption that governments have the legitimate power to regulate what a free people may choose to exchange among themselvs is specious and a gross perversion of the purposes of government (see liberty above). Yes, this does mean the FDA, the USDA, the DEA, and the rest of those regulatory edifices that so eat up our sustenance and trammel our liberty.
So what do you do about it? How do you struggle against a program of subversion going back over 100 years? How do you respond?
The Chicago Way.
When they pull a knife, you pull a gun. When they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue. When they infringe upon your liberty and trammel your rights of association and commerce, you attack their right to exist.
Works for me.
…
Addendum:
We may have to take some pages from the enemy’s playbook. Back in the late ‘60s, a group of radicals in Chicago made a great deal of headway in the public mindspace by turning a courtroom into a circus, denying the legitimate authority of the state to try them on the crimes of which they stood accused. To them, it is now widely known, this was a pose. A hail Mary shot never intended to garner as much publicity, sympathy, and support as it did.
We, on the other hand, have truth on our side. In abrogating the limits placed on the state by the Constitution, the ruling class has vitiated the legitimacy of the Federal government. It may take a few of us throwing ourselves—figuratively—on the spears of the centurions of the usurpers to make the point, but we have a good chance of winning in the long run, so long as we accept that we’re in a fight for our lives and the existence of—I don’t think it’s a stretch to say—of civilization itself, and act accordingly: like the damned thing mattered. Then, perhaps, we might begin to haul this thing around to point it in the right direction—away from so-called progressivism and back toward liberty and justice for all. And maybe we can avoid opening the Pandora’s box of violent civil war. ‘Cause we REALLY don’t want that.
And, by the way, go read Ann Coulter’s column today for encouragement and an example of how to deal with quislings among our own ranks.
Comments
"They also raided two farms suspected of illegally selling raw milk. “
The mind boggles.
“In late 2008 and early 2009, the representatives of state agriculture agencies in Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois met via phone conferences with representatives of the FDA to map a plan for targeting raw-milk buying clubs in the Midwest.”
Dear me, it sounds like an Oligarchy wielding State power to eliminate competitors they don’t like.
Who would have guessed that as the power of the State grows, it would be used according to the whims of men to trample the rights of others?
Posted by Russell on 07/29/2010 at 11:26 AMI have to agree with Lady Ann here.
Those ostensibly on our side who make the fatuous and intellectually sloppy and dishonest asserttion for comity’s sake need to be recopgnized for the statist ruling class shills that they are.
They have become way to comfortable with the casual slanders our enemies sling around about us never realizing that their socialist interlocutors hold them in contempt for being traitors to their supposed own.
We have to make it plain to the David Brooks,David Frums, Peggy Noonans and Katleen Parkers have embraced a dubious and fatuous and noxious narrative the is the ultimate in the “Big Lie” theory.
We need to start ridiculing their accomodationist pose as the betrayal of individual sovereignty to the perogatives of the all powerful state that it is.
Posted by on 07/29/2010 at 11:33 AMAnd, yes, I will quite easily turn right around and argue that Congress does not have the lawful authority to regulate private exchanges wholly contained within one state.
Except that the holding of Wickard v. Filburn says oftherwise...and you and I both know that the Feds will never willingly let go of that precedent, as it has been the cornerstone of the expansion of their Commerce Clause powers to regulate EVERYTHING.
Posted by Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere on 07/29/2010 at 12:04 PMWell, BiW, if we concede the fight at the outset, we’ll never win.
I keep being reminded of how particular and technical a lot of SCOTUS decisions are. Take Miller, for example. The infringements on a God-given, enumerated right for over half a century hinged not on whether a lower court was right or wrong, but on whether the defendant’s advocate ARGUED the point.
Slender reed, indeed. The right blow could break it, as Alan Gura figured out.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 07/29/2010 at 01:29 PMRaw milk kills people. It is dangerous and regulated. If these people flaunt the law wouldn’t you expect the legal system to go after them?
Posted by on 07/29/2010 at 08:01 PMGWTW;
Your assertion is one of the stupidest I have seen in these comments in years. You’re saying that, every time someone drinks raw milk, they will die? If not, recast your premise. If so, you’re a fool.
As to the law, what authority does the Federal Government to meddle in private and voluntary associations? What part of “Congress shall make no law...” escapes your notice?
It’s rather amazing that you focus on the minor premise—that these associations get fresh produce from farms that have not been—scorn quotes—“approved” by our Federal masters, and ignore the major premise, that the Federal government has, is, and will continue to exceed its lawful authority until and unless We the People bring it to heel.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 07/29/2010 at 11:12 PMMany thanks for your comment about the dangers of milk GWTW.
I’m often reluctant to comment in here for fear of seeming foolish in some very bright company. You’ve just relieved me of that anxiety.
Posted by KG on 07/30/2010 at 02:22 AMGWTW, I cannot tell if your comment is serious or facetious. If misunderstood your comment, please help me understand your intent.
1. Raw milk is not dangerous. The bacteria that can infect raw milk can be. I don’t drink raw milk. When I was growing up, my family drank raw goat’s milk due to our reaction to cow’s milk. If the animals are healthy, the feed is good and equipment is keep sterile and in good condition raw milk is safe.
2. The bacteria that can infect spinach can be dangerous. This is from the CDC : “As of 1 PM (ET) October 6, 2006, Friday, 199 persons infected with the outbreak strain of E. coli O157:H7 have been reported to CDC from 26 states.” (a) But when it comes to raw milk, the CDC acts like it’s really scary but the numbers aren’t as broken down so we get somewhat vague statements like “From 1993 to 2006, 69 outbreaks of human infections resulting from consumption of raw milk were reported to CDC. These outbreaks included a total of 1,505 reported illnesses, 185 hospitalizations and 2 deaths.” (b) The funny thing is, the report cited, the CDC’s “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report” for the week of March 2, 2007 doesn’t support the conclusions (c).
3. Pasteurization is not a sterilization process. “The FDA permits the presence of up to 20,000 bacteria /ml and 10 E.coli/ml in milk after the pasteurization process has been completed.” and from the same source, “A total for some of the documented outbreaks due to PASTEURIZED milk over the past few decades is 239,884 cases and 620 deaths.” (d)
4. Wisconsin Raw Milk laws are very prohibitive (e). The procedures surrounding the enforcement of the law are clearly spelled out in Wisconsin law (f). Read it and see if the behavior reported “agents of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture, escorted by police and also bearing search warrants ... two farms suspected of illegally selling raw milk. And in a national first among such raids, agents searched a private home and made off with computers; the family’s offense appears to have been that it allowed one of the raw dairy farmers to park in its driveway to distribute raw milk to area residents who had ordered it.” matches the proscribed actions in the law. Does it require a SWAT team to serve a warrant and investigate the potential sale of raw milk? It’s not like the farmers are gang members with enough firepower to supply a South American rebel army.
5. If Raw Milk is such a dangerous substance, why, according to Wisconsin law, can the farmer and his family and any non paying visitor drink it? It’s only when the farmer tries to sell it that the law takes affect. Think about that, it’s only consider dangerous when it’s being sold.
6. Final point, to quote Mark “As to the law, what authority does the Federal Government to meddle in private and voluntary associations?” The fact that the State is pulling no punches to crackdown on raw milk deals scares the willies out of me far more than the potential problems of raw milk.
Footnotes:
a. http://www.cdc.gov/ecoli/2006/september/updates/100606.htm
b. http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/raw_milk/
c. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5608a3.htm?s_cid=mm5608a3_e
d. http://www.realmilk.com/press-release-12mar07.html
e. http://datcp.state.wi.us/fs/consumerinfo/food/health/raw_milk/index.jsp
f. http://www.legis.state.wi.us/statutes/Stat0097.pdfPosted by Russell on 07/30/2010 at 11:41 AMGWTW has a point. Raw milk does kill people. When I worked on the farm I drank it every day and sure enough it killed me, on average, about every ninth day. Folks in our area complained endlessly about the corpses littering up the place and demanded action. That’s how the War On Raw Milk started. So let’s deal in facts, aye?
Posted by Ol' Remus on 07/30/2010 at 12:09 PMTook all of nine days, did it?
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 07/30/2010 at 02:13 PMAhhhhh Raw Milk. What’s next unattended yogurt? From all the spirited conversation, it would seem we have at last reached the real “culture” wars!!! (Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)
Mark, you are quite correct. The feds (and to some greater or lesser extent, depending on the state) and the states, along with corporate giants (Monsanto. ADM, etc) have a virtual strangle hold on agriculture/agri-business. Short of going directly to the torches, pitchforks, buckshot, and stronger measures, one wonders if it is not too late to affect and effect change in this regard.
Posted by Guy S. on 07/30/2010 at 10:09 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
