B.C. Raw Milk Negotiations Underway

From the British Columbia Herdshare Association newsletter, Oct. 2015:

Advocating for the Herdshare Community — A Progress Report

Before BCHA was founded in June 2014, the raw milk community was surveyed to find out what services members wanted their new organization to provide. The answer was Support, Education, and Advocacy.

In July 2014, BCHA started its Advocacy program, to initiate dialogue with decision-makers about changing the laws, which make raw milk illegal in B.C. In July 2014, we wrote to Minister of Health Dr. Terry Lake: “We would like to request 10 minutes of your time, at your convenience, to discuss some ideas we would like to present for renewing and updating the regulation of unprocessed milk and dairy products. Our organization would like to talk about ways in which this safe, healthy, nutritious product could be provided legally to those consumers who wish to access it.”

In August 2014, a staff person responded, stating that the Minister was going to be extremely busy over the next few months, and a meeting wasn’t possible “at this time.” We asked if there were others in the Ministry who might be available, and a meeting took place in November 2014 with an assistant deputy minister and an executive director, to establish a dialogue where none had existed before.

Our presentation to them included information on the history of the B.C. law (the only law of its type in Canada), a map showing American states with legal herdshares and/or sales, the impact of a “cease and desist” order on farmers, and the excellent milk sample test results that our trained farmers achieve. The concerns they expressed in response were all about safety, and they said in order to consider legalization, our agisters would have to have training in a food safety program, which they want all farmers in the province to learn anyway. There had to be standards for bacteria counts, and zero pathogens in the milk. And there had to be some sort of licensing or registration of herdshares.

We asked for a moratorium on the enforcement actions that health authorities are taking against herdshares, and they responded that no moratoriums would be granted as long as there were court cases against government. In October 2014, we met with Minister of Agriculture Norm Letnick, who told us what we would need to do in order for them to look at updating Ministry of Agriculture laws to legalize herdshares: Not to try to find loop-holes, but to work through the process to change the law. He also directed us to meet with the B.C. Dairy Association, which represents commercial dairy farmers. Meeting then with B.C. Dairy, we learned that they want to see training and certification of our agisters, similar to Canadian Quality Milk program training, which is mandatory for their own members.

We met again with the Ministry of Health in January 2015 to continue discussion. They stated that in order to change the law, they need empirical evidence that raw milk can be produced safely. We showed them more of our agisters’ test results and a research proposal that a B.C. research university was interested in carrying out. The meeting seemed to end on a positive note, with willingness to meet again and work together to find a solution. A May 2015 meeting brought together the two Ministries of Health and Agriculture. We assumed that productive dialogue would continue, but something had changed. They started the meeting with two messages: (1) No further dialogue would occur as long as there was a civil suit against government (Jongerden vs. the Province of B.C.) and (2) a briefing paper about raw milk safety had informed them that, all the academic research says that it is too dangerous to legalize.

Their position is that if we want the law changed, we need to provide peer-reviewed academic evidence stating otherwise. We were able to inform them that we had received news that the court case had been dropped. We also told them that we would indeed be able to present them at a later date with this evidence, as studies were ongoing to provide this proof. To sum up: What would be necessary for the Health Hazards Regulation to be changed to legalize herdshares is:  A training and certification program for agisters  Bacteriological standards and regular testing.  Provide evidence that farm-fresh, unprocessed milk can be produced safely.  No more lawsuits.

There is still a lot of dialogue that needs to happen, a lot of work our community needs to do, before the law is changed. This means, not only BCHA talking with government, but also, members of the community meeting with their local MLA’s to educate them and win their support for changing the laws, and writing to government to ask them to change the law. More agisters need to be trained and start testing, to provide the evidence of safety we need. We can all play an important role in getting this law changed.

More in the BC Herdshare Association newsletter

31 Comments

Filed under News

31 responses to “B.C. Raw Milk Negotiations Underway

  1. Negotiating over your rights is about the same as negotiating with a pedophile about how he is going to rape your children.

    You DO NOT negotiate your rights. You demand them!

    • Greetings InalienableWrightsIn!

      Your comment attracted my attention in at least a couple ways. Firstly I understand the distinction between Rights vs privileges and that the above “negotiations” have all the appearance of the later. I appreciate seeing your reply to that! My second attraction is a curiosity as to the recognition of Rights in Canada as a natural-born American “free inhabitant” I am not familiar with Canadian Law. The “thumbnail” graphic accompanying your pen name appears to refer to the preamble for the Constitution (of September 17th, 1787) “for the United States of America”. Seeing that underscored my curiosity as to what if any similar Rights may have been declared and recognized in Canada. If you know, would you be willing to provide links to those documents? I’d like to see them and possibly comment further based on those documents.

      Cordially and sincerely,
      Chef Jemichel
      @ San Diego, California
      in “The United States of America”.

      • just a reader

        You can read the Charter of Rights at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/const/page-15.html .

        The Charter is very narrowly interpreted by the courts and unfortunately food rights are not protected by the Charter. See “R. v. Schmidt, 2014 ONCA 188” (http://canlii.ca/t/g6456):

        “[40] I also agree with the respondent that preventing an individual from drinking unpasteurized milk does not fall within the “irreducible sphere of personal autonomy wherein individuals may make inherently private choices free from state interference”: Godbout v. Longueuil (City), 1997 CanLII 335 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 at para. 66. In my view, the appellant’s argument to the contrary cannot be accepted in the face of the holding in R. v. Malmo-Levine, 2003 SCC 74 (CanLII), at para. 86, that “the Constitution cannot be stretched to afford protection to whatever activity an individual chooses to define as central to his or her lifestyle.” Lifestyle choices as to food or substances to be consumed do not attract Charter protection as “[a] society that extended constitutional protection to any and all such lifestyles would be ungovernable.” Such choices, held the court, citing Godbout at para. 66, are not “basic choices going to the core of what it means to enjoy individual dignity and independence”.

      • You still have a slave mentality chefjemichel. I don’t think you realize it, but let me point out your own words:

        “…my curiosity as to what if any similar Rights may have been declared and recognized in Canada….”

        Your words reveal that think that you must get permission to exercise your rights. You think that rights are different in different countries. You still think that rights come from governments…..You have things completely upside down. Just like 99% of the planet, that were programmed by their owners…. I hate to break it to you chefjemichel, but all people in all countries have all rights. They merely have to assert them. There are many more of us than them.

        Governments exist ONLY to protect our rights. If they do not do that they are criminal and they are illegitimate.

        Thanks for your response, and I hope that you can further break your conditioning some day.

      • Peter

        Hi Chefjemichel,
        I would have to concur with what inalianble rights said about our rights not coming from the government, and that they are universal.
        The founding fathers of America had it right. Unfortunately, because “our rights” are scribes in a document, many Americans perceive to have their rights because they are given to us by the document/ government. One must look at what the finger is pointing to… not the finger itself.
        Any legitimate judiciary (US, Canada, or anywhere in the world) is one that upholds, first and foremost, our human rights.
        There are many who believe or perceive that the judiciary does not do that. However, I would suggest that is, generally, an error in perception. Many are resigned to the idea that the government has absolute jurisdiction. Others hold to the idea that they have no jurisdiction. I would suggest that the government has a legitimate role, but that their jurisdiction is limited. Meaning, their jurisdiction to regulate is limited, and not absolute.

      • Peter

        @ just a reader
        Rights pertain to the doing of something. Not things themselves. The phrase “food right” implies the right to a thing, such as food.
        The right to things themselves may perhaps exist as a matter of contract. But that is not the same as those rights spoken of in the Charter.
        Furthermore, the argument that consumers are denied the right to choose, or the right to contract is not the subject of “milk trials” (nor have such rights been denied!). It is invariably the actions of the vendor/farmer which are the subject of charge. As such, “food right”, or “right to choose” is not the subject matter of such “milk trials”.
        To me, plain as day, the laws restricting the sale of raw milk is not a charter issue! Michael’s charter challenge was really just political fodder.
        We live in a society that has come to label “necessities” as “rights”. We live in a society that has grown to believe that equality (equal in dignity and in rights) has morphed into economic or material equity (a predominantly socialist paradigm). It may seem ridiculous to the uninitiated, but, while they are necessities for life, we don’t have the fundamental right to air, water, food, healthcare or education. We have the fundamental right to seek them out. But that is different from being fundamentally entitled to them.
        The paradigm of entitlement (as peddled by politicians/socialists) has only increased the all pervasive victim mentality, which is easily played by politicians (and the Schmidt’s) of this world.

  2. Interesting. Look forward to hear how things develop.

  3. thebovine

    It would be useful to know how this negotiation has proceeded over the four or five months since this story was originally published in the BC herdshare association newsletter. Perhaps there is a reader out there who knows more and can fill us in on the progress. Anyone?

    • just a reader

      I believe that there will be another BCHA newsletter published in the next couple of weeks that will give more details, but the summary is that progress has been slow and steady, as it takes time to meet the requirements that Ministry of Health ADM Arlene Paton said in May were necessary (providing them with peer-reviewed academic evidence of raw milk safety, developing a training and certification program which meets Canadian standards, etc.) before they would change the law (in specific, the Health Hazards Regulation).

      Meanwhile, a few of us have noticed that since talks began and the herdshare community in BC has been working on meeting the government’s conditions for legalization, no more herdshares have received cease-and-desist notices from the regional health authorities.
      There already appears to have been a shift from persecution to negotiation.

  4. I sincerely wish the very best in these “negotiations”. I’m sorry to learn that the so called “Charter of Rights” was a such a severe compromise on natural Rights for Canadians!

    • Amen…. just another reason not to make government your God. i.e. Your rights do not come from government.

    • Peter

      I would not say that the Charter of Rights was a compromise on natural rights. One must first understand what a right is (a claim recognized by law), and then appreciate the different sources. Human (fundamental) rights exist as a principle of mutual respect/nature/equality/natural deductive reasoning. Social/civil rights by social contract/arrangement, which are privileges by the government, or the whim of a ruling class or by a majority. And there are rights derived by contract.
      IMO, some perceive to have the unfettered right to sell their wares (i.e. milk) to anyone, and that the government has no jurisdiction to intervene/interfere. Even if you believe that to be just, it is not “their” reality/perspective. And given that your rights are only as good as your ability to defend them, I say… good luck with that.
      To appreciate the limitation on jurisdiction, one needs to appreciate strict liability, absolute liability, and mens rea.
      And for those who question government jurisdiction in their affairs, and wish to argue it, you would do well just by contemplating the word “government” for a while. Put that into different contexts in your life and you may find yourself empowered with clarity.
      Neither the Bill or Rights or the Charter of Rights are the source of your natural rights.

  5. I think it is good to take different approaches. Some might work others will fail. The BC herdshare approach appears to be promising and might change the landscape in regards to raw milk legislation.
    The cautionary principle with this approach should be applied, that negotiations are a common tool to appear as if things are dealt with in order to not have to be challenged in court.
    The conditions for the talks was that the charter challenge has to be withdrawn. This fact alone raises some severe questions about the outcome.

    • just a reader

      It’s standard government procedure not to negotiate if there is a court case on. Legal Services Branch over in the Ministry of Justice told the Ministries of Health and Ag that talks had to cease while Jongerden vs. HMQ case was active. So, it wasn’t unexpected. It also didn’t lead to a delay, as the application for discontinuance had already been filed before the May meeting with Health and Ag — they just were not aware of it.

      Constitutional challenges of laws seldom work, because the Charter is written with two “out-clauses” for governments: the “reasonable limits” clause and the “not-withstanding” clause (sections 1 and 33 – written to preserve the British “Supremacy of Parliament” principle which our Canadian legal system was based on). Both clauses could be invoked and in fact s. 1 had already been specifically cited by the BC gov’t in their defence in this particular challenge. CurrentlyIf one side argues food rights and the other argues food safety, the latter will win every time.😦

      One must address food safety arguments with evidence of food safety, head-to-head. So, if the court route were chosen again in Ontario, what would happen if every “John and Jane Doe” in this application were to file a Charter challenge before the March 16th hearing to argue that HPPA section 18 is over-broad and hence violates the Charter because not all raw milk is unsafe? Presenting as evidence in court their herdshares’ milk sample test results, RAMPs and SSOPs, and the food safety education training materials provided to herdshare members. Doctors notes testifying that they have never been ill from raw milk. Having Mark McAfee and Dr. Cat Berge in as expert witnesses, if they’d consent to appearing as such. Would this work as an approach?

      • Peter

        @ just a reader
        The government has the inherent jurisdiction to protect the public. As such, their opinion about safety wins every time. And rightly so. You and others may not, on the face of it, like that. But if you thoroughly think it through, it is not fundamentally unjust!
        If every John and Jane Doe files a Charger challenge, I would strongly suggest it will go nowhere! It’ll be entertaining, and cost a bunch of money, but you will (likely!) be disappointed with the outcome.
        First of all, the court is not empowered to make a determination at science. It is only empowered to make a determination at law. The government is tasked with the function of implementing effective public policy, and usually takes scientific findings into account. However, it is not obliged to align its policy with scientific findings. It should be appreciated that scientific findings are grey, while laws are black and white.
        What is powerful, however, is that you are not obliged to align yourself with social policy, nor with scientific findings. But it is incumbent on the individual to put him/herself in the position of self governance. The key is to perceive as such, and then, in your affairs, not to trespass on the rights of others, including the government regulated domain.

      • just a reader

        Peter, you are trying to pigeon-hole me, and, respectfully, you are off-base in your assumptions. You state, as if I did not know it:

        “The government has the inherent jurisdiction to protect the public. As such, their opinion about safety wins every time. And rightly so. You and others may not, on the face of it, like that”

        I have no clue where you got this idea from that I disagree with this. I worked in public safety for 13 years and have never disagreed with the idea that the government has the mandate to protect the public, a mandate given to it by the electorate.

        “If every John and Jane Doe files a Charter challenge, I would strongly suggest it will go nowhere! It’ll be entertaining, and cost a bunch of money, but you will (likely!) be disappointed with the outcome.”

        The idea of citizens launching a constitutional challenge such as I described is neither-here-nor-there for me. But this idea was part of a legal opinion obtained last October by a herdshare from a well-respected law firm. So, I shared the idea here, solely for discussion purposes. I have no attachment to it, only an academic interest. Peter, are you a lawyer, and is this a legal opinion that you are sharing? I am not a lawyer myself, and am not qualified to give legal opinions. I am only a policy analyst, and post here from that perspective.

        As for my own POV, for a while I worked in provincial government office which was the focus of intense lobbying over a hot-button issue. I saw, from the inside, what worked and what did not work to change the law, and I have shared this information in previous comments. I would not recommend any other approach, and I certainly do not personally recommend taking legal action. Especially not until all other traditional lobbying approaches have been tried and have failed, and it appears to me as though these approaches haven’t even been attempted yet in Ontario.

      • “…a mandate given to it by the electorate….”

        I don’t know where either of you get the idea that the public (you) can delegate a power to government (mandate) that you do not possess. What a logical fallacy. They don’t get any larger.

        Using your logic the public could give the government a “mandate” to bring back slavery. (a power or right that the public also does not possess)

        Using your logic the public can “mandate” anything…. say rape is legal on Thursday. Again a right that you do not possess.

        People with your mindset are dangerous, and the root cause of most of the strife in the world. It is by definition a Satanic belief system. The belief that you are God is a major plank of the Church of Satan.

        You can learn this from the horses mouth, in the interview of Mark Passio:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1zxn4vb0zThSHdYcFkzWHE3R0E/view?usp=sharing

      • Peter

        @ just a reader

        I meant no disrespect. It was your emoticon (sad face) that strongly suggested that you don’t like that safety trumps “food rights”. This is what I picked up on, and emphasized the point about government jurisdiction, regardless of one’s like or dislike. I’m not saying (nor intended to suggest that) you didn’t know that the government doesn’t have the jurisdiction/mandate to protect the public.
        If I may elaborate… My experience has been that most people, including government bureaucrats, lawyers (reputable and otherwise), and enforcement agents, (and by your commentary, yourself), appear to live in a paradigm where there is only one domain… a domain that is the subject of government permits, regulations and oversight. I don’t see it that way – by far!
        I clearly see a limit to government jurisdiction. If there were no such limit, we would in deed live in a society where the government has the authority to abrogate, abridge or infringe on our rights, contrary to the Canadian Bill of Right (confer Part I, section 2). In fact, we would have no rights at all, and that everything would then be a privilege from the government.
        I would suggest that, in the society we currently live in, we are always assumed and presumed, by default, to be “the public” subject to government oversight and protection. But such is not necessarily our state of existence! And it is this paradigm for the existence of both a regulated (permit) and unregulated (liberty) domain that is, imo, wholly empowering (but most apparently somehow not conducive to Schmidt’s real (unspoken?) aspirations).
        Just like yourself, I’m here sharing my POV. Mine is that we have inherent rights (inherent through logical deductive reasoning, rooted in the principle of mutual respect, and so upheld by an independent judiciary). As such, my paradigm perceives there to be an inherent limited to government jurisdiction, and that we have rights. From there, I believe it is prudent to appreciate those limits, and to understand our rights, and then to conduct our affairs accordingly. I hope it is appreciated that this is not intended as legal advise, but merely my opinion.
        I hope the above adds some clarity in the hopes that my comments are not necessarily construed as being so off base. If not, I ask for your forgiveness for my failure to be sufficiently clear.

      • Peter

        @ InalienableWrights
        I hardly know where to begin… At some level, you really appear, as the saying goes, to have opened your mouth and removed all doubt. But perhaps the following can be of some assistance.
        On the face of it, you are conflating regulations/commerce with criminal activity. Slavery and rape are criminal. Regulating commercial activity is something entirely different.
        Forgive me, but just by that alone, I believe the logical fallacy might in fact have been mostly yours.
        Perhaps you believe/perceive that, where the government has jurisdiction/authority/legitimacy to regulate commercial activity/protect the public, then they also have the jurisdiction/authority/legitimacy to engage in or enable acts of slavery and/or rape. Well, if that is your paradigm, I wholeheartedly disagree. I appears plain to me that you are still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. But if you keep searching with an open mind, you may find them yet.

      • Excuse the caps I can not bold or use a different font…..

        @ InalienableWrights
        I hardly know where to begin… At some level, you really appear, as the saying goes, to have opened your mouth and removed all doubt. But perhaps the following can be of some assistance.
        On the face of it, you are conflating regulations/commerce with criminal activity. Slavery and rape are criminal. Regulating commercial activity is something entirely different.

        PETER YOU HAVE WONDERFULLY ILLUSTRATED AND CONFIRMED WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD. THAT IS THAT MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG. THE CONCEPT OF ILLEGAL/CRIMINAL IS IRELIVENT THEN IT IS NOT IN LINE WITH RIGHT AND WRONG. THAT SEEMS TO TOTALLY ESCAPE YOU. THAT SOMETHING THAT IS LEGAL I,E. GASSING JEWS, OR DECIDING WHAT I CAN OR CAN NOT INGEST CAN ALSO BE CRIMINAL.
        IN OTHER WORDS YOUR USE OF THE EUPHEMISM “Regulating commercial activity” FOR THE CRIME OF VIOLATING PEOPLES RIGHTS DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IT IN FACT IS.

        Forgive me, but just by that alone, I believe the logical fallacy might in fact have been mostly yours.

        YOU HAVE NOT DISPUTED A SINGLE POINT I ORIGINALLY MADE PETER, AND YOU THINK I HAVE THE LOGICAL FALLACY IN MY ARGUMENT? HOW IS VIOLATING A RIGHT BY RAPE ANY DIFFERENT THAN VIOLATING A RIGHT BY USING A EUPHEMISM TO DISGUISE WHAT IT REALLY IS?

        Perhaps you believe/perceive that, where the government has jurisdiction/authority/legitimacy to regulate commercial activity/protect the public, then they also have the jurisdiction/authority/legitimacy to engage in or enable acts of slavery and/or rape. Well, if that is your paradigm, I wholeheartedly disagree. I appears plain to me that you are still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. But if you keep searching with an open mind, you may find them yet.

        THE ANSWERS AND LOGIC ARE IN FRONT OF YOU PETER. YOU ARE JUST IN SUCH A DEEP STATE OF MIND CONTROL THAT YOU CAN NOT EVEN QUESTION THE PARADIGM THAT YOU BELIEVE IN. EVEN WHEN IT REQUIRES YOU TO ENGAGE IN BLATANT COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

      • just a reader

        Peter, thank you for your explanation. I think we are on much the same page. Reviewing my previous comment, recalling my thought processes at the time I wrote it, that emoticon was a clumsy attempt to express sympathy for the intense frustration/disappointment expressed by friends when “R. v. Schmidt, 2014 ONCA 188” was lost, a case which they were positive would be won. If there were an “edit” function for comments, I would delete it.

        If there is any doubt remaining in the raw milk community about the importance of addressing food safety concerns, this doubt needs to be laid to rest. The court has already dismissed all “food rights” and Charter arguments. This case ultimately boiled down to food rights vs. food safety (e.g. paras. 18-2, 30-31, 46 of http://canlii.ca/t/g6456).

        And as the Hon. Justice Robert Sharpe stated, “[46] … The scientific evidence that I have already mentioned easily reaches the standard of ‘sufficient evidence to give rise to a reasoned apprehension of harm to permit the legislature to act’… There is no evidence to suggest that the legislature could somehow narrow the reach of the legislation and still achieve its purpose of protecting public health.”

        In the Jongerden v. HMQ civil claim in B.C., the government argued in its amended response to civil claim (Oct 26, 2012) that “3. … if subsections 2(a) and 3(1) of the Health Hazards Regulation limit the rights of the plaintiff under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is expressly denied, these limits are reasonable limits prescribed by law that are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, pursuant to section 1 of the Charter.” The government also argued at-length that raw milk is a high-risk food with no means of lowering that risk.

        If the law is to change, it will be is necessary for the raw milk community to provide this evidence, to convince government that public health can still be protected if access is liberalized. This was echoed by the B.C. government at last May’s meeting when the Ministry of Health ADM stated that in accordance with evidence-based decision-making, they first need to receive from us copies of peer-reviewed academic studies, solid evidence that legalizing raw milk will not lead to increased numbers of disease outbreaks, before they will change the law. We need to work on providing this evidence.

      • Peter

        @ just a reader
        Thank you for your understanding and clarification.
        I appreciate what your efforts are. As I see it, you are attempting to demonstrate to the officials the relative safety of raw milk. In return, you hope to gain some form of permit from the protector of the public domain to have raw milk be available.
        I might suggest, however, that at the end of the day, regardless of whatever science evidence you can muster, the government still retains the right to ban raw milk from public consumption. In other words, scientific evidence does not compel public policy making.
        On the other hand, keeping the government at bay by virtue of our rights is not a matter of politics or science, but a matter of law, duly upheld by the judiciary and enforced by the police. IMO, bypassing politics, the begging of government for things, or the need to scientifically prove XYZ, is liberating. But like I said, that is just my opinion.

      • Peter

        @ InalienableWrights
        You’re right. Thank you for your persistence. I believe I could benefit greatly from your in sights..
        Perhaps a good starting point would be if you could define what is right, and what is wrong. Also, could you elaborate on the distinctions between lawful, legal, illegal and unlawful?

      • *** Thanks Peter I am not the most patient nor articulate person, and you would do well to do some of your own research, but let me give it a try anyhow:

        PETER: @ InalienableWrights
        You’re right. Thank you for your persistence. I believe I could benefit greatly from your in sights..
        Perhaps a good starting point would be if you could define what is right, and what is wrong.

        I THINK THAT THE “NAP” THE NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE TOUTED BY libertarians (with a small L) comes closest to a one sentence definition of what right and wrong is: It succinctly and simply states that “no one has a right to initiate aggression”. That’s it. Not you not government. No one has that right.

        You may at first find some of his stuff way out there, but Mark Passio’s stuff on Youtube especially his natural rights series is very good. It is hours long and may be too much for some people to start with, but I have to recommend it anyhow.

        I really think that Larken Rose who you will also find on youtube does a fine job of explaining rights. His book “The Most Dangerous Superstition” is a great starting point.

        Older and more mainstream stuff would include a used copy of “Healing Our World: The Other Piece of the Puzzle” – on Amazon. I read it 30 years ago and just bought a copy for $5 delivered for my mother to read.

        PETER: Also, could you elaborate on the distinctions between lawful, legal, illegal and unlawful?

        LEGAL just means anything that is not in violation of any of the random and arbitrary rules that psychopaths in our government’s write down on paper, and call it law. (Bastiat address’s this in his piece called “The Law” but I am not much for old English. It is brilliant, but hard for me to follow. Perhaps you will fare better. http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html ) Laws do not have to be moral or right or legitimate or anything else,.they are just words on paper that most are brainwashed into thinking that they have a moral obligation to follow. Regardless, if you do not, men with guns will come and ultimately murder you.

        LAWFUL: In the context that I use it, it means something that does not go against Natural Law. It does not go against the NAP. Basically an action that is moral in the sense that it does not harm anyone. For example I would consider visiting a prostitute lawful.

        UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL are just the opposites of the above 2 definitions. People do use the words in different ways but I think that the above are in common use and the way that I use them.

        Good luck! It makes me smile to think about the journey that you are beginning on. If it have a purpose in life it is to get people to take that journey. It is what we must do to make the world a better place, and on that journey we must pay that knowledge forward to others.

        Humanity in where it is at because the whole system is designed to keep you from being able to understand the difference between right and wrong and there are a multitude of mechanisms at work to make that so. Government schools, organized religion, and the mainstream media are some of the more obvious ones.

        Here is one last source for you. It involves mind control. I will bet that if you watch it, that you will agree with the vast majority of it, and realize how much all of us are mind controlled. The most important thing we are mind controlled on, as I previously stated, is not knowing the difference between right and wrong.

        State of Mind: The Pscyhology of Control (full w/out roundtable)

      • Peter

        @ InalienableWrights
        Great.
        Next question. Do you have the unfettered / unalienable right to sell your wares to whomever you like? That would not seem to be in violation the NAP principle you suggested. Or?

      • @ InalienableWrights
        Great.
        Next question. Do you have the unfettered / unalienable right to sell your wares to whomever you like? That would not seem to be in violation the NAP principle you suggested. Or?
        =======================================
        Peter I have been at this for 40 years, and it is very difficult to say the least for me to field questions with such obvious (to me ) answers. I don’t mean to be rude but you really need to educate yourself as much as possible. Here is a free resource for you that I read when I was 14:

        “Healing our World”
        https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B1zxn4vb0zThX1VZZi1ESVRkUmM

        I am very frustrated no one seems to want to lift a finger to try and educate themselves… I have spent 40 years doing so and you can’t get people to spend a few hours doing so.

        To repeat, the NAP says that no one has a right to initiate aggression. So how is a mutually agreeable transaction of “wares” between 2 persons aggression? Only a psychopathic government bureaucrat could twist reality that much.

        We have ALL rights Peter, and they do not come from government. Government can not create them or modify them. Period. That was the gist of the Declaration of Independence, a document that Americans literally know nothing about. One of the most important documents even written by mankind and 99.999999999% of mankind is ignorant as to what it says….

        Sorry my friend I am tired, frustrated and have about 10 projects in the fire ranging from an online newspaper, to creating a custom Linux distro , to a lot of HAM radio projects. Perhaps I will be in a better mood next time.

        Cheers

      • Peter

        Ok. Great. Thanks.
        Next question: Do I have the inherent right to protect my children?
        (I don’t mean to waste your time. Just a yes or no would be fine.)

      • Peter, it really amazes me how well government, as they planned, have dumbed people down. As far as to what their rights are and as to the proper place of government.

        You really should either read the free abridged version that I linked you to or the full version of Dr Mary Ruwart’s book.

        She takes a different tact than Thomas Jefferson, she does not base her argument for rights based on property, which is a very good way to argue this. No, she bases her arguments for liberty on the non aggression principle.

        I got mine here used for $5….

        http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0963233629

        You have ALL rights Peter. That is what the Declaration elucidates so well.
        Good luck on your journey.

      • Peter

        @ InalienableWrights

        I’ll be frank! I’m not looking for an “I’m tired, I’m dismayed, I’ve been at it for 40 years, you’ve been dumbed down by the government, you need to educate yourself, you need to read this or that” stuff. You suggested you are not the most articulate person. So how about just a yes or no (and if need be, a simple qualifier)?
        1. You have the unfettered right to sell your wares to anyone you like.
        2. I have the right to protect my children.
        Is that right?

    • Tom Johnston

      Wow. That is rich.
      Because “If we leave it up to the courts to decide what freedom is then we going to lose all our Rights.” (https://thebovine.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/interview-with-michael-schmidt/)
      In light of that, what is the harm in withdrawing the charter challenge?
      For that matter, why spend $300,000 on a class action law suit? I mean, if the court is going to be the cause for losing our rights anyway, what legitimacy does the court have anyway?
      Or perhaps you seriously do think that your declaration of a right will be the new goal post for court rulings? If so, oh my…

    • Peter

      Michael,
      You seem to imply that the government cannot negotiate in good faith. If that is your paradigm, then so it shall be for you… No?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s