Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 can you not get it? when i lived there (89-91) you could buy " farm milk " , which was certainly not homogenized though i can't really remember if it was pasteurized. i was 16 and didn't care about that sort of thing (i turned my nose up at it in favor of parmelet!!!) At 12:45 PM 1/15/2004, you wrote: >In Germany, every bit as socialized as Canada, although you can't get raw >milk in stores, my friend buys it from a farmer. As far as I know there are >no fines for doing so. >Irene > >At 09:10 AM 1/15/04, you wrote: > >In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is > >basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk > >away is > >punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In Germany, every bit as socialized as Canada, although you can't get raw milk in stores, my friend buys it from a farmer. As far as I know there are no fines for doing so. Irene At 09:10 AM 1/15/04, you wrote: >In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is >basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk >away is >punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 12:49:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@... writes: > In Germany, every bit as socialized as Canada, although you can't get raw > milk in stores, my friend buys it from a farmer. As far as I know there are > no fines for doing so. Irene, Then Germany's laws are comparable to those of the United States, depending on what state you are in, and considerably more oppressive than some of the states. 's recently mentioned that Austrailia is banning all raw milk. Since America is more socialist than it is capitalist, and since America is the most capitalist of the three, yet has the least oppressive laws, and since in America's more capitalist past raw milk was legal, but in its more socialist present it is not, there seems to me to be a correlation. That said, it would be impossible to ban raw milk if America's Constitution were given the remotest bit of respect. And at a more theoretical level, under any government where public health is considered the domain of the government, you can expect at any moment an anti-cholesterol movement to be waged, or a ban on raw milk, whereas under a government where public health is not its domain, you can expect to have guaranteed safety from either. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 4:57:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > ---------->isn't that just in the province of ottawa? I don't know... I took it down from Ron Shmid's lecture. Perhaps I got it wrong? Everyone I've talked to from Canada on the issue, which numbers only three people, has said its impossible to find raw milk in Canada and much easier in the states. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 It is not legal to sell in stores. But you can get it from a farmer. Irene At 09:42 AM 1/15/04, you wrote: >can you not get it? when i lived there (89-91) you could buy " farm milk " , >which was certainly not homogenized though i can't really remember if it >was pasteurized. i was 16 and didn't care about that sort of thing (i >turned my nose up at it in favor of parmelet!!!) > >At 12:45 PM 1/15/2004, you wrote: > >In Germany, every bit as socialized as Canada, although you can't get raw > >milk in stores, my friend buys it from a farmer. As far as I know there are > >no fines for doing so. > >Irene > > > >At 09:10 AM 1/15/04, you wrote: > > >In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is > > >basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk > > >away is > > >punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 >>>>In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk away is punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. ---------->isn't that just in the province of ottawa? suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 The term " favor consumers " isn't very specific in this case. What does " favor consumers " mean? A level playing field? Open books? Less dishonesty? Better working conditions? Less food-borne illness? Better health care? My own example was very specific: by banding together, Canadians can get better drug prices. Expanding that to " by banding together they can make raw milk illegal " just doesn't make sense. In general, richer countries enforce more laws on trade ... trade in human beings is illegal in most richer countries, but you can still buy a slave in some parts of the world. I'm not sure if socialism helps or hinders in terms of trade laws and I don't recall saying anything about that ... there is always a balance of local vs. centralized control in any system. -- Heidi >Heidi mentioned all the benefits of quasi-socialist Canada. Great example-- >they have industries, but they have stronger government, and a more socialist >philosophy and less capitalist philosophy. Presumably, the stronger >government regulations should favor consumers and workers more. > >In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is >basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk away is >punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Here's another example I learned about just this summer from a Canadian couple camping next to us at the beach. Noticed the man had almost the identical scar on his leg my husband has from getting hit on his motorcycle by a taxicab. Asked and he'd had pretty much the same happen only he wasn't in Canada at the time. When we said the cab corporation was allowed under law to have the same minimum auto insurance coverage any private citizen has, which was used up with medical bills the first few days of my husband's 7 years of hospital stays and surgeries, his wife brought up that if the accident were to happen in Canada, medical would be covered, no lawyers would need to be hired like the U.S. who get their 1/3rd off the top, and no fighting with Social Security disability to get the money you've paid in because every vehicle registered in Canada has a $1 million liability protection to protect drivers and victims in such situations. Raw milk is one state regulation the federal government has not " yet " called states on as federal regulation superceding . Is always threat of federal funding loss to state attached for noncompliance. How its done. Not how it would work or how it should be. Just what it is now. If you're wondering what both examples have in common, they both regulate individual quality " of " life dependant on other's definition of quantity " from " life. Without regulation to take by chosen regulations, processes within any given structure there'd be no economy. How its done country to country varies. All do, do it somehow. Wanita > In Canada, according to people I know who live or have lived there, it is > basically impossible to get raw milk. In Canada, simply giving raw milk away is > punishable by the outrageous fine of $250,000 and 3 years in jail. > > By contrast, in the more " capitalist " United States, it is legal to sell raw > milk on the market in several states, legal to drink it everywhere, legal to > give it away or sell it from the farm in half the states. > Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 8:55:53 PM Eastern Standard Time, Dpdg@... writes: > FYI, here in the 'socialist' UK you can get raw milk from farms, farm > shops... many HFS sell frozen raw sheep and goats milk... raw cream is even more > available as do many raw cheeses and not just mature ones... French soft raw > cheeses [less than 60 days old] are available at many specialist cheese shops > ... Good point. Chalk one up for socialism ;-) > <<By contrast>> 'quasi-socialist' Canada has more guns per capita in > private hands yet the fraction of gun related deaths compared with the US... Good argument against gun control. Everywhere in the US with more guns per capita has less gun related deaths to. To the extent I appeared " anti-Canada " with my previous comments I was tongue-in-cheek, engaging in some friendly competition. I happen to love Canada. I swear! > > <<Businesses will always try to cheat people, but a stronger government not > only causes a cultural environment more conducive to cheating business > culture, but provides both the philosophical justification and physical force > necessary to maximize this cheating.>> > > so in your utopian world the 'free' unregulated businesses which 'will > always try to cheat people', will be able to, all on their own, 'cause a cultural > environment more conducive to cheating' AND 'provide...the 'philosophical > justification' AND hire private companies to physically enforce their wholly > [holy?] privatised cheating..! I've never made any comments to the effect of private enforcement. I haven't read much on the idea. If you provide the basis for cronyism, you encourage cronyism. If you remove it, you encourage merit. Why is that so hard to understand? _____ Irene wrote: >As far as assuming that if government is involved with public health you >have to expect that there will be a ban on raw milk at any time...well you >can expect whatever you want but that does not mean such a thing will >happen. It also sounds a bit hysterical to me. I think Suze is right, you >can't make any real conclusions by just looking at one or two countries. Fair enough; I don't either. There are too many countries to do so. Just the same, you can't draw real conclusions about socialist versus market medicine by looking at two countries, especially when neither are really " socialist " or " market " based. Like Heidi's, mine was just an anecdote. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/15/04 8:49:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, s.fisher22@... writes: > ----->i was referring to the $250,000 fine and 3 years in jail. IIRC that > is > not nation-wide, but just in one province, which i believe is ottowa. i > think that's what ron told me. If that's correct, either Ron made a mistake in his lecture, or I took my notes carelessly. definitely hard to get raw milk in canada > from what i've heard as well, but not impossible. and although it may be > " possible " to get in many US states on_the_books, in reality, local > officials make it very difficult in some areas, so that it may look easily Here in Massachusetts, about half the towns have by-laws against raw milk. In fact, one town that was producing raw milk just recently banned it! The good thing is that it should be relatively easy to reverse it by waging a campaign through one of the direct democracy town meetings (annual?) if the selectmen are against it, which would raise a lot of awareness. Our current health department guy at the state level is friendly to raw milk because he doesn't want to drive it underground. I fully agree it's difficult in the US. I was comparing the US and Canada not based on " good " versus " bad " -- there's a lot of things I like about Canada and a lot of things I like about the US, and a lot of things I don't like about both places. I was comparing it regarding degree of government involvement and attitudes toward business. I was in part responding to 's suggestion that it is industry power, not government size, related to the food problems, and thought of Canada when Heidi had brought up the socialized health insurance. available on paper, it may not actually be so in reality (ie; CA and WA). > i'm thinking it may be too simplisitic to surmise that the more socialistic > a nation the harder to come by raw milk. I think so to, in the sense that " socialistic " is taken to mean the more redistributive effect of the government on the economy. I think it is mostly related to the size and power of the government-- which generally has socialist-type justifications, whatever its actual effect. maybe, dunno. was america more or > less socialist (than it is now) when raw milk was widely available before > private citizen and philanthropist what's-his-name strauss' massive > (privately financed) campaign to pasteurize raw milk around the turn of the > century, followed by his mirror campaign in germany? It was certainly less socialist at the time preceding the campaign. In the conception of the American Constitution as it was founded, it would have been simply an impossible campaign. > also, out of curiosity, what kind of gov't does australia have? they seem > to > have very draconian laws re raw milk. I would consider them considerably socialist, relative to say, the US. and how about some of the very > socialist scandanavian countries - what is the availability of raw milk in > those countries? I don't know, but that might be the perfect destruction of my argument. It wouldn't surprise me if they had better availability there. and what countries have a minarchist or similar gov't, if > any, and what is the availability of raw milk there? Well a government that regulates raw milk couldn't reasonbly be called " minarchist. " with those data points > in place it would be easier to develop a hypothesis on whether there's a > connection between the availability of raw milk and a more socialist-leaning > gov't. I agree. Anyone got the data? Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 FYI, here in the 'socialist' UK you can get raw milk from farms, farm shops... many HFS sell frozen raw sheep and goats milk... raw cream is even more available as do many raw cheeses and not just mature ones... French soft raw cheeses [less than 60 days old] are available at many specialist cheese shops .... <<By contrast>> 'quasi-socialist' Canada has more guns per capita in private hands yet the fraction of gun related deaths compared with the US... <<Businesses will always try to cheat people, but a stronger government not only causes a cultural environment more conducive to cheating business culture, but provides both the philosophical justification and physical force necessary to maximize this cheating.>> so in your utopian world the 'free' unregulated businesses which 'will always try to cheat people', will be able to, all on their own, 'cause a cultural environment more conducive to cheating' AND 'provide...the 'philosophical justification' AND hire private companies to physically enforce their wholly [holy?] privatised cheating..! BTW... Dedy <<Heidi mentioned all the benefits of quasi-socialist Canada. Great example>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 In a message dated 1/16/04 12:20:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > >Since America is more socialist than it is capitalist, > > There's some socialism here, yes, but America is more fascist than > capitalist, at least in the sense that fascism involves corporate control > of government. I think of fascist as the gov't controlling corporations more than the reverse-- but fundamentally, I think of it as a dictatorial government aiming to restore capitalism as a reaction to a communist movement. I wouldn't consider socialism at all in the true sense, but if I were to conceieve of it as whether the distribution of wealth is determined more by market mechanisms or the gov't, I would say the gov't. For example, taxation, subsidies, minimum wages, monetary policy, all drastically distort actual market outcomes, producing a vastly different result we'd expect under true market conditions. So, while I find the guilt-by-association loose uses of " fascism " and " socialism " by the left and right respectively, rather annoying and childish, I think, based on the modern, commonly used definition of socialism, that does not necessarily imply state ownership of the means of production, that America is more socialist than capitalist. I realize that anyone who considers them a socialist would object to this, principally because most of the interferences in the market are meant for purposes other than the goals espoused by self-titled Socialists. > > >And at a more theoretical level, under any government where public health > is > >considered the domain of the government, you can expect at any moment an > >anti-cholesterol movement to be waged, or a ban on raw milk, whereas under > a > >government where public health is not its domain, you can expect to have > >guaranteed > >safety from either. > > You really can't see how patently absurd this is? Are you seriously > suggesting that freedom from government guarantees safety? No, I don't. I think that a larger government provides a tool for these kinds of campaigns. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 > ---------->isn't that just in the province of ottawa? >>>>I don't know... I took it down from Ron Shmid's lecture. Perhaps I got it wrong? Everyone I've talked to from Canada on the issue, which numbers only three people, has said its impossible to find raw milk in Canada and much easier in the states. ----->i was referring to the $250,000 fine and 3 years in jail. IIRC that is not nation-wide, but just in one province, which i believe is ottowa. i think that's what ron told me. definitely hard to get raw milk in canada from what i've heard as well, but not impossible. and although it may be " possible " to get in many US states on_the_books, in reality, local officials make it very difficult in some areas, so that it may look easily available on paper, it may not actually be so in reality (ie; CA and WA). i'm thinking it may be too simplisitic to surmise that the more socialistic a nation the harder to come by raw milk. maybe, dunno. was america more or less socialist (than it is now) when raw milk was widely available before private citizen and philanthropist what's-his-name strauss' massive (privately financed) campaign to pasteurize raw milk around the turn of the century, followed by his mirror campaign in germany? also, out of curiosity, what kind of gov't does australia have? they seem to have very draconian laws re raw milk. and how about some of the very socialist scandanavian countries - what is the availability of raw milk in those countries? and what countries have a minarchist or similar gov't, if any, and what is the availability of raw milk there? with those data points in place it would be easier to develop a hypothesis on whether there's a connection between the availability of raw milk and a more socialist-leaning gov't. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Huh? You were stating that in comparison to socialist Canada, it is much easier to get raw milk in the US implying that it is because Canada was socialist. I was just pointing out that you can't really jump to that conclusion bacause Germany is very socialist, and they can get raw milk. As far as assuming that if government is involved with public health you have to expect that there will be a ban on raw milk at any time...well you can expect whatever you want but that does not mean such a thing will happen. It also sounds a bit hysterical to me. I think Suze is right, you can't make any real conclusions by just looking at one or two countries. Irene At 03:34 PM 1/15/04, you wrote: >In a message dated 1/15/04 12:49:19 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@... >writes: > > > In Germany, every bit as socialized as Canada, although you can't get raw > > milk in stores, my friend buys it from a farmer. As far as I know there > are > > no fines for doing so. > >Irene, > >Then Germany's laws are comparable to those of the United States, depending >on what state you are in, and considerably more oppressive than some of the >states. 's recently mentioned that Austrailia is banning all raw milk. > >Since America is more socialist than it is capitalist, and since America is >the most capitalist of the three, yet has the least oppressive laws, and >since >in America's more capitalist past raw milk was legal, but in its more >socialist present it is not, there seems to me to be a correlation. > >That said, it would be impossible to ban raw milk if America's Constitution >were given the remotest bit of respect. > >And at a more theoretical level, under any government where public health is >considered the domain of the government, you can expect at any moment an >anti-cholesterol movement to be waged, or a ban on raw milk, whereas under a >government where public health is not its domain, you can expect to have >guaranteed >safety from either. > >Chris > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 and what countries have a minarchist or similar gov't, if > any, and what is the availability of raw milk there? >>>Well a government that regulates raw milk couldn't reasonbly be called " minarchist. " --------->of course not. but offhand, ARE there any minarchist nations/countries/regions anywhere in the world? they would provide a variety of useful data points for many of the recent debates. Suze Fisher Lapdog Design, Inc. Web Design & Development http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine http://www.westonaprice.org ---------------------------- " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " -- Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher. The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics <http://www.thincs.org> ---------------------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Chris- >Since America is more socialist than it is capitalist, There's some socialism here, yes, but America is more fascist than capitalist, at least in the sense that fascism involves corporate control of government. >And at a more theoretical level, under any government where public health is >considered the domain of the government, you can expect at any moment an >anti-cholesterol movement to be waged, or a ban on raw milk, whereas under a >government where public health is not its domain, you can expect to have >guaranteed >safety from either. You really can't see how patently absurd this is? Are you seriously suggesting that freedom from government guarantees safety? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Irene- > I think Suze is right, you >can't make any real conclusions by just looking at one or two countries. More than that, is looking at one single very specific CONDITION in two countries and drawing sweeping conclusions about political philosophy from the comparison! - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Chris- >Everywhere in the US with more guns per >capita has less gun related deaths to. Not so. Crime-ridden poverty-stricken areas often have very high levels of guns -- and very high levels of gun-related deaths. I don't like the extreme positions on either side of the aisle (no gun control at all vs. eliminating most or all guns) and I won't be getting into a gun control debate now, but it would help if everyone got their facts straight. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 Chris- >I think that a larger government provides a tool for these >kinds of campaigns. Yes, it can provide a tool for those kinds of campaigns, but only one tool among many, and it also can provide a tool to ordinary citizens seeking to defend themselves against fraud. There are no guarantees anywhere. But until you read _Trust Us, We're Experts_, I see no further point in discussing your incorrect assumption that without government, corporations would have no power to deceive and defraud people and there'd therefore be no (ill-)health campaigns like the ones against fat and cholesterol. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 In a message dated 1/16/04 12:14:24 AM Eastern Standard Time, Idol@... writes: > Not so. Crime-ridden poverty-stricken areas often have very high levels of > > guns -- and very high levels of gun-related deaths. High levels of per capital legal gun ownership? By and large the trend is the opposite from what I've read. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 Chris- >By and large the trend is the opposite from what I've read. If a trend can only be observed " by and large " , then at best it's not the only factor at work. Canada has similar gun ownership but much less violence. The UK has far lower gun ownership and far less violence. Clearly guns are not the only factor in violence, but there's no reason to conclude they're automatically protective either. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 I just went to the raw milk site to check and it's true. " Federal law prohibits the sale or giving away of any raw milk, and in many provincial laws reinforce this (in Ontario, farmers may be fined $250,000 and sentenced to three years in jail). " I live beside a dairy farm and have already asked the farmer for some raw milk without any luck. Now I know why. They're not even allowed to " give it away " . Grrrrrr! and the K9's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 thanks ... that's precisely the point I was making. Dedy <<Canada has similar gun ownership but much less violence. The UK has far lower gun ownership and far less violence. Clearly guns are not the only factor in violence, but there's no reason to conclude they're automatically protective either.>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.