Re: Re: Liberty, Raw Milk, Quality Food Choices, Ron , Tuesday Caucu

[Guest guest]

Letting large corporations do whatever they want to the environment is not

" liberty in general " . Take a look at Ron 's website:

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/energy/

" A PRO-ENERGY PRESIDENT

As President, Ron will lead the fight to:

* Remove restrictions on drilling, so companies can tap into the vast amount of

oil we have here at home.

* Repeal the federal tax on gasoline. Eliminating the federal gas tax would

result in an 18 cents savings per gallon for American consumers.

* Lift government roadblocks to the use of coal and nuclear power.

* Eliminate the ineffective EPA. Polluters should answer directly to property

owners in court for the damages they create – not to Washington "

(Note: The website does claim support for the idea that the free market will

provide green energy technologies. With coal subsidies at the level they are at,

that is a tough economic road)

How does gutting protections from corporate polluters equal " liberty " ? The idea

that more coal pollution, no EPA, letting corporations pollute our homes or

wells and having to sue corporations by ourselves, more drilling, more nuclear

is " liberty " is simply not credible. We don't have to accept all that insanity

to have access to a nice raw milk cheddar or a decent chicken.

Liberty should include access to clear air, water, land, and food. I do not

trust large corporations to do the right thing regarding these issues without

proper oversight. Does anyone? Do we trust Monsanto? Really?

Hoffer

On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:08 AM, <ksmith@...> wrote:

> This isn't just about raw milk. It's about our freedom to access the food we

want (which means politics is completely connected to this group). I'm guessing

that the post in relation to raw milk was about creating relevancy to this

group. Ron stands for liberty in general (raw milk being one of them). I

think it's easy to see how connected they are.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

The issue is not whether or not food is political. It's this very

confused notion that because candidate X doesn't oppose the sale of

(in this instance) raw milk, one is just supposed to ignore all the

rest of what he's on about, which, it so happens pretty much cancels

that out.

In the 19th Century, in which there were no workplace regulations

(ever heard of the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? look it up), no

environmental regulations, people also could drink raw milk. You know

what? Almost nobody did, they drank beer or wine or whiskey. Why?

Because the water was so polluted it was unsafe (ever heard of

cholera?), and without any regulation of herds, distribution and so

forth, the milk too was unsafe. If the profit motive governs all

activity without regulation, will I make more money if I expend the

time and labor to insure the cleanliness of cow udders, health of

herds and so forth? What about refrigeration? What happens when

people do get sick because I didn't bother about my herds or want to

spend the money on proper refrigeration and storage? Oh, there's no

FDA, so who investigates? Oops, nobody. Stuff happens, sorry you're

dead. So, sure, you can have (in this example) all the raw milk you

want! None but a fool would drink it, but you have the 'liberty' to

drink it! Congratulations, you're free now.

On Feb 6, 2012, at 9:08 AM, wrote:

> This isn't just about raw milk. It's about our freedom to access

> the food we want (which means politics is completely connected to

> this group). I'm guessing that the post in relation to raw milk was

> about creating relevancy to this group. Ron stands for liberty

> in general (raw milk being one of them). I think it's easy to see

> how connected they are.

>

>

>

>