So, You think you’re FREE? Nov 1, 2013 10:29:30 GMT -5 Jerseylady*Heather*, kristi, and 4 more like this
Post by yvonnemm on Nov 1, 2013 10:29:30 GMT -5
Definitions of “free” include –
Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or do as one wishes.
Not subject to external restraint.
Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government.
Enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination.
Basically it means unobstructed by others in leading life as we see fit, period. It is true that we live together. Living together mandates we have some rules. We can get really complicated with what rules are appropriate and what rules are not. I’m not doing that here. Let’s just agree that some rules of living are necessary.
Now, let’s see if we think the things I lay out in the following pages are necessary rules that allow us to live together while maintaining our basically “free” lives. Or, are they rules that actually infringe (limit or undermine) our freedom.
Quotes from the FDA…
a) There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food
b) There is no generalized right to bodily and physical health.
I’d be willing to bet that most of you think you are free to eat whatever you choose. Right? Well, I guess that depends on what you choose. If you choose eating mass produced food purchased in a grocery or restaurant, then you’re right! You’re free! But it’s not really choosing is it? It’s going with the norm or the mainstream. Did you even know there were other options?
It doesn’t matter if you have a child or not. It doesn’t matter if you want to drink raw milk or not. You don’t have the choice. Let me say that again, YOU DON’T HAVE THE CHOICE. (section deleted because most KFCer’s already know the details)
In many states it’s against the law for raw milk to be sold. It’s not against the law for you to drink it. But who cares? They’ve made it impossible for you to get. And why? Well, why not. It benefits the corporations. The politicians who vote for keeping raw milk illegal will tell you that it’s because it’s dangerous. I can’t find any data to support their contentions, but it doesn’t matter. Even if they were telling the truth, does that mean it should be illegal? Are they undermining your freedom? Peanuts kill people every day, raw milk does not. It follows that peanuts are more dangerous. Should peanuts be illegal? How about alcohol? It kills people quickly and slowly. Should alcohol be illegal? Cigarettes, they kill people every day, but wait, they aren’t illegal either. So why is raw milk illegal? Why don’t I have the option to make my own decisions regarding what I believe is better for myself or my children?
“Hey kids! You won’t find any of that killer raw milk in our frig! Please don’t drink my beer, I’ve got a 12 pack in there. Oh and my carton of cigarrettes is in the freezer, leave those alone. And don’t give Sandy peanuts! Last time the machine had to breathe for her for a week. Remember that the neighbor kid, Johnny, he ate his mom’s prescription drugs, out of the frig, and he’s still not right in the head. So leave my prescriptions alone. Other than that, like I said, I’ve kept out the biggest danger, raw milk, so have at the rest of it, I’ll see you later”
Truth be told, pastueruized milk kills people, really, kills them dead. Why can I buy that? Why isn’t that illegal? Spinach and peanut butter killed people recently in food poisoning out breaks. Why isn’t spinach illegal?
The question is; Are you free to eat what ever you want?
When you have determined what food works best for you or your child and the gov’t interferes with nonsensical laws, are you free?
In March of 2010, the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund sued the FDA for its prohibition against allowing raw milk to cross state lines.
The FDA moved to dismiss the case and in its motion stated that…
a) There is no absolute right to consume or feed children any particular food
b) There is no generalized right to bodily and physical health.
The case was dismissed.
Hmmm and we all thought those were just basic human rights. Perhaps it’s time for a constitutional ammendment, perhaps to the bill of rights. Cuz I’m pretty sure we all think we should have a basic constitutional right to eat what we want and be healthy.
(section again deleted- summary –some states have regulated many or most small butchers out of business. Remaining butchers cater to large producers and will not take your single cow)
So, even though it’s not illegal for you to EAT locally farm raised meat, it’s impossible for you to get. They’ve basically made it illegal and/or impossible for anyone to sell it to you. It’s also exceedingly difficult, in some places, in some states to get your own meat butchered.
Fruits and Vegetables
Farmers markets have become a joyous shopping outing for many people. The luscious colors and wonderful smells are addictive. (section deleted) One fine spring day you notice there are fewer vendors at your local market. You ask one of the vendors, that did make it, why there are so few. They proceed to tell you a long story of permits and licenses and the state cracking down on people selling veggies from their own gardens. Apparently, many of the smallest vendors (who in your opinion had the best food) couldn’t afford the fees for all of the newly required paperwork. You’ve just lost half of your favorite grocery store. Really only grocery store, because the gov’t saw fit to make it difficult or impossible for people to sell you vegetables.
Are you beginning to see a theme here? Are you feeling freer then ever?
It’s not illegal for you to drink raw milk. It’s illegal for people to sell it to you. If you live in a state where it isn’t illegal, it’s, often, still very difficult, ask the producers.
It’s not illegal to EAT locally raised meat. It’s just illegal or impossible or prohibitively difficult for people to sell it to you.
It’s not illegal for you to EAT local vegetables. It’s just becoming increasing difficult or impossible for people to sell them to you.
Hmmm if I wanted to take away peoples’ rights and quash their freedom without them noticing….the above looks like a good plan. Don’t tell them they can’t have it, make it impossible for them to get.
GMO’s Labels and Food Safety
Seriously, I don’t care if you love them or you hate them. Both parties are in the same boat. You’re SOL. If you want every bit of food that goes into your mouth to be absolutely crammed full of GMO’s, well too bad, you can’t identify them. If you don’t want to be within 20 eating steps of a GMO, well too bad, you can’t identify them.
Whether you believe in their science or not doesn’t matter. You can’t make a choice when you don’t know what’s in the stuff you’re buying. YOU DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. Whether or not you eat GMO ingredients is left to the whims of the gov’t and the corporations. Let them decide what you should eat; they do a really good job, right? YOU DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. You’ll eat what they put in front of you and be happy about it.
Well, if you don’t want GMO’s you do have a little bit of a choice. You can eat only certified organic foods. So far the organic standard doesn’t allow GMO. But the GMO corporations are working all the time to get their stuff allowed, so that may change. But right now, 2012, certified organic food doesn’t contain GMO’s. Certified Organic means something. “Natural”, “All Natural”, and a host of other BS terms mean absolutely nothing at all. They have no legal definition. So don’t be fooled, if you want to maintain your small ability to choose, buy only “certified organic”.
Just out of curiosity, are you free to choose what to eat when you aren’t told the ingredients? Or are you SUBJECT to arbitrary interference by a government. The labeling laws were originally put in place to keep people from putting crap in food that other people didn’t want. Like plaster dust in flour. So why do some ingredients get to be hidden? Why do other ingredients get to be manipulated, in name, so that we have no clue what they are? Wouldn’t it be easier for us if they just said “petroleum by-product known to cause cancer”? Why are ingredients allowed in our foods that are known to cause cancer anyway?
I thought they said the whole raw milk thing was about food safety. It doesn’t seem like the food safety cry is very consistant. When it comes to food being safe, if it’s from big corporations, it would seem, that the gov’t doesn’t really care. But by golly if you want to sell your neighbor some steak, the gov’t is all over you.
Some small beef raisers really wanted to voluntarily submit all of their animals to a mad cow disease test. In this way they could guarantee the safety of their meat and let consumers know their meat was disease free. The gov’t said “NO”. They decided it wouldn’t be fair to the people who didn’t want to do testing and didn’t care if your meat was diseased or not. The result is that there is no mandatory testing for mad cow disease on every piece of meat you eat AND if people do voluntary testing they aren’t allowed to tell you about it. In this case the gov’t wants to make sure you DON’T have a choice. Oh, wait, that’s not just this case. Is it? Seems a little like it’s all cases.
Still feeling free?
I’m kind of starting to feel like the really big food corporations are absolutely dominating my food supply. They are also dominating the laws governing my food supply and the politicians making those laws. I can only eat what I want if I can buy it at the grocery store. If what I want is on the farm next door, I can not have it, even if, technically, it’s not illegal for me to eat it. They will outlaw my access. Apparently, the meat, eggs, milk and vegetables, I personally eat, are the business of every corporation and every politician in this country.
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness"
This statement comes from the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution. The Declaration of Independence has no legal bearing in this country and as such does not have anything to do with what rights we have.
We’ve finally made it! After years of complaining, medical insurance consumers largely have the ability to see what ever doctor they want and have the visit covered. Ahh, finally, a clear cut freedom, seems too good to be true. (section deleted)
Hmmm, oh wait, wait – it is too good to be true. Most insurance companies don’t cover visits to doctors or health care professionals outside the AMA excepting some that pay for chiropractors or massage. It’s true; you can go to these doctors and practitioners if you want to pay out of pocket. If you have enough money to pay your 500 dollar a month insurance premium AND whatever the cost of the not recognized doctor’s visit is, you may choose to see whomever you desire.
You can, that is, IF you can find them. See, although naturaopathic doctors, for example, go to medical school and have just as many years of education as AMA docs (or more years), it’s not legal for them to practice in most states in the union. They are not recognized as doctors by most states. Neither are homeopathic physicians.
Let me see, it’s against the law for Naturopathic doctors to practice in your state. It’s against the law for herbalists to practice in your state. It’s against the law for homeopathic physicians to practice in your state. So what are you free to do again? Oh! You are free to go to the doctor of your choosing, as long as the doctor of your choosing happens to practice what has become conventional medicine. If you don’t want pharmaceuticals, don’t want surgery, don’t want to be exposed to MRSA, don’t want to be filled with radiation from a myriad of tests or can’t afford the out of pocket expense, well then you’re just tough out of luck. Good luck saving up the money to go see an herbalist in another country or a state where it’s legal.
So, again, it’s not illegal for you to see these practitioners, it’s illegal for the practitioners to see you.
Is it now that you are enjoying independence or freedom from outside domination? Or are you experiencing utter domination? Perhaps it’s domination by the AMA and the pharmaceutical companies? I’m thinking that the laws preventing viable practitioners of other modalities from seeing you or helping you just might make you feel like you’re under the control or in the power of another and not able to act or do as you wish.
Remember from previous pages, you don’t have the right to be healthy.
Are we still free?
Happiness and health have been linked together for, what seems, forever. “Well, we still have our health,” is such a common saying. We don’t really even have to talk about how interconnected the 2 are. Well the pursuit of happiness is not one of the rights we have. Nor is the pursuit of health.
“…government of the people, by the people, for the people”
Many people think this statement is in the constitution, it is not. It’s from the Gettysburg address. It has no legal bearing in this country and has nothing to do with our rights or our gov’t.
Raising your children
Of all things, you are still entrusted with the care of your own child and may do so to the best of your ability as you see fit, right? You are free to raise your children as you see fit. Of course you are. Or are you?
Let’s ask Maryanne Godboldo. If you haven’t heard about this case, you should look it up on the internet and read it. It seems as if, in the end, everything will turn out as it should have begun. Sadly for her and her family, they have suffered significantly at the hands of the state.
Do you have the right to say no to the doctors when you disagree with their treatment? Supposedly you do. Effectively, well, maybe not so much. You can, for instance, still refuse to have your children vaccinated for what ever reason. However, it is entirely possible, even probable, that they will be refused entrance into school without vaccinations. Schools are supposed to be public. If you choose to not have your child vaccinated and they, subsequently, are not allowed into your public school, do you get a refund on your taxes? Are you given the money allocated to your child for school by the district and all of its complicated funding? No, you’re not. I’ve certainly never heard of it and I did spend some time looking. So if it’s a public school and paid for by parents who choose vacccines and those who do not choose them- why is it okay to boot the kids out that didn’t get the vaccine? Perhaps there should be 2 public schools – vaccinated and unvaccinated.
In some ways, you are free to drug, or medicate or not your child as you see fit. Practically it brings a whole host of problems to the table for you should you step outside of mainstream. So you are free to refuse them vaccines if you are also free and prepared to teach your child at home. You’re free to refuse vaccines as long as you continue to give your money to the gov’t that is refusing to educate your child, for your child’s education. As long as you pay the school bond tax for the gymnasium, your child will never benefit from, you can refuse their vaccinations.
As long as you have police and courts and child protective service workers that have brains and, from time to time, use them, you can disagree with medical decisions regarding your child. Not only that, you can act on that disagreement. Maryanne’s story is only unique in that she managed to be heard by the media and her story got out. There are plenty of “Maryannes” whose stories never reach us. I wonder how free Maryanne felt when a locked and loaded, mini army, complete with helicopter, stormed through her door.
Free: Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or do as one wishes. Not subject to external restraint. Not subject to arbitrary interference by a government.
Um no, no I’m guessing free is not the word that best describes how she felt. Perhaps anti-free, unfree and opressed are better words.
We might want to check with the FDA, FBI, CIA and every other letter agency in addition to some judges and lawyers. I’m worried. We thought we had some kind of right to eat what we wanted and be healthy. We learned that those aren’t rights at all. Perhaps there is no actual right that we have to raise our own children as we see fit. I have to tell you, I have no memory of the right to raise our own children being expressed in the constitution. Maybe it’s time we pushed for a little more clarity and some changes to that bill of rights.
In California as of Jan 2012 there’s a new law in town. AB 499
…authorizes a minor who is 12 years of age or older
to consent to medical care related to the diagnosis or treatment
of an infectious, contagious, or communicable disease if it is
related to a sexually transmitted disease. This law
additionally authorizes a minor who is 12 years of age or older
to consent to medical care related to the prevention of a
sexually transmitted disease.
It seems that Merck, a big pharmaceutical company pushed for this one. California has seen fit to usurp parental authority and judgement for the benefit of corporate profits. Whether you want your kid to have the vaccine or not, it’s no longer up to you, it’s up to your kid. Well, California’s probably right, after all 12 year olds are perfectly capable of handling all things adult. (this last sentence was sarcasm, in case you missed it)
So in California you are free to raise your children without interference, unless your 12 year old disagrees with you. Then your 12 year old can interfere.
I don’t think this law is either for the people or by the people. But that’s okay, nobody ever said our gov’t was for the people. Not sure if anyone will say it either.
Freedom, it tastes so good…well I think it does. I’m not really sure I’ve tasted it.
I think we all can all agree that laws that govern how we live together are necessary. What about the laws that govern the things I do that don’t, won’t and can’t affect you. It affects no one but me when I drink raw milk or eat local meat and vegetables. If I choose to trust some farmer and buy his products, what business does the government have in making it impossible for me to get those products? What business does the gov’t have in doing anything but inspecting the butcher’s place and making sure it’s clean?
What business does the government have in telling me who I can sleep with or what I can do in bed with them if we’re both consenting adults?
Is it really the business of unrelated, uncaring beuracrats to decide what’s best for my child, when I am caring for my child?
What business does the government have in deciding which doctors are acceptable? They’ve already got a test. When people pass the test why can’t they see patients? In cases where there is no minimum education test yet, if the gov’t feels there should be, well then, let’s discuss it. But really, if I find someone who can help me through my illness or disease, is it the governments business to interfere in that interaction? I don’t care if they’ve passed a test or not. It’s none of the gov’t’s business whom I choose to solicit advice from and they’ve overstepped the bounds of natural and reasonable law restricting that interaction.
When people talk about big government, they frequently don’t mean the things I’m talking about. I think when the government interferes with personal judgement and personal interactions, it’s gone too far and it’s the real definition of ‘big gov’t’.
When you ask the gov’t to interfere, you’ve gone too far. Once they start interfering, they generally don’t stop.
We talk about how this is a free country and we are free people. I think the mantra has brainwashed us. The constitution is not about guaranteeing that you are a “free” person. It spells out certain freedoms ‘given’ to an oppressed citizenry. One nation, under government. That’s it. If it isn’t spelled out as a freedom in the constitution, it isn’t one. Most of the things we talked about here are NOT spelled out as freedoms. If you want them to be freedoms than, well, we’ve got some work to do. If you want to be a “free” person than you’ve got some studying to do. Let’s start supporting only those congress people who support individual freedom, period. If life is better for me, in this country, than it’s better for me. Life doesn’t get better for me by making it easier for large organizations to make more money or have more freedom. That just doesn’t follow. It’s a nice way to make you think things are more complex than they are. It really is simple. If I want to make your life nicer, I’m not going to start out by looking after your neighbor. If you want to be more free than you need to focus on people who will directly and specifically deal with that. Voting for Bob when Bob is talking about mass legislation and corporate taxes and things that will never affect you is a waste. Vote for the person who is going to write and support bills that directly give you more freedom. Don’t listen to the stories and the hype and all the crap. Be a single issue voter but make the issue yourself. Vote for people that make you the issue. How are you going to make my life better? You ask. My personal life. My daily life. If the answer begins with …”I’m going to make sure that businesses can function without so much red tape” – I submit that this person is not after your personal best interests, unless you own the business he/she’s talking about.
Having pointed out our lack of freedom – I don’t want to be misunderstood. I still would not want to live anywhere else. I don’t think that means that this country can’t be better than it is.