Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/16/05 2:42:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

illneverbecool@... writes:

> What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

> emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom. Unforunately, I

> seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

____

I agree that wouldn't be nice, but nor does it seem nice to me to accuse

someone of such on a hunch.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>

>I am contemplating my WAPF membership renewal. It seems like the

>foundation produces some pretty good materials, but I wonder how much

>outreach effort there really is going on. The magazine and conference:

>Do they generate interest outside of WAPF, or is it more of a hob

>nobbing of regulars? I have looked at their finances, and it appears

>quite a bit goes into the conference, and much comes from it, but in my

>mind, promoting traditional foods takes serious activism outside of

>regular channels.

I think there is *tremendous* outreach going on by the WAPF, including

outside regular channels. Here are some of their outreach activities/venues:

1. Sally lectures on traditional diets extensively and worldwide

2. Sally is interviewed on radio and in the media fairly regularly, it seems

3. Sally and are continuing to write books and articles on the subject

of traditional nutrition, including the just released coconut book

4. The Foundation now has over 250 local chapters worldwide doing outreach

in their communities. Sally's asked that chapter leaders present her

traditional nutrition lecture to their communities, which many are doing

5. Sally, Bill Sanda and the Foundation have been working ardorously to

persuade the FDA to incorporate the tenets of traditional nutrition into the

new FDA food pyramid guidelines and to ban soy infant formula

6. The Foundation has worked toward making sure practitioners get continuing

ed credits for the conferences in order to attract more practioners. At the

lipid hypothesis conference two years ago there were a number of MDs and

other conventional health care practitioners. They, then, reach out to their

client base.

7. This year's conference had an approximately 150% increase in attendance

over the last one. Since I moderate the chapter leader list, I notice that

we seem to get a surge of new chapters after each conference, thus the

message from the conference snowballs into several new chapters, which

translates to new arms of outreach. The conferences are thus an excellent

outreach vehicle.

8. One of the conference activities involves Bill Sanda taking attendees to

capitol hill to lobby their respective congresspeople and senators on

nutrition issues important to the WAPF such as banning soy infant formula

9. Sally regularly lectures at the ACRES USA annual confernece, IIRC. At

their last conference two months ago, I heard that she was the first

non-agriculturalist to be given an award by them. My memory is a bit hazy on

it, but I think it was for having such a profound impact on

eco-agriculture - I think I'd heard or read that they credited her with the

new growth spurt of farmers going into eco-ag. If someone who was there or

knows more than I do about this can clarify or correct, please do. In any

case, this is not " outside " regular WAPF channels but will likely have an

indirect effect over time as eco-ag grows and becomes more noticed by the

mainstream, and reported in their channels

From what I've heard the WAPF membership is growing by leaps and bounds,

indicating that their outreach efforts are having an effect. Having said

that, when they go outside " regular channels " there's often strong

resistance to the message, so I'm not sure HOW much effort should be spent

trying to convert those who don't want to be converted. We've discussed this

among the chapter leaders and some feel it's best to offer the info to

anyone interested in listening to the message, but it's a waste of time

trying to push the message on those who don't want to hear it, and when you

go outside regular channels, you do get a lot of resistance. I'm not saying

that we shouldn't put the message out there to the mainstream as I think we

most definitely should, but I do think it's good to spend time, money and

effort building a strong base among the believers and when other people are

ready to HEAR the message, they will.

I think this is especially true in our political

>climate of lax environmental rules and pushing prescription drugs over

>healthy lifestyles. I plan to continue volunteering for my local

>chapter either way, but I think a real stance on the issues besides

>securing raw milk for my family needs to be made.

A real stance on what issues?

Perhaps it has been,

>and I am missing something. But in my mind, we just can't live healthy

>lives without the support of laws, guidelines and other things of this

>nature which protect the environment that we feed on by breathing,

>drinking and eating.

Well that is certainly debatable, but I'm not sure how it relates to your

question about the WAPF getting their message out in non-WAPF channels? WAPF

is not a libertarian organization if that's what you are implying, although

they take some stances that are libertarian in nature, such as opposition to

the law banning the transportation of raw milk across state lines. But

elsewhere they support and even initiate laws restricting freedom of choice

such as the ban on soy infant formula.

I am talking about issues here, not people, not

>parties. The idea that we can all be free and live as friends is nice,

>but with power companies and factory farms spewing toxins without much

>in the way of regulation, it really isn't possible without some sort of

>regulation, as far as I can tell. But again, maybe I am wrong.

You will definitely find some opposition on this list to the notion that we

require the gov't to protect us with their regulations, as you well know. I

also think this statement presupposes that regulations really protect us,

which is also debatable.

>

>Who are the diet dictocrats? Some nameless, faceless group?

Geez, where to start? People at the FDA, USDA and ADA, Willets of Harvard

and other well-known nutrition academics to name a few.

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>>

>>

>I think there is *tremendous* outreach going on by the WAPF, including

>outside regular channels. Here are some of their outreach

>activities/venues:

I forgot to add a few things:

--The WAPF constantly sends out action alerts that often suggest we contact

our legislators about various WAPF-related issues

--Several chapter leaders are involved in changing state laws such as

Dady in TN, who, btw, also starred in (and produced? or had produced) a

commercial promoting raw milk which is available for all chapters to

distribute in their communities.

--The WAPF often steps in to help chapter leaders or farmers in working

with or around the law in their states to procure raw milk for thier

communities, such as their help with the recent legislation in CO that was

won by the pro-raw milk side

There's probably more outreach that they do which I haven't thought of or

don't know of...

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 12:42 PM 2/16/05 -0600, you wrote:

>You have provided many positive reasons to continue supporting WAPF. I

>appreciate the time you have taken to spell some of the goals and

>activities, some of which I was unaware.

>

>Deanna

Yeah, but can you provide a limerick for it?

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

>I forgot to add a few things:

>

>--The WAPF constantly sends out action alerts that often suggest we contact

>our legislators about various WAPF-related issues

>

>--Several chapter leaders are involved in changing state laws such as

>Dady in TN, who, btw, also starred in (and produced? or had produced) a

>commercial promoting raw milk which is available for all chapters to

>distribute in their communities.

>

>--The WAPF often steps in to help chapter leaders or farmers in working

>with or around the law in their states to procure raw milk for thier

>communities, such as their help with the recent legislation in CO that was

>won by the pro-raw milk side

>

>There's probably more outreach that they do which I haven't thought of or

>don't know of...

>

>Suze Fisher

>

Thanks, Suze. That is the sort of information I was looking for. And

it may be that it is posted somewhere, yet I didn't readily see it. I

am especially pleased to learn of the eco-ag from your other post which

I shall repost here:

" 9. Sally regularly lectures at the ACRES USA annual confernece, IIRC. At

their last conference two months ago, I heard that she was the first

non-agriculturalist to be given an award by them. My memory is a bit hazy on

it, but I think it was for having such a profound impact on

eco-agriculture - I think I'd heard or read that they credited her with the

new growth spurt of farmers going into eco-ag. If someone who was there or

knows more than I do about this can clarify or correct, please do. In any

case, this is not " outside " regular WAPF channels but will likely have an

indirect effect over time as eco-ag grows and becomes more noticed by the

mainstream, and reported in their channels "

As far as political issues go, I am mainly thinking environmental

issues. Let me snip more from your other post and quote you:

" You will definitely find some opposition on this list to the notion that we

require the gov't to protect us with their regulations, as you well know. I

also think this statement presupposes that regulations really protect us,

which is also debatable. "

Okay, for example, the US Air Force's rocket fuel has ended up in

organic produce from the Imperial Valley, CA. The salad mixes were

found upon testing to contain rocket fuel residues. Acid rain is

another example of pollution which has the potential to contaminate

foods, sometimes in adjacent countries. Factory farm run off pollutes

the Gulf of Mexico so that no animals can inhabit vast expanses of it.

Mercury levels in some species of fish are rising. In this modern age,

regulation is a means - but perhaps not the only means - to ensure that

our foods are not filled with large doses of toxins. I believe this is

especially true for animal foods, as they tend to store toxins in their

fat. WAPF promotes the consumption of full fat foods from pastured

animals, which is great. But these pastured animals don't live in an

isolated world, and even the organic animals may well have levels of

contamination that just are not safe, depending on many factors like

location, water sources, etc. As lettuce from the Imperial Valley was

shown with residues of rocket fuels from the water used on the crops in

winter, so might animals living on lands that are certifiably organic be

contaminated with chemical residues from nearby sources. We live in a

modern age where the pristine wholesome farm is a myth at best, because

of the interconnectedness of regions and life. In fact, some organic

dairies are as intensive as run of the mill factory farms currently.

Just because something is raw and organic does not mean it is free of

toxins either. Thus, I believe some sort of environmental regulations -

or some other means - are needed to keep food as free from contaminants

as is reasonably possible.

I realize WAPF cannot do it all, but I was curious if the group

recognized the need for environmental protections to keep our food

sources safe and nourishing. I think they have actions pertaining to

GMOs, which are another environmental problem for organic farmers. If

they do more in this regard, I would like to know.

You have provided many positive reasons to continue supporting WAPF. I

appreciate the time you have taken to spell some of the goals and

activities, some of which I was unaware.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

I suspect you've posted this to create some noise for your own

entertainment because you're bored with the quietness of this list

since y'all noisemakers moved over to NT-Politics. In fact,in a very

recent post over there, you admitted that's why you posted the last

POLITICS post over here. Is an observable pattern with you. Re-read

the WAPF website if you've somehow forgotten their purpose and

objectives. Please do address this with your local chapter leader as

well. Maybe Suze--or I--will grant you a temporary membership on WAPF

Chapterleaders (for a peek of the activities there) if you approach it

right. heh.

B.

/i'm a lil despot

I s

> I am contemplating my WAPF membership renewal. It seems like the

> foundation produces some pretty good materials, but I wonder how much

> outreach effort there really is going on. The magazine and conference:

> Do they generate interest outside of WAPF, or is it more of a hob

> nobbing of regulars? I have looked at their finances, and it appears

> quite a bit goes into the conference, and much comes from it, but in my

> mind, promoting traditional foods takes serious activism outside of

> regular channels. I think this is especially true in our political

> climate of lax environmental rules and pushing prescription drugs over

> healthy lifestyles. I plan to continue volunteering for my local

> chapter either way, but I think a real stance on the issues besides

> securing raw milk for my family needs to be made. Perhaps it has been,

> and I am missing something. But in my mind, we just can't live healthy

> lives without the support of laws, guidelines and other things of this

> nature which protect the environment that we feed on by breathing,

> drinking and eating. I am talking about issues here, not people, not

> parties. The idea that we can all be free and live as friends is nice,

> but with power companies and factory farms spewing toxins without much

> in the way of regulation, it really isn't possible without some sort of

> regulation, as far as I can tell. But again, maybe I am wrong.

>

> Who are the diet dictocrats? Some nameless, faceless group?

>

> I would appreciate information y'all may have about WAPF at the

> grassroots and higher levels. Is the foundation taking stands on the

> issues like, say, the Organic Consumers Association does?

> http://www.organicconsumers.org/index.htm

>

> Thanks.

>

>

> Deanna

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>Deanna,

>I suspect you've posted this to create some noise for your own

>entertainment because you're bored with the quietness of this list

>since y'all noisemakers moved over to NT-Politics. In fact,in a very

>recent post over there, you admitted that's why you posted the last

>POLITICS post over here. Is an observable pattern with you. Re-read

>the WAPF website if you've somehow forgotten their purpose and

>objectives. Please do address this with your local chapter leader as

>well. Maybe Suze--or I--will grant you a temporary membership on WAPF

>Chapterleaders (for a peek of the activities there) if you approach it

>right. heh.

> B.

>

I am really looking at my membership form and thinking about whether or

not to renew. The website doesn't have an " about us " section that I

can spot easily. I think Suze's summary was pretty helpful, and I

haven't seen anything like it on the site.

Truthfully, I did want to demonstrate that a political post could be

started up all on its own and be very on topic.

But no more lists! Back, back! And please don't discuss our private

nt_politics subjects on this public list. Snot nice.

Tanks,

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>Yeah, but can you provide a limerick for it?

>

>

>

>MFJ

>If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

>

I thought it was YOUR turn?

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

> But no more lists! Back, back! And please don't discuss our private

> nt_politics subjects on this public list. Snot nice.

Deanna,

What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom. Unforunately, I

seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

B.

[Guest guest]

At 01:25 PM 2/16/05 -0600, you wrote:

>>Yeah, but can you provide a limerick for it?

>>

>>

>>

>>MFJ

>>If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

>>

>I thought it was YOUR turn?

>

>Deanna

Nope. It's yours. It's ALWAYS your turn.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:24:31 -0600

Deanna <hl@...> wrote:

> But no more lists! Back, back! And please don't discuss our private

> nt_politics subjects on this public list. Snot nice.

>

> Tanks,

> Deanna

In all honesty if you are concerned about privacy then groups is

probably not the place to be. Even on a so-called private list people

can simply become members to gain access to the archives. It would be no

big deal, for example, for CHS to sign up and peruse your comments about

her on NT_Politics. And once posts actually arrive on other people's

hard drives I think you are whistling into the wind if you expect such

stuff to stay private.

While one might reasonably expect someone not to re-post your actual

post on another list without your permission, I think its a stretch to

expect people not to even characterize what you said on another list if

they think its pertinent, especially on a list which has an open

invitation to join NT_Politics. I didn't know that any of us swore to

secrecy when we signed up on NT, and I do recall you very recently

sharing one of my posts with your husband. Is there a

difference?

And I doubt, although I could be wrong, that most of us who join

NT_Politics from NN are aware that the settings for that group are

different from the settings at NN. We have had some very heated

discussions on NN as well with no apparent regards for privacy.

Whatever the privacy settings, as a practical matter, the best bet, IMO,

if you are worried about privacy -- don't post.

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

>[Deanna] In fact, some organic

>dairies are as intensive as run of the mill factory farms currently.

>Just because something is raw and organic does not mean it is free of

>toxins either. Thus, I believe some sort of environmental regulations -

>or some other means - are needed to keep food as free from contaminants

>as is reasonably possible.

[Heidi] This has always made me wonder too. On this list we tend to have

outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see any way to curb the laziness of

corporations without gov't intervention. The history of humans in general is

that they tend to degrade any environment they are in, but corporations (esp.

big factory type ones) release some really nasty chemicals unless told

forcefully not to. In countries without regulations, there have been some horrid

problems that will take decades to clean up. So how can anyone be FOR " clean "

food and ignore the environmental problems?

Not to mention that for folks who care about growing food, problems with global

warming, the availability of water, will have huge impact on farming.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>

>

>>[Deanna] In fact, some organic

>>dairies are as intensive as run of the mill factory farms currently.

>>Just because something is raw and organic does not mean it is free of

>>toxins either. Thus, I believe some sort of environmental regulations -

>>or some other means - are needed to keep food as free from contaminants

>>as is reasonably possible.

>

>[Heidi] This has always made me wonder too. On this list we tend

>to have outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see any way to

>curb the laziness of corporations without gov't intervention. The

>history of humans in general is that they tend to degrade any

>environment they are in, but corporations (esp. big factory type

>ones) release some really nasty chemicals unless told forcefully

>not to. In countries without regulations, there have been some

>horrid problems that will take decades to clean up. So how can

>anyone be FOR " clean " food and ignore the environmental problems?

The underlying presumption - that libertarians are for clean food but not

for a clean environment - is unsupported. It seems you are presuming that

they have NO solution to industrial pollution rather than an *alternative*

solution.

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>

>

>>I forgot to add a few things:

>>

>>--The WAPF constantly sends out action alerts that often suggest

>we contact

>>our legislators about various WAPF-related issues

>>

>>--Several chapter leaders are involved in changing state laws

>such as

>>Dady in TN, who, btw, also starred in (and produced? or had produced) a

>>commercial promoting raw milk which is available for all chapters to

>>distribute in their communities.

>>

>>--The WAPF often steps in to help chapter leaders or farmers in working

>>with or around the law in their states to procure raw milk for thier

>>communities, such as their help with the recent legislation in CO that was

>>won by the pro-raw milk side

>>

>>There's probably more outreach that they do which I haven't thought of or

>>don't know of...

>>

>>Suze Fisher

>>

>Thanks, Suze. That is the sort of information I was looking for. And

>it may be that it is posted somewhere, yet I didn't readily see it.

I think a good portion of it is on the WAPF website.

I

>am especially pleased to learn of the eco-ag from your other post which

>I shall repost here:

I think Sally may have also been the keynote speaker at the last ACRES USA

coference.

>

>As far as political issues go, I am mainly thinking environmental

>issues. Let me snip more from your other post and quote you:

>

> " You will definitely find some opposition on this list to the

>notion that we

>require the gov't to protect us with their regulations, as you well know. I

>also think this statement presupposes that regulations really protect us,

>which is also debatable. "

>

>Okay, for example, the US Air Force's rocket fuel has ended up in

>organic produce from the Imperial Valley, CA. The salad mixes were

>found upon testing to contain rocket fuel residues. Acid rain is

>another example of pollution which has the potential to contaminate

>foods, sometimes in adjacent countries. Factory farm run off pollutes

>the Gulf of Mexico so that no animals can inhabit vast expanses of it.

>Mercury levels in some species of fish are rising. In this modern age,

>regulation is a means - but perhaps not the only means - to ensure that

>our foods are not filled with large doses of toxins.

If the regulations are working so well then why do we have all the problems

you listed above?

I believe this is

>especially true for animal foods, as they tend to store toxins in their

>fat. WAPF promotes the consumption of full fat foods from pastured

>animals, which is great. But these pastured animals don't live in an

>isolated world, and even the organic animals may well have levels of

>contamination that just are not safe, depending on many factors like

>location, water sources, etc.

This is conjecture on my part but there is a school of thought that RAW

animal fat helps remove toxins, and, of course, the WAPF promotes the

consumption of raw animal fats.

As lettuce from the Imperial Valley was

>shown with residues of rocket fuels from the water used on the crops in

>winter, so might animals living on lands that are certifiably organic be

>contaminated with chemical residues from nearby sources. We live in a

>modern age where the pristine wholesome farm is a myth at best, because

>of the interconnectedness of regions and life.

I agree completely.

In fact, some organic

>dairies are as intensive as run of the mill factory farms currently.

>Just because something is raw and organic does not mean it is free of

>toxins either. Thus, I believe some sort of environmental regulations -

>or some other means - are needed to keep food as free from contaminants

>as is reasonably possible.

Then you are open to reducing toxins/pollutants by " some other means " ? I

don't fully comprehend the libertarian explanation of how to control

pollution although the basics have been explained to me. But I'm open to

hearing it and considering it carefully before accepting or rejecting it. I

think that the libertarian solution to environmental pollution is not well

understood by those who've posted opposition to it on this list (at least

IMO) so opponents so far haven't offered any reasonable refutation that I

recall seeing.

Coincidentally, I just heard a portion of a report on NPR about a free

market solution to industrial pollution that is taking place in...Japan, I

think. I don't know where for sure because I missed much of the report and

just picked up on a few snippets near the end. It would be interesting to

see the results. I might actually go to the NPR website to get more info on

it. It might be a good case study in free market solutions to pollution.

>

>I realize WAPF cannot do it all, but I was curious if the group

>recognized the need for environmental protections to keep our food

>sources safe and nourishing. I think they have actions pertaining to

>GMOs, which are another environmental problem for organic farmers. If

>they do more in this regard, I would like to know.

And one of the main speakers at the last conference lectured on GMOs.

Another lectured on the detriment of chemical agriculture.

>

>You have provided many positive reasons to continue supporting WAPF. I

>appreciate the time you have taken to spell some of the goals and

>activities, some of which I was unaware.

U R welcome.

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>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:43:18 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

> >[Deanna] In fact, some organic

> >dairies are as intensive as run of the mill factory farms currently.

> >Just because something is raw and organic does not mean it is free of

> >toxins either. Thus, I believe some sort of environmental regulations -

> >or some other means - are needed to keep food as free from contaminants

> >as is reasonably possible.

>

> [Heidi] This has always made me wonder too. On this list we tend to have

> outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see any way to curb the laziness of

corporations

> without gov't intervention. The history of humans in general is that

> they tend to degrade any environment they are in, but corporations (esp.

> big factory type ones) release some really nasty chemicals unless told

> forcefully not to. In countries without regulations, there have been

> some horrid problems that will take decades to clean up. So how can

> anyone be FOR " clean " food and ignore the environmental problems?

[] Well you know we have a number of outspoken people on this

list, representing a variety of viewpoints, including your ideology of

pragmatism.

But if you can't see in your pragmatism how to deal with environmental

issues from a free market perspective then perhaps I can help you expand

your vision somewhat, but then again perhaps not :-)

First what has been demonstrated over and over again is that

environmentally concerned societies are *prosperous* societies, in other words

when societies begin to materially prosper they begin to be concerned

about keeping the environment clean. Poor societies (and poor societies *do*

pollute, kill off species, etc.) don't concern themselves with such

because they are too busy trying to survive. So the history of humans in

general is that as they prosper they become much more sensitive to the

environment, which makes sense since as we prosper we become concerned

with all kinds of things that we otherwise wouldn't have the time or

means to be concerned about.

Second, the worst polluters are governments, not corporations.

Third, the real problem with environmental policy is that the gov't has

historically tried to balance pollution with the " public good " . For

example, they might acknowledge that a particular industry is in fact

polluting apple farmers and their orchards (the railroads as an example)

but then rule that nonetheless the public interest is best served by

allowing them to do so.

On the other hand, the libertarian recognizes no right to invade

anyone's property or person with pollution, in other words, in a

libertarian world there would be *zero* tolerance for any pollution that

spilled over to someone else's person and/or property.

" Gov't has failed to apply or protect the rights of private property.

Rivers are in essence owned by no one; and so of course, industry,

farmers, and gov't alike have poured poisons into those rivers. If there

were full private property rights on the rivers, for example, owners

would not permit their pollution. "

Murray Rothbard, Conservation in the Free Market

The practical effect would be the economic incentive to develop technologies

and industries that respected property rights by either curing or

preventing pollution.. So that gov't subsidized bus, for example, that

used to LOUDLY ramble right outside of my bedroom starting at 5:00 am

every morning every half hour for the rest of the day would have to

find a way to muffle the noise pollution or stop doing business. Air,

noise, water, all can be covered under property rights.

" The question to ask, then, is why haven't the courts applied the

common-law defense of property rights to an air pollution that injures

material property and the persons of every one of us. The reason is that,

from the beginnings of modern air pollution, the courts made a conscious

decision not to protect, for example, the orchards of farmers from the

smoke of nearby factories...They said, in effect...yes your private

property is being invaded by this smoke, but we hold that " public policy "

is more important than private property, and public policy holds

factories and locomotives to be good things. These goods were allowed to

override the defense of property rights resulting in pollution disaster.

" The remedy is both radical and crystal clear, and it has nothing to do

with multibillion dollar palliative programs at the expense of the

taxpayers which do not even meet the real issue.

" The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into

the air, and thereby invading the rights of person and property. Period.

" The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost

of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War

argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing

cotton, and therefore should not take place. For this means the

polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those

those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity. "

Rothbard, Conservation in the Free Market

> Not to mention that for folks who care about growing food, problems with

> global warming, the availability of water, will have huge impact on

> farming.

Oh yeah, this reminds me that I need to take up a hanging thread with

you on this very subject.

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

>>[Heidi] This has always made me wonder too. On this list we tend to have

>>outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see any way to curb the laziness of

corporations

>>without gov't intervention. The history of humans in general is that

>>they tend to degrade any environment they are in, but corporations (esp.

>>big factory type ones) release some really nasty chemicals unless told

>>forcefully not to. In countries without regulations, there have been

>>some horrid problems that will take decades to clean up. So how can

>>anyone be FOR " clean " food and ignore the environmental problems?

>

>[] " The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants into

> the air, and thereby invading the rights of person and property. Period.

>

> " The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost

> of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War

> argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing

> cotton, and therefore should not take place. For this means the

> polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those

> those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity. "

> Rothbard, Conservation in the Free Market

[Tom] , isn't such an injunction prohibition an instance of government

intervention?

Look at what Heidi said again.

Tom

_______________

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with

senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forego their use and by some

other means given us knowledge which we can attain by them.

-- Galileo Galilei

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:17:16 -0600

Tom Jeanne <t.l.jeanne@...> wrote:

>

> >>[Heidi] This has always made me wonder too. On this list we tend to have

> >>outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see any way to curb the laziness

of corporations

> >>without gov't intervention. The history of humans in general is that

> >>they tend to degrade any environment they are in, but corporations (esp.

> >>big factory type ones) release some really nasty chemicals unless told

> >>forcefully not to. In countries without regulations, there have been

> >>some horrid problems that will take decades to clean up. So how can

> >>anyone be FOR " clean " food and ignore the environmental problems?

> >

>

> >[] " The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting pollutants

into

> > the air, and thereby invading the rights of person and property. Period.

> >

> > " The argument that such an injunction prohibition would add to the cost

> > of industrial production is as reprehensible as the pre-Civil War

> > argument that the abolition of slavery would add to the costs of growing

> > cotton, and therefore should not take place. For this means the

> > polluters are able to impose the high costs of pollution upon those

> > those whose property rights they are allowed to invade with impunity. "

> > Rothbard, Conservation in the Free Market

>

> [Tom] , isn't such an injunction prohibition an instance of government

intervention?

>

> Look at what Heidi said again.

>

Tom

If you believe that the recognition and defense of something you

already have (property rights) by already existing gov't courts is an

act of gov't intervention then yes. But I don't think that is what Heidi

had in mind regarding the issue of protecting the environment. And I

don't think the court recognition of prior rights is what most people

think of when the term gov't intervention is used.

It certainly isn't what I had in mind, as I believe legal disputes ought

to be adjudicated by private courts, not the state. But even if a

statist court did what I advocated in my previous post, it would be fine

by me.

Private Courts

The Legal Intelligencer

April 14, 1999

Patently Obvious

By P. Duffy

U.S. Courthouse Correspondent

http://snipurl.com/cuf6

You might also find this article by Bruce Benson of interest:

http://tinyurl.com/4xr4q

" I feel sorry for all those health food

people. Someday, they will be lying in a hospital bed,

dying of nothing. "

Redd Foxx

=================================================

" This is what the king who will reign over you will do:

He will take... He will take... He will take... He will take...

... he will take... He will take... "

(I 8:11-17)

=================================================

[Guest guest]

>The underlying presumption - that libertarians are for clean food but not

>for a clean environment - is unsupported. It seems you are presuming that

>they have NO solution to industrial pollution rather than an *alternative*

>solution.

I don't know about " true " libertarians (seems like it's the same argument as for

" true " Christians, no one agrees on who the " true " ones are!). But recently in

my neck of the woods we had our electricity rates skyrocket because of so-called

Libertarian " free market " strategies, when Enron was given free reign. Have you

HEARD the Enron tapes? They are truly what I would describe as " sicko " . The PUD

(our local energy grid, who is now stuck with this high-rate contract) procured

the tapes and aired them in court.

In theory, yeah, folks would care about the long term and would be more

prosperous etc. etc. History has shown though, that humans are, in general, very

poor at caring about the " long term " and adopt short term strategies that

backfire. If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

So Heidi,

Why don't you just use a few million dollars of your " mad money " and sue

Enron yourself? Sound like a nice summer project to me!

BTW, I live in California so I know all about the Enron blues.

Irene

At 10:00 PM 2/16/2005, you wrote:

>

>

> >The underlying presumption - that libertarians are for clean food but not

> >for a clean environment - is unsupported. It seems you are presuming that

> >they have NO solution to industrial pollution rather than an *alternative*

> >solution.

>

>I don't know about " true " libertarians (seems like it's the same argument

>as for " true " Christians, no one agrees on who the " true " ones are!). But

>recently in my neck of the woods we had our electricity rates skyrocket

>because of so-called Libertarian " free market " strategies, when Enron was

>given free reign. Have you HEARD the Enron tapes? They are truly what I

>would describe as " sicko " . The PUD (our local energy grid, who is now

>stuck with this high-rate contract) procured the tapes and aired them in

>court.

>

>In theory, yeah, folks would care about the long term and would be more

>prosperous etc. etc. History has shown though, that humans are, in

>general, very poor at caring about the " long term " and adopt short term

>strategies that backfire. If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

>

>

>

>Heidi Jean

>

>

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/16/05 6:48:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> On this list we tend to have outspoken libertarians, but I really don't see

> any way to curb the laziness of corporations without gov't intervention.

____

Well, remember that libertarians are the most outspoken opponents of

*financing* the laziness of corporations. Big Agro was essentially created by

the

government through cheap money, targeted loans, and subsidies. Sally opined in

a

recent Wise Traditions that the debt-ridden junk food industry would probably

go under if it lost 5% of its patronship. What would happen to Big Agro if

they lost the 30% of their income that is paid for by tax money?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>The magazine and conference:

>Do they generate interest outside of WAPF, or is it more of a hob

>nobbing of regulars?

Inasmuch as the conference has been growing by leaps and bounds, I don't

think it's just a hobnobbing of regulars. (That said, I've yet to attends,

so I'm just relying on hearsay.)

>I would appreciate information y'all may have about WAPF at the

>grassroots and higher levels.

I have mixed feelings about some of the foundation's work, but from a

utilitarian perspective, I find the journal well worth the annual

membership fee, and the foundation is serving an important purpose.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>I realize WAPF cannot do it all, but I was curious if the group

>recognized the need for environmental protections to keep our food

>sources safe and nourishing. I think they have actions pertaining to

>GMOs, which are another environmental problem for organic farmers. If

>they do more in this regard, I would like to know.

There's a fairly well-established (though obviously never sufficient)

organization infrastructure working for environmental programs, against GM

crops and so on, so I don't think it would make sense to dedicate scarce

WAPF resources to much of that.

I do think that, from a strictly factual perspective, the foundation puts

too much emphasis on raw milk, but I believe it's doing so for strategic

reasons. Sally wrote an article in WT awhile ago which essentially

outlined her theory that a movement to restore raw milk can function as the

sharp edge of a wedge to return family farming to the forefront, which

would, if connected to a raw, grass-fed, organic milk movement, have the

inevitable effect of changing much of the food supply and the economy. It

seems like a plausible, workable strategy.

I also sometimes suspect that the foundation's pro-grain stance results in

part from a belief that NT-style eating would be unaffordable for many

otherwise.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>What's not nice, Deanna, IMO, is attempting to manipulate people

>emotionally to alleviate one's own sense of boredom. Unforunately, I

>seem to be falling for it now. Over-n-out.

I don't know whether you two have some sort of offlist baggage which is

making its presence felt here, but how can asking what the foundation is

doing be illegitimate? We shouldn't ever accept anything on

faith. Without skepticism and questioning, there's no guard against error

and corruption.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>So how can anyone be FOR " clean " food and ignore the environmental problems?

People have little difficulty believing in contradictions, and besides, the

more separated by time the result is from the cause, the more difficult it

is for people (at least most people, and people in aggregate) to perceive

the connection.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 1:04:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> I don't know about " true " libertarians (seems like it's the same argument

as

> for " true " Christians, no one agrees on who the " true " ones are!).

_____

While the libertarian community is not monolithic philosophically or even

politically (for example, some who call themselves libertarians favor a state;

others are anarchists), it seems you frequently include among " libertarians "

those whom would be considered libertarians by noone but you.

When I think of a libertarian, I think of the Libertarian Party, and I think

of the CATO Institute, and I think of the communities that follow Mises and

Rothbard. These all place somewhere differently within the libertarian

spectrum, but they all are self-described libertarians and they all would be

considered libertarians by the general populace.

It seems like you call people " libertarian " when they hold a somewhat

economically liberal view. Sure, that view might be more liberal than some

other

view, but libertarianism is very simple.

Libertarianism doesn't leave a whole lot of room for variation, relatively

speaking, *because* it is so simple. Since libertarians believe in strict

private property rights (some on ethical grounds, others on utilitarian grounds,

some unwilling to compromise at all (anarchists) others willing to make minimal

compromises out of perceived necessity (minarchists, like the LP), there

essentially isn't much room for political disagreement since politics in essence

is

the very violation of property rights.

______

But

> recently in my neck of the woods we had our electricity rates skyrocket

> because of so-called Libertarian " free market " strategies, when Enron was

> given free reign.

____

You use " Libertarian " capitalized. Did the Libertarian Party in your neck of

the woods support the plan? Was it supported by a self-described Libertarian

group that used the word " Libertarian " in the name of its group? If not, why

do you capitalize it?

We had a similar supposedly " free market " solution in my neck of the woods

which was anything BUT a libertarian proposal, being a massive bailout and a

crazy scheme involving temporary price caps and other crap. If yours was

anything like ours, it was by no means libertarian.

_____

> In theory, yeah, folks would care about the long term and would be more

> prosperous etc. etc. History has shown though, that humans are, in general,

> very poor at caring about the " long term " and adopt short term strategies

> that backfire. If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

_____

That's a good reason to have laws, and to have laws firmly enforced.

had suggested that the cornerstone of law is property rights, with which I

agree.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian