5 votes

Leader in the food freedom movement now over a month into a hunger strike

Dairy farmer Michael Schmidt, a leader in the food freedom movement, now OVER A MONTH into a hunger strike to ask leader of the province of Ontario, Canada for a dialogue. As Ron Paul's bill HR 1830 aims to make crossing statelines of non-raw-milk states with raw milk, here in Canada it is outright outlawed, and so far a dialogue has not been entered into by the leader of the province despite Michael's suffering and starvation. Read more about Michael's latest comment's below:

http://stateofswashbuckl.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/237/

And on the raw milk blog: http://thebovine.wordpress.com

All those who can, please call the leader of Ontario’s office and note your deep concern about this stonewalling: 416-325-1941 Fax: 416-325-3745 or email at: dmcguinty.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org Also tweet him @dalton_mcguinty and @LibPressSec

Ron Paul Revolution is worldwide! If we don't stand up for Liberty now it could soon be too late!



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Synopsis

A cow share operation can be a transfer of responsibility away from the government. But it requires clear understanding of the principles at play, and then a complex arrangement between the cow share holders and the agister. Mr. Schmidt said he had a cow share program. And because it was not exposed in the original trial that his cow share program was a complete joke, the court edified the principle that consumers have the right to make their own choice. In other words, the court gave explicit credence to the principle of responsible food freedom. Then, in the appeal, the government showed that the cow share program was a facade, and there was no transfer of responsibility away from the government. So it is hypocritical to be fighting for responsible food freedom when this principle has already been upheld, and that in reality he did not employ the same in is how affairs.
Like I said, perhaps it is prudent to first have you own house in order before crying foul.

i think the issue is much

i think the issue is much larger than your synopsis. this is not just about him and his cow share.

Yes and No

Yes and no. From a point of principle, it is relatively simple: Responsibility. But feel free to peruse some of my other posts below. To get our head out of the leaves and branches of the tree, and see the whole tree for what it is, it a big issue. To see the forest for the tress is a challenge, when we have been indoctrinated for long with the idea that freedom is a function of politics. As within, so without...

i'll be sending good energy

i'll be sending good energy for him and our canadian brothers and sisters. this guy deserves dialogue.

OK Libertyrose

I read the decision, and I didn't see that he had violated any natural law. I would suggest to you the following based on your post below:

1. It is not against natural law to sell products to the public. It is not illegal in that sense.

2. There is no person which is "the public," and "the public" has no inherent interest. Natural law is proving this around the world even as we speak.

3. There might be something to be said on behalf of not always claiming to be a victim, but Ron Paul has pointed out that many are precisely that, victims of totalitarianism. In a certain sense, I don't see why Schmidt doesn't qualify.

Having said that (and pointed out that perhaps we simply have a difference of opinion rather than that everyone you happen to disagree with needs to be "schooled"), I would say two things for those who can contact Schmidt.

A. Perhaps he should take extra effort to avoid detection next time. It sounds like he's a German and wants to do everything out in the open with a labeled truck and what not. That can be a bad way to operate under totalitarianism. The state (and the mental state of society, n.b., Libertyrose) is not your friend. Fitting in half way often doesn't work out so well.

B. As Patton said, the objective of war is not to die for your country, the objective is to make the other guy die for his. So maybe Schmidt should pick up a box of Cheerios and rejoin the fight.

Sell to Public

Points one and two are in conflict. In point one you give validity to the existence of the public. In point two, you negate it.
By the law of nations / necessary law of nations / international law / and the principles of nature as applied to nations and sovereigns, the state / sovereign has the obligation to protect itself (the state). Like it, or dislike it. If you can show that principle to be in error, feel free to do so. Please recognize that where we as individuals are sovereign, you also don't have a neutral 3rd party (court) to file your complaint to. There is no civil remedy administered by a neutral 3rd party between sovereigns.
Bottom line principle (until you can show to the contrary), is that the state / sovereign has jurisdiction over its public. As such, you need to obtain permission to sell to the public (thus the "business license", and the obligation to collect and pay taxes).
Now if you are a US citizen, Washington DC has jurisdiction over you. If you are an American Nations, and a citizen of one of the several states, Washington DC does not have jurisdiction. Remember, a Person is a human being regarded with a certain status...

Fighting vs Realizing

Freedom is not something to fight for. It is something we have, and to be realized. Just as truth needs no defense, neither does freedom. Stand for freedom. And you do that by owning it... Freedom is not something that is given to us by someone else. It is not about fighting darkness. Just be the light. The difference between RP and Mr. Schmidt is that the former is not a bandwagon, while the latter is. RP in deed empowers people with ideas, and thus allows people to move beyond victim mentality. Mr. Schmidt is a temporary bandwagon and perpetuates the idea that freedom is a function of politics. Inviting the government to resolve the matter is prima facia evidence of confusion, unless government regulations is what is wanted. Bandwagons are temporary feelings of empowerment through association. RP inspires us with ideas. RP does not aspire to lead or govern. Mr. Schmidt does.
But what is great about freedom is that we are free to choose our role model / leader...

Thanks

Thanks for the comment. And thanks for the challenge. This leads to a big topic, and will try to be concise.
Nations that aspire to adhere to natural law are all in the business of protecting the public. Freedom and responsibility go hand in hand. An inability to take responsibility (i.e. because of mental capacity, or lack of understanding) means they are not / cannot be free in a civil society. Moreover, because we are free, we are free to delegate. Because we can delegate, we can place our trust in someone else (i.e. a farmer, "the government", or whoever.) Whoever has been assigned trust and responsibility is governing. Like it or not, in the eyes of the court, everybody is assumed and presumed to operating under the protection of "the government". As such, the onus falls on the "free" people to "evidence" that they are free (taking personal responsibility).
Now the public is a person. It is a corporate body politic. It is a corporation. Corporation and a person are synonymous terms. Every person is a human being, but not every human being a person. A person is a human being regarded with a certain status. The public is a corporation aggregate. You are welcome to have a different opinion. However, to do so would be going against natural law... And you are free to perceive however you like.
Just remember, we don't have a right to impose freedom on others. In deed, it is evident that most people don't want to be personally responsible, and thus don't want to be free...

bumping . . .

with concern.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Thank you & everyone who is keeping this issue alive

Thank you.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Beware...

There is much more to this story than meets the eye. It all seems noble on the surface... until you examine the details...

reedr3v's picture

If you have any facts it would be

good to state them. I remember when Schmidt was first attacked by the food gestapo. I think he is a dedicated and good and innocent man.

I would suggest it is prudent

I would suggest it is prudent to first have your own house in order... And if you don't, at least admit it so that others are not mislead and caught in, or perpetuate the victim mentality - victim to a supposed corrupt Judiciary... Read the decision at http://www.canadianconstitutionfoundation.ca/toc.php/48. Remember, the court is not there to make a political decision. The court is there to make a decision at law. If you disagree with the law, that is fine. But that is a political issue. Don't confuse the two.
The vast majority following Mr. Schmidt haven't read the court decision... Of course the posting of the decision is notably absent from "The Bovine". Once you read the decision, it might be a bit more apparent why...

I couldn't get the link to work--

I found myself on Canadian constitution--with no 'body'--

Could you be more clear in your meaning here?

I know there are a lot of people who are 'illegal' with regards to raw milk; it is happening everywhere--

one farmer *I* know joked that there's more raw milk sold illegally than street drugs--

but still . . .

Perhaps it is sad that the time has come when to be healthy one must be illegal, but--

I'd like to know what this is all about.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

reedr3v's picture

Your link goes to a statement defending

consumer choice. I'm still baffled by your condemnation of Schmidt. Liberty entails personal responsibility on the part of consumers as well as producers.

Link

I don't know why the links are not working. Go to the Canadian Constitution Foundation website and look for Schmidt case. There you will find the Tetley decision. Then read the transcript... Actually read it... Just like most people cannot be bothered to read the constitution, neither can most people be bothered to read what the court said... Just look at all the opinions of people on The Bovine who have never read it.
You are entirely correct about the association of freedom and responsibility. Which leads to a whole other can of worms... can you compel other people to "be free", or to "act free"?

Legal vs Lawful

What is legal or illegal is relative (man made law). What is lawful or unlawful is absolute (function of natural law). It is lawful to sell raw milk. It is illegal to sell to the public. Freedom is a product of natural law. Michael knows these points, but perpetuates the idea of cow shares, and does not explain that the root lies in a proper transfer of responsibility. He always talks about freedom and responsibility, but fails in the their application, all the while making "others" wrong. He call on us to stand united under his umbrella of protection / Cow Share Canada, while he operates a Farm Share program. A joke, really...
The road to hell are paved with good intentions...
You know how the 911 Commission Report was full of holes... Well, so is this... But only an objective contemplation of the fact, not some emotional perspective based on how it was in some Communist country, will allow you to see things for what they are... not how we want to see them...

I was able to drink raw milk as a child in Communist Poland

Why Communist tyranny allowed for people to drink raw milk and supposed "free-world" prevents people from drinking it?

That is a question everyone must ask.

The answer is:
We are not living in a free-world -- we live under the fascist boot of tyranny.

LL on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LibertyPoet
sometimes LL can suck & sometimes LL rocks!
http://www.dailypaul.com/203008/south-carolina-battle-of-cow...
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I agree, LL--

a man from Romania who couldn't get the help for cancer he wanted from a doctor who has a known cure . . .

testified in court that the laws in Romania were more friendly to health than those in America.

Sad, indeed.

At least . . . there has been the illusion of a 'free' place to which these in the East can flee, but where do those of *us* who are ---th generation Americans go?

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

He Who Creates The Liability

We are living in a world administered in light of the principle that "He who creates the liability must provide the remedy." It is an inability to appreciate this principle that leads to the endless government regulations, which leads to the feeling of a "living under the fascist boot of tyranny", and leads to the predominant victim mentality.

I am trying to understand this--

I don't know the man, and I'm not in Canada.

Farmers I know do not 'sell' the milk; they ask for a 'donation'--

and they aren't afraid of the 'law'--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Journalism

I totally sympathize that it is hard to know which way is up unless you are privy to the relevant facts, and ideas at play. Good investigative and objective journalism is hard to come by, imo.

Latest Update on Mounting Political Pressure

Just got off the phone with the office of a member of provincial parliament, read here: http://stateofswashbuckl.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/conversati...

Freedom a Function of Law

The predominant perception is that freedom is a function of politics, when in reality it is a function of law. Asking the government for freedom is a gross error in perception. Like RP says, Rights are endowed in us by our creator, not the government. The government can only give you regulations, not freedom. So if you are asking the government to resolve something, the only thing they can give you is regulations... not freedom. You already have freedom. Just don't trespass on the rights of others (including the person (corporate body politic) called the Public). The power lies in "us" as individuals knowing the proper role of government, and understanding the principles of freedom. RP's presidency will be useless unless the constituents become schooled... We have a republic so long as we can keep it... We see what happened... Obviously the constituents we not sufficiently educated to keep it...