January 15, 2011

Salt March Potluck

I’ve written before about the corporate government assault on raw milk, and how this is the template for a planned comprehensive assault on all food freedom. The goal is to enslave us to corporate food, to render us dependent upon corporate tyranny for the literal sustenance of our physical bodies.
This in itself proves the federal government and many lower-level (state and regional) agencies to have abdicated legitimacy and become traitors to the people, waging war upon us.
Here’s two recent incidents. In Wyoming, the proposed and extremely popular Wyoming Food Freedom Bill has been blocked by a cabal of corrupt state senators. The bill refers only to raw milk and dairy products, and would have no effect on meat production at all. Nevertheless Big Dairy-bought senators enlisted Big Meat to help fight the legislation, telling them the federal government would retaliate against Wyoming meat producers if the state flouted Big Dairy’s prerogatives in this way.
It’s hard to tell where to start describing the Big Government effects here. What’s worst? Is it the existing racket-friendly laws of the state? Is it the anti-democratic machinations of a state government cabal? Is it the prospect that the federal goon would punish a state for exercising its democratic sovereignty? (“Federal” is an especially ironic term in this case; the threatened reprisal would be anti-federalism at its most radical.)
Meanwhile in Colorado, “public health” cadres have launched a new attack on producers and sellers of raw milk and dairy products. State law explicitly allows raw milk and implicitly allows all other dairy products based upon it. That’s straight constitutionalism, Constitution 101. If the law doesn’t explicitly criminalize something, the thing is legal. (I don’t like using words like “forbid” and “allow” where it comes to government; human beings certainly don’t consider the government to be this god on earth which has any legitimacy to allow or disallow things in general. Human morality is the true measure. But in contexts like this we can fruitfully use terms like legal/illegal, criminalize/decriminalize/legalize.)
That’s obvious on its face to any citizen. It’s self-evident. It’s common sense. It’s what reason would conclude. And it’s what the Constitution explicitly enshrines in the 9th and 10th amendments.
But where it comes to our food, governments are rabid to turn all this upside down. Last year the FDA flatly expressed its hatred for the Constitution and the rule of law with this “legal” declaration:

a. There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food
b. There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health
c. There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract

My linked post includes an extended analysis with lots of quotes, so here I’ll just repeat this one:

5. FDA’s Regulations Rationally Advance the Agency’s Public Health

Because the interests asserted by plaintiffs are not fundamental rights, FDA’s
regulations are not subject to strict scrutiny. Instead, plaintiffs have the burden of
showing that the regulations do not bear a rational relationship to legitimate
governmental interests.

This, and the entire ideology the FDA confesses in its brief, rejects all freedom ideals, all morality, all reason, common sense, and the Constitution itself. It does so because all the actions of corporations are direct assaults upon all these things. So if one wishes to be a vicious little thug on behalf of corporate rackets, as the FDA does, one must revile and attack in principle all the values and enshrinements upon which America was based.
And we see how the FDA goon ideology is trickling down to the little thuglet wannabes at the state and county level. Thus we have this little sniveller proudly parroting what she no doubt read in that FDA brief:

Patti Klocker, assistant director for the Division of Environmental Health and Sustainability for the Colorado DPHE, told me, “A number of things were going wrong here (at Haynes’ stores), so we did collaborate on this” with county public health authorities in going after Haynes.
As for Erickson’s raw dairy, she said Colorado’s law allowing cow share operations only sanctions fluid milk. “It does not allow access to raw milk products.” She said three dairies have been asked to “please discontinue this practice” of making other raw dairy products available to their shareholders. She said her department has “always intepreted the law in that fashion” and goes after dairies in violation “when it’s brought to our attention”–whether from county health officials or newspaper articles.

What do we conclude from this, and what should we do?   
1. This is big government at its most aggressive and obnoxious. It’s overbearing, intrusive regulation. It’s thinly masked corporate tyranny. We are taxed for this parasitic, tyrannical government, which then hands our money over to corporate tyrants while functioning as their gutter thug. If public health agencies aren’t going to act on behalf of the people, but only against us, then lets dissolve them completely. Let’s fire these parasites.
Proof: Anyone who actually cared about food safety and public health would of course spend 99% of their resources, time, and energy on big producers. And of course we’d ban factory farms and GMOs. 
The fact that neither the federal government nor any of these state government functions this way proves that “food safety” and “public health” are scams and shock doctrine assaults wherever the reality of those things would oppose the corporate activity, which is always. 
2. We need to launch a Salt March movement. That will mean lots of things, and I’ll go into more detail in future posts, but here’s an example suggested by the plight of potlucks in Wyoming. (Can you imagine? Potlucks are outlawed!) We must organize and participate in food freedom events as exercises in civil disobedience and movement building. These could be patriotically themed parties. They could start among food sovereignty activists and encompass economic producers as well. The point would be to draw as many people into the freedom movement as possible. It would be open civil disobedience. It would have to be an ongoing part of our lifestyle, not just a few acute events. (That’s one problem with public protest in general – it’s hard to turn it into a reasonable way of life. But having a party, eating, socializing with friends, family, and fellow citizens? That’s the kind of protest we could turn into a regular thing.) Once enough people were openly participating the goons would be helpless. The media would have little choice but to cover it. It would continue to grow. It would be one way of building the vibrant new society within the decay and destruction of the old. 


  1. Sadly, the main fault lies with the voter. If we were not so lazy and so naïve, we would never hand blanket authority to governments in the first place, and secondly we would hold them accountable when they exceeded their mandates or diverged from our best interests. Politicians are only interested in assuming and maintaining power. That is why they run for office.

    Once in power, politicians willingly delegate the minutea of day to day governance to non elected parties, so long as those parties do not operate contrary to the politicians interests (staying in power).

    Therefore, the mechanism of governance becomes available to the highest bidder. Everything else is merely window dressing and justification.

    Comment by Paul Repstock — January 15, 2011 @ 2:46 pm

    • My point is that until we demonstrate the personal integrity to demand the accountability of our employees (Politicians), we will neither have nor deserve Democracy.

      Make no mistake, in a democracy both politicians and civil servants are our employees, not our masters.

      Obviously not all constituents will want the same things. That is why we have election processes; so that prospective employees can pitch their platforms and talents for us to choose from.

      However, the problems arise when these ‘employees’ are not required by law to fulfill the election promises they offer. If a plumber takes a contract to deliver and install gold plated taps, but installs brass plated taps, this is considered breach of contract. The plumber is entitled to neither payment nor reputation. Why should government be treated differently?

      Comment by Paul Repstock — January 15, 2011 @ 3:42 pm

      • You sum it up well. This realization demonstrates how we must face up to the failure of representative pseudo-democracy and finally “do the right thing in the end, after trying everything else” – take responsibility for ourselves through direct democracy.

        Comment by Russ — January 15, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

      • I was hoping for more comment on this thread to see if people recognised the term “Salt March” and it’s implications in our present situation. But, I guess that things are far too tense on a more immediate timeframe. With a different president the United States might already be in the opening throes of a civil war. Little as I respect Mr. Obama’s politics, I was awed by the masterful Memorial/State of the Union speech in Arizona on friday.

        Comment by Paul Repstock — January 16, 2011 @ 5:29 am

      • You may onder at how a conciliatory pacifist arrived at promoting the overthow of government. Well here is a large part of it:

        I am often unable to prevail in debate or argument. I find myself too readily persuadable, too open to opposing argument, and too full of self doubt.

        On the proposal for removing government and living without their malevolent oversight, I suffer many fears. Chief among them is the fear that many of the apathetic and fearful people who are so difficult to awaken now, will immediately lapse into the same state as soon as government is deposed. I have no wish to break ‘Big Government’, only to see Canada devolve into a patchwork of tribal areas ruled by warlords like some new incarnation of Afghanistan. This is not because I fear that common people are too unsophisticated for self government. On the contrary, though I am frustrated by people’s resistance to change and their petty, vested interest, viewpoints, I am often amazed by how aware even the least educated people are. Mostly what I fear is that the people are so dependant, and so disempowered, that the first show of force or hardship will send them scurrying back to some place where decisions are made for them. A perfect example of this may be found in Russia; the population was totally unprepared for a democracy. A large percentage long for the uncomfortable but predictable return to communism, and another large percentage have embraced organized crime as an accelerated path to wealth and security.

        I often pontificate on the need for the human species to evolve. To further distance ourselves from the law of the jungle and might is right. These are necessary changes if we are ever to be truly free and to rise to our full potential. Sadly, our present conflict with government presents a ‘chicken and egg’ problem. Governments have no interest in allowing self determination and people cannot be prepared to accept the responsibility without first achieving an empowered frame of mind.

        This dilemma leaves me quite fearful of the consequences of the path I’m proposing. I suspect it is also an inhibiting factor for many of the people whom I complain are unwilling to even discuss the proposals with me.

        However, given government’s position and the risk to our future; I do not find any middle path. It will be our gamble or our total servitude. And quite possibly the demise for many of us. There are now many people in positions of power who find the population levels are both uncomfortable and unnecessary. From a strictly economic point of view, they are probably correct. However, they were no more granted a mandate to make such judgments than they have the mandate to presume what foods we should eat or how much money we should transfer to certain sectors of the economy, to other areas of the country or the world. Government’s brazen assumption of these unconstitutional powers should be enough warning for anyone to realize that we are approaching ‘crunch time’. Bullying is a learned behavior. If there are no consequences abuses will certainly increase in both scale and frequency.

        So, there you have it. In spite of my petty fears, I cannot see an alternative. We, the people must move forward. We must deny government’s authority, and take the chance that we are sufficiently intelligent to direct our own affairs.

        Comment by Paul Repstock — January 16, 2011 @ 5:43 am

      • Thanks for that statement, Paul. I think your line of reasoning is the one most people are going to have to use if we’re to have any hope of finding a way out of this jam.

        I suppose I’m more temperamentally inclined to roll the dice to start with. But I agree with you on all the risks we run in forsaking old ideas and existing structures.

        What I’d say to people who are naturally more conservative or conciliatory (using your term) is that however great the risks, it’s still better odds than remaining passive and hoping that somehow things will reform themselves. I’m convinced that such a road leads nowhere but slavery, 100% chance.

        So I think that no matter what one’s temperament, the evidence and reason compel us to renounce the status quo and seek a radical transformation.

        I am often amazed by how aware even the least educated people are.

        That doesn’t surprise me so much. By now the purpose of formal education and the MSM are to brainwash, not to teach; to stunt, not to develop; to obscure, not to clarify; to lie, not to express truth. So if anything, the more formal education one has, the stronger one has to be to resist its corrosive effects. Same for uncritical MSM consumption.

        Plus, by now the “educational” system selects for the right kind of putative cogs. Economically and in terms of the conformism required at lower levels of schooling.

        Comment by Russ — January 16, 2011 @ 5:57 am

      • @Paul

        “Little as I respect Mr. Obama’s politics, I was awed by the masterful Memorial/State of the Union speech in Arizona on friday.” Yes, it was reminiscent of his rally-style campaigning. Not just his politics, but the man himself, totally lacks credibility. In fact, I believe he, like Bush, has a lot to answer for in criminal proceedings.

        Comment by RT — January 16, 2011 @ 8:02 pm

  2. Rus: I post back here in the assumption you will see it, and out of an attempt at politeness.

    I’m not sure how we so quickly came to this impasse. I must have misunderstood your message from the start, but put my on spin on it.

    I see much nobility in mankind and much darkness also. I do not doubt that our present system contributes to the dark side, However, I also see no hope that a change in systems will, in any foreseeable time frame, change Man’s general nature.

    The Anarchist model appeals to me, but I fail to see how it can be accomplished without it’s own set of compulsions and denials. The person who chooses not to contribute will not willingly leave the comfort of the society, so will need to be forced out, and will in all likelihood attempt to use force to maintain the position?? The same will be true of those who are merely megalomaniacs.

    I think that what I really search for is a society, which has a governing structure with just enough authority to mediate disputes and to protect it’s members from the use of force. But, a government which cannot perpetuate itself or use force against others. I know I ask a great deal.

    I view justice and freedom as synonymous. And I see justice as transactional. That which is mutually agreed as exchange is a fair bargain which, benefits all. This should not negate the rights to property or to ownership of the fruits of industry or innovation. I think perhaps you have not read Atlas Shrugged (the story you referred to was The Fountainhead). I do not agree with several of the writings ascribed to Ayn Rand, but I felt that I understood Atlas Shrugged. It quite well describes many of the problems and abuses we suffer today.

    Eighty years ago Bertrand Russell understood the realities of productive capacities and the truth of The Myth of Scarcity. In all the intervening time the closest mankind has come to realizing the possibilities, is the recent consumerist binge in the United States. Now even that is being quashed with the imposition of a guilt burden called Debt.

    As you know by now I lied by omission when I described myself as conciliatory and pacifist. I am also competitive and opinionated. I suspect that our differences may be irreconcilable so I will not be posting further on your blog. Should you wish to say anything further, feel free to contact me by email. I have no problem with differing points of view or defending my beliefs. But, it would not be polite to rebut your last posts in public.

    Again I thank you for the use of your blog and respect your attempts at making the world a better place.
    Paul Repstock

    Comment by Paul Repstock — January 20, 2011 @ 5:53 am

    • Paul, I’m sorry to hear you won’t be posting anymore. I’m not sure what you mean by misunderstanding me, or what the impasse is. I guess it must be pretty bad if you’re saying you had to restrain yourself from being impolite. (I hope you’re not saying you thought my replies were rude. I didn’t mean them to be. It’s just argument.)

      We agree completely on justice and freedom, as long as the words in these sentences:

      And I see justice as transactional. That which is mutually agreed as exchange is a fair bargain which, benefits all. This should not negate the rights to property or to ownership of the fruits of industry or innovation.

      mean what the English language says they should mean, as opposed to the Orwellian distortions on whose behalf capitalism hijacks them. Property, of course, can only mean our fair share, as you say. So there would never be any basis for “owning” a wealth hoard, since that could never be anyone’s fair share.

      Nor do I disagree with what you say you want government to do, except that I deny a State is needed for that. The community itself can police itself.

      Well, whatever the differences are, if I don’t see you around here again as a commenter (I don’t know if you meant you’re going to stop reading as well) then thanks for having participated, and come back whenever you want.

      Comment by Russ — January 20, 2011 @ 6:57 am

  3. Damn Rus, I still cannot get it quite right, but here is my latest try:
    The problem of constructing any social justice system is always in determining the basis for an equitable distribution of wealth. The Socialist meme of “ From each according to his abilities. .to each according to his needs”, does not seem to be in balance and harmony. It is the opposite end of the pendulum swing from the equally irrational, Economic Singularity, where all wealth is concentrated in one hand. From either a moral or a scientific perspective these cannot describe a sustainable system. The result is the same because there is no incentive for anyone to create anything. In either case the probability of abuse arises from exploitation of the system, rather than from productive value. Perhaps the inconsistencies might be resolved by instituting a minimum wage (proportional to the total wealth of the group) funded by a steep linear taxation regime which would in effect define limits to wealth (ie, peaking at 100%) There may be no foolproof solution as there will always be anti social individuals who will tend to pervert the intent of the system.

    In a biologic sense if each cell/entity does not fulfill a constructive purpose and does not consume according to it’s value, then the organism becomes unhealthy and if the situation does not correct, eventually the organism dies. The preceding being a layman’s supposition about biology.

    These constraints can be applied to humans on many different levels. Whether it be corporations, nation states, or entire civilizations; they rise and fall on the basis of an equitable distribution of wealth.
    You see I guess that I am not essentially a generous person.

    As an example and from a personal point of view, if I were to discover a new energy source or created some other structure, that hugely improved mankind’s standards, through my own efforts, I would expect to reap the benifits in proportion to my contribution. I don’t think I’m greedy or selfish, but I’m also not generous enough to work just for the benifit of others.

    Comment by Paul Repstock — February 20, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

    • Hi Paul,

      The “from each…to each” principle presupposes a good faith work effort on everyone’s part. It’s never meant in practice to allow those capable of working to sit idly and leech off the work of others. (Only capitalism and other authoritarian systems seek that, for a privileged minority.)

      Indeed, socialists often (Lenin, for example, in State and Revolution) stipulated that prior to the “from each…to each” stage of development would be the “he who does not work does not eat” stage. I think that in practice this would always remain in force for those capable of working. Even the most generous anarchists never proposed to allow parasites to sit idle. If there really were someone who refused to contribute, he’d be required to depart.

      So the socialist ideal is not in conflict with your biologic sense, but in concord with it. Socialism isn’t about utopian altruism. It teaches that our best (egoistic) interest is in concord with our best altruistic ideals.

      On the contrary, and ironically, it’s capitalism which demands a suicidally insane level of altruism on the part of those who work, since it expects them to consent forever to having a large portion of the produce taken from them by worthless parasites.

      Regarding your example, if someone discovers a new energy source, that’s just his finding something that already existed but was in effect sitting around waiting to be discovered.

      Let’s say the source exists but is somewhat hidden, and several people are looking for it. The first one who finds it and calls out to the others deserves a finder’s fee, but certainly does not deserve to collect exorbitant rents in perpetuity. After all, he was more lucky than he was anything else, to be first to the trough.

      And try as I might, looking around at this economy I see no examples of anyone who wasn’t either the lucky first finder of something which nature, not Randian ingenuity, provided, and/or who merely stood on the shoulders of all those who had worked before him. And then there’s all the actual work which must be done to develop most if not all new discoveries. If a physical cripple knows where gold is buried but another must do all the actual digging, why should the knower get an outlandish share of the collective produce? It makes no sense.

      The most extreme example is any sort of plant patent. Any plant modification, either conventional breeding or GMO, is merely adding a tiny increment to thousands of years of work which is all in the public domain. So a patent for plant germplasm is exactly like if someone came into your house, changed a light bulb, and declared “I now own the whole house and everything in it.”

      That’s the most extreme example, but all IP is like that. And so is all other rentier phenomena.

      Getting back to the original point, if one truly wants to reward work and not reward idleness (as you said, not “work just for the benefit of others”), then the answer is to abolish all rents and distribute the produce of work on a cooperative basis among the productive people. And that in turn means worker ownership and management of the land, resources, and infrastructure.

      Any other way has been proven to result in the exact bloated parasite you want to reject.

      Comment by Russ — February 20, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

      • back later..:)

        Comment by Paul Repstock — February 20, 2011 @ 3:51 pm

  4. LOL, so typical of me. After the balloon has gone up, I’m asking what gas is being used to inflate it. We will have to talk more about the mechanics and specifics later.

    Comment by Paul Repstock — February 21, 2011 @ 12:49 am

    • I can’t tell what you mean.

      Comment by Russ — February 21, 2011 @ 4:49 am

  5. I look forward to your further elucidation of strategies, Russ.
    I believe the Salt March is a reference to Gandhi’s campaign for India to be free of colonial rule. I think it is apt.

    Although up to now I’ve advocated voting and political action at local levels, I no longer have faith in it to effect change. I think the time has come for a protest movement with a very clear agenda and one, as you say elsewhere, that has basic principles at heart and therefore can motivate deep and wholehearted support that takes a ‘long view’ of ‘success.’ We can’t forget that Gandhi’s movement was met with bloodshed. No one can challenge power without knowing it is a very dangerous thing. Almost all the French revolutionists were in their 30s when they died. Egypt and Libya are object lessons. When some Americans (it need not be that many) are ready to be totally nonviolent but also ready to die to end the slide into neofeudalism, we will be ready for action.

    I agree with you about liberalism as it existed throughout most of my life, 57 years. It’s a dead fish.

    Comment by Janice — March 17, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

    • Yes, I think the Salt March is exactly the model we need, moral and practical. This has to be the goal of the broad, principled democratic movement.

      As for conventional action at local levels (running for office, voting, petitioning government), I think that can be a useful, and will probably be a necessary, part of the mix.

      But it’s definitely not sufficient as a substitute for direct relocalization action whose eventual goal is to supplant these superannuated governmental structures. Rather, it’s a supplement to it.

      Most of what I do on this blog from here on will be dedicated to tying everything together into one strategy, and placing all the ideas I developed into the context of the educational mission which is part of that strategy.

      Comment by Russ — March 18, 2011 @ 5:22 am

  6. […] the state thuglets walking point for the feds. This is a common pattern. I previously mentioned a Colorado assault whose constitutional logic seems to have been received from the top down.   Patti Klocker, assistant director for the Division of Environmental Health and Sustainability […]

    Pingback by Colorado, Cantaloupes, CAFOs, and Property « Volatility — October 4, 2011 @ 8:50 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: