"By crossing state lines it became part of interstate commerce, and thus subject to the FDA's ban."
After the FDA first took action Mr. Allgyer changed his business model. He arranged to sell shares in the cows themselves to his customers, arguing that they owned the milk and he was only transferring it to them.
But Judge Stengel called that deal "merely a subterfuge."
"The practical result of the arrangement is that consumers pay money to Mr. Allgyer and receive raw milk," the judge wrote in a 13-page opinion.
IIRC, the Fed "raid" on the Amish Dairy Farm was a travesty. Lucky nobody got shot.
Did most there buy into the faulty premise, michelle?
I'd be most interested in hearing how things went, what you heard, saw and said.
When I added that I thought many of the battles on social issues (gay marriage, abortion) need to be fought culturally not legislatively, I got quite a bit of pushback. No one can legislatively dictate that anyone accept a gay couple as "married" under God.
Shouldn't it be up to churches to decide under what circumstances they would perform a marriage ceremony? By a right of conscience, a government cannot mandate any church to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies, and a government cannot force you to accept a civil union as a moral equivalent of a marriage.
We as a society "butt" into each others lives when we see a need to prevent harm
Trying to separate social issues out from other issues is folly.
Unfortunately for us, that is just what the Left is trying to do, repeatedly, legislate their social issues. And when they can't get what they want legislatively, they go to the courts....Working just through the culture is not a viable option right now with the Left seeking to enshrine their desires into law.
If I truly believe that an unborn child has a right to live, it behooves me to do everything I can to protect that child including fight for its protection legislatively. I don't believe trying to convince everyone that a baby is a person will work to save many babies....Many people look to laws as a way to decide what's right.
George Washington at first believed he could conduct the war solely on the strength of belief in the cause. That fizzled out after about 6 months. He had to rely on stiff penalties and promises of money to keep the troops from deserting when the going got tough.
Are we to hope that if we explain to the man that the woman is a person worthy of life he'll change his ways? Why must we butt out of a woman's decision to kill her baby? We don't have an obligation to protect a woman from a beating and a baby from death?
I'm not suggesting that government be used to impose any morality on anyone in a tyrannical way. But most communities throughout history have found it necessary to impose a moral code through its civil laws. The purpose of laws that reference a moral code is not to impose a morality on someone else --it is to protect those who live by that morality.
We live in a time in which there are people being raised without a sense of morality and will probably never understand what that is. I know people who look to the law to determine what is right and not just what they can get away with. Therefore, if something is legalized it must be okay.....<snip>.... And that is exactly why we enact laws based on what is moral.
If we were to depend on not using the law and hoping that culturally we could change minds then we'd have no need for any laws at all.
I hate the over regulations we live under but honestly many of them come because people are too stupid to self-regulate.
BUT I believe there's a balance and that all good people have a right to discuss and determine what that balance is. If a community decides to restrict cell phone use they may do so because they've found in their community that is a big concern. And if there is someone in that community who believes that talking on a cell phone is a moral questions because its use puts people at risk for harm they certainly can make that argument in order to try to persuade the others. Likewise some one can make the argument that it actually infringes on God-given rights or that God shouldn't have anything to do with it. Which ever side wins, the loser will not doubt cry that someone else's morality is being imposed on him.
We often legislate morality because we as a society recognize that not all people operate under any moral code. Thus we were given the Ten Commandments. And because people often don't operate according to any faith dictates that would embrace the Commandments, civil laws must be imposed and enforced.
The word morality has been bastardized to mean whatever "I" decide is moral. So the left is able to shout don't impose your morality on me and get away with it.
And people who otherwise might be turned off by the idea of gay marriage in fact are willing to be supporters because they are afraid someone could say to them that their own behavior is immoral and they don't want to be told that.
I can only imagine how nasty it will become when the ones who look to the law (written without reference to a moral code) as justification out number those relying on culturally changing their minds.
I take exception to that broad statement. I know women who seriously considered it. They didn't and are thankful they didn't and are wonderful parents.
If we lived in a society that valued babies as human beings we would find homes for many if not all.
I find it an odd suggestion that we cannot "make" potential aborters better parents but we could culturally persuade them that abortion or any other social issue is wrong.).
As I said before no one gets up in arms about imposing a moral code when it comes to theft (or murder).
I reject the notion that the only way we will be successful is if we toss over social issues and focus only on the economic concerns.
That's asking me to put aside my values for those who have none or different ones. Why can't they put aside their values for me?
It is not a matter to be decided by popularity. I recognize Christian viewpoints aren't often popular even in nations claiming to be Christian.
But I will be able to answer on judgment day to the Lord that I tried to live by his commandments as a witness to my faith despite others efforts to shut me up.
As I said before no one gets up in arms about imposing a moral code when it comes to theft (or murder).
And that is because we have followed an agreed to process to enact those laws, and they enjoy supermajority support, and clearly lie in an area that everyone agrees constitutes harm to others.
I am trying to persuade you that the pursuit of a solution via government force is counter productive,and far outside of what our government has authority to do.
I didn't realize the standard was a super majority. And when that supermajority shrinks because people want to be able to kill their old parents or their handicapped child are we then to define certain acts of murder as a social issue and banish it from the public arena?
You seem intent on calling my advocacy for certain principles as either legislating morality or government coercion (as if that is what is motivating me). It is neither because that is not my purpose. Labeling my beliefs and advocacy you don't agree with so negatively is not helpful.
Barack Obama as senator wouldn't even vote in favor of a law requiring aid be given to a baby born alive after an abortion. That is sick. But abortion is a social issue and I guess we should not do anything to help that baby because that would be legislating morality or government coercion. Let the baby die and hope we can persuade a person who makes his money killing babies to save the one he "failed" on.
To me what a person is willing to stand up and be seen and heard on is a measure of that person. It's not dependent on how many others agree with him. What a free society values is reflected in its laws and is a measure of that free society.
Some will argue that it’s misplaced for us to focus on politics and elections — that the battle is instead cultural and interpersonal. But our cultural and personal witness means nothing if we simultaneously surrender the political and electoral battle. The most powerful witness for our faith and convictions we can make is to fight for it publicly, in the public square and in our democratic institutions. ~Thomas Peters
Someone sent me a quote recently that I think sums up what I was trying to say in all my posts.QuoteSome will argue that it’s misplaced for us to focus on politics and elections — that the battle is instead cultural and interpersonal. But our cultural and personal witness means nothing if we simultaneously surrender the political and electoral battle. The most powerful witness for our faith and convictions we can make is to fight for it publicly, in the public square and in our democratic institutions. ~Thomas Peters
::curtsy4::
If Might makes Right, and gives one the power to establish for others the values that will be considered "moral" under threat of violence , then all other arguments, rights and freedoms are rendered moot.I don't think this necessarily follows the observation put forth by Mr. Peters.
Hey Lady V, its fine for us to agree to disagree on this. But that quote above doesn't really address my concern does it?
I don't think this necessarily follows the observation put forth by Mr. Peters.
Or perhaps, Weisshaupt, I've long ago investigated the arguments you made and found them wanting-- unpersuasive then and nothing new now.
::curtsy4::
It is only natural that free citizens are going to take that issue to the public square, hash out their positions, attempt to elect representatives based on their own positions, and send them to DC to hash it out with electoral consequences as their motivator - especially when in the absence of doing so, the ground is lost before the battle takes place, since the Leftists have no such compunctions.
I do not think a "supermajority" opinion has anything to do with the validity of legislating morality. All these exist on an nebulous sliding scale, and reside more in the arena of common law and common sense than mere majority opinion OR moral implications.....
If free people have a right to determine that murder is wrong, then free people will most naturally define murder in legal terms.The default common-law definition (cold-blooded murder) is the easy part. Hashing over the details of the definition is the political part. We have degrees of murder. Manslaughter. Accessory. All resulting from people taking that common law definition, and legislating the details.
The notion of abandoning these political fights on libertarian principle is, in my opinion, the reason that conservatism is superior to raw libertarianism. I think there is much good to be pulled from libertarianism. But standing aside on important issues of morality and common sense in the political arena while the Leftists deploy a nuclear arsenal against morality and common sense, is, in my opinion, completely self-defeating. It's little different than standing aside for Sharia Law because Muslims have the freedom of religion. If we fail to show up in the political arena and do what we can to undo Leftist damage and salvage those things we deem to be of value, we will lose all those things, and the Republic that fostered their manifestation in the first place.
Progressivism is the reason libertarian ideals alone are inadequate to the survival of the republic. You cannot "live and let live" in the face of a determined onslaught to kill your way of life without losing your way of life.
...If issues of "morality" and "common sense" as determined by a single man, a minority, or a majority, are allowed trump our highest civil agreements with each other, we have lost more than just the social or moral battles. You have loosened the bonds that bind us as a people. To ignore the limits of a government agreed to by consent, destroys the legitimacy of the entire structure, and opens the door to more such usurpations- and reduces us the rule used through out the ages -Might Makes Right. None of these battles is worth loosing the true basis of American Exceptionalism: the Idea that Might does NOT make right, and that the Individual's consent to government is the only thing that makes a Government legitimate. If that's "libertarian" so be it, but to loose this principle is to fundamentally loose the intellectual and moral basis of the American Revolution.
Re; the bolded portion, I would say you're inadvertently arguing that the bonds that bind us as a people have been shattered since the Civil War.
I'm not understanding Weisshaupt. You're saying that the concept of "might makes right" is a usurpation of individual liberty, but that a supermajority is what gives legitimacy to legislating morality. Am I confused as to your intent, or is there a contradiction in your thinking?
I get what you are saying philosophically Weisshaupt. But I would come back to the public square, the political realm, and the push and pull of the free exchange of ideas therein. I don't see a criteria for taking things off the table in that arena.
I have a moral problem with abortion, but I would argue that constitutionally, a child's right to live is being denied by abortion. Others disagree. Because I do not have a popular supermajority does not mean I abandon the issue, when the genesis of the issue was a court averring that a woman has a constitutional right to kill her child.
So with respect for the thought you're putting into this, I'm not seeing where you're going with it. What would be your litmus test for whether something is illegitimate to be hashed out by the political process, and must wait until the hearts and minds of society come to a supermajority consensus before acting legislatively? I understand your philosophical criteria, but in order for that criteria to be applied, real world lines would have to be drawn. How does an issue pass the test for a legitimate application of political will?
If your opponent is cornered without chance of escape, they will fight all the harder and to the death. These people will fight to the death for abortion and for Gay Marriage as we would fight for our liberty. Take that motivation away from them.Hell no. I've got a bridge for them, it's call the "Sit down and STFU bridge", murder and Hershey highway fun was not and is not America. Life and Family are two of our major foundation blocks. Allowing this idolitry adulterates the Constitution.
Right now, it is we who are cornered.
We are losing these civil rights/social/moral battles (I am not dedicated to a term) because we are losing the culture and the underlying morals and values upon which it was founded, and you cannot win on these issues until you have begun to win the culture back.
We are backed against the wall, and in the end it may be a violent civil war, because the Liberals will not allow us our liberty, but giving them the resolve and reason to fight even harder against us, when doing so will provide little to no advantage to our efforts, is foolishness.Earlier you said:
If your opponent is cornered without chance of escape, they will fight all the harder and to the death.
a fetus is a human being. That is not a moral opinion, or a immoral opinion, or a scientific opinion. Opinion, it is not.
In our great country, our Constitution protects our life. We have the 'right' to life. It is not a privilege and it is not based on a moral opinion.
I think it's important to note that we don't serve the constitution for the sake of the constitution. We serve the constitution for the sake of the people whose rights it guarantees.
I don't think liberals took over schools, churches, and media before they used government as a tool for implementing the changes they seek. They took their political and judicial advances in the war as they could win them, regardless of where they happened to be in the culture war at the time.When it suited their needs, such as in Roe, they changed the law first, and forced the culture to accept it, and eventually embrace it.
Jefferson's quote is meaningful to me in this discussion:
[blockquote]A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.[/blockquote]
Some things just seem contradictory. [ETA- We should give in because they will fight?]
a fetus is a human being. That is not a moral opinion, or a immoral opinion, or a scientific opinion. Opinion, it is not.
All human knowledge is a based on opinion.
The first objective is pushing the government back out of our Lives, our Families , our homes and our decisions, so that we can freely enjoy and display the cultural attributes we desire and feel are right. We need to be free to say our minds without fear of reprisal from a PC HR department. We need to be free to preach and practice our religion in the public square. We need to be free to teach our children according to our beliefs and values. We need to be free to publish, make movies, and influence public discussion. We need to be free to define and keep our own vows to each other. We need to be free to make the decisions for the pursuit of our own happiness. We are not fighting for "the culture" we are fighting to retain our own culture, against on onslaught of another different, separate, and entirely incompatible, barbarian culture.
...And the solution I am hearing is that we must also become tyrants and despots, and thereby loose any legitimacy that we might have had under our agreement and concede the that Constitution is meaningless in our affairs going forward, except as an occasional prop to justify what we were going to do anyway. You seems to propose saving the Constitution by destroying its very meaning and significance.
A fetus is life, no matter anyone's opinion. Man's opinion doesn't change what it is, because its existence doesn't depend on anyone's opinion.
I never said the constitution should be changed for the sake of the people who are governed by it Weisshaupt. I said we don't serve it for its own sake. We serve it for the sake of the people whose rights it guarantees.
No sir. What you are hearing, at least from me, is that when there is a civil rights issue in dispute, with people disagreeing on the definition of an enumerated constitutional right, an argument will ensue, and that argument is right and natural and provided for under the constitution, and that the political arena is the right and proper place for the argument to ensue.... I disagree with your interpretation, that is all. You seem to be arguing that until the day when there is a 2/3 majority on any civil rights issue that would compel a constitutional amendment, no legislative action can be taken to correct the civil rights violation...You and I disagree.
The evil spirit was saying, “Start with the primacy of the economic! Forget about sin!” He still says this today in different words, “My Commissar goes into classrooms and asks children to pray to God for bread. And when their prayers are not answered, my Commissar feeds them. The Dictator gives bread; God does not, because there is no God, there is no soul; there is only the body, pleasure, sex, the animal, and when we die, that is the end.”
Life of Christ, page 69 - Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
Weisshaupt, I understand exactly what you're saying and why; your point is well-taken that we cannot impose our culture on "them" as they have imposed on us without betraying our own principles.
Is it your contention that we can do this through elections and by winning minds, one individual at a time?