Consent Theory and A New Hampshire Bill to Outlaw Fluoride in Water

Jan 25th, 2012
by Admin.
No comments yet

Representative Anne Cartwright of New Hampshire has introduced HB 1416, a bill that would indirectly prohibit fluoride in water, among other substances. Further explained by the bill’s summary:

“This bill prohibits the introduction of any substance into the public water supply of New Hampshire unless it is required by the department of environmental services to make the water potable.”

Currently the majority of the public water supply within the United States and much of Canada is fluoridated, whereas Europe has uniformly said no to fluoridation. The goal behind water fluoridation is the reduction of tooth decay, based on research the health and science communities have conducted over the past few decades and back before 1951, when the policy of water fluoridation was instituted.

The controversy around water fluoridation exists for a few different reasons. For one, water fluoridation is technically a form of public medication, especially for the many people who cannot afford to buy bottled water or central filters. The idea that we should mass-fluoridate the water supply, and the population, goes against any logical progression I’ve seen before in Medicine. Isn’t it generally accepted by the professional Medical community that pharmaceutical treatment comes after you identify the problem in the individual?

Since when is it considered intelligent to take a medicine, and not appropriate a specific dosage, but insert it in the water supply, where individual consumption and individual reaction can be so varied and can’t be tracked (this isn’t an argument to start tracking people either)?

Another problem with water fluoridation is Consent Theory, simply the theory that authority should need the consent of an individual before imposing that authority within reasonable boundaries, as in not with murder, but with taxes.  The argument here is, using taxes as a very simple example, if you are required to give a portion of your salary up, and that portion can become as small as it needs or as large as it needs without your consent, your salary really isn’t your property. If you voluntarily gave up a percentage of your taxes every year, maybe basing it around a Government Recommend-Only model, that would imply you have ownership over the reward for the hard work you did. Various opt in and opt out options on policies would fix a large portion of the problems around this issue, but it applies to water fluoridation in that this wasn’t a measure passed with applause, but was rather seen as for the public’s benefit, whether they know it or not, and whether they agree with it or not.

Consent is especially important when taking into consideration that there is not just research for water fluoridation, but also against. And organizations such as the Fluoride Action Network, and many individual people, see fluoride research differently than others in that there are possible negatives with fluoride consumption, and much of the research referred to by those in opposition, to justify those claims, can be found HERE.

Consent Theory is also a close cousin of the Non Aggression Principle: 

YouTube Preview Image

Understanding Consent Theory and the Non Aggression Principle isn’t necessary to understand why Representative  Anne Cartwright would introduce this bill, but it is useful to understand why bills like this, which are essentially pro-liberty, should be passed and why representatives should introduce bills like this.

Of course, it wouldn’t be fair to only mention the opposition to fluoride’s argument, but also those in support, which included a long list of agencies and coalitions such as the NH Dental Association, NH Public Health Association, NH Oral Health Coalition, NH Department of Health and Human Services, and many others. 

The main basis of the argument of the associations and agencies and coalitions was that fluoride reduces tooth decay, and there are many studies out there that agree with this, and that mass-fluoridation saves the public a small amount of money by not causing those without money to pay for dental procedures to seek support and accept money from the Government for procedures.

Of course, what’s lacking from their entire argument, or what they failed to mention, was the authority to medicate the public, and where that authority comes from. Additionally, they failed to mention anything regarding the irresponsible nature of mass-prescribing a medicine and the immorality of using hard earned taxpayer dollars to pay for this.

HB 1416 is an intriguing bill for me, and if you would like to follow it and see how the vote turns out, or even assist in making calls if you live in New Hampshire, a visit to the Fluoride Action Network, which is coordinating with Representative Anne Cartwright , can be done HERE. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Civil liberties and Rights Related, Diet, Hydration, and Nutrition, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · ·

Utah, Food Freedom, and the Nullification Doctrine

Jan 17th, 2012
by Admin.
2 comments

Senator Casey Anderson sponsored Utah Legislature Bill SB 0034, which restores the Constitution in relation to regulation of food in Utah and is a great example of the Nullification Doctrine. This bill can also be seen as a potential victory for the food freedom movement. 

Quoted directly from the Bill  general description, 

“This bill prohibits federal regulation of an agricultural product that remains in Utah after it is made, grown, or produced in Utah, and addresses the designation of a Utah agricultural product.”

This bill has reached a critical stage in the process to becoming law, soon to be voted on, and that is greatly in thanks to Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center. I’d advocate visiting the Tenth Amendment Center website for great Constitution info and Tenth amendment related current events.

Senator Casey Anderson and the Utah Tenth Amendment Center argued that the supreme law of the land is the Constitution, which Federal Law should be based around, and that because of this, Federal regulation in State Agriculture is unconstitutional because the Federal Government only has the authority to regulate interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce.

Intrastate Commerce refers to commerce within the state, while interstate commerce refers to commerce between the respective states. And the supporters of this bill were justified in my opinion; the farmers of Utah and other states shouldn’t have to deal with regulation imposed on small farms because one big agriculture industry farm screwed up using a shady connection with a department or agency.

And the farmers shouldn’t have to deal with potentially getting raided or shut down by Federal officials for planting crops or drinking milk.

Another term important to understand in relation to this issue is nullification.

The Nullification Definition, according to Thomas Woods, author of Nullification (highly recommended):

“State nullification is the idea that the states can and must refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws”

[Source] 

This is the idea that States have the authority to reject Unconstitutional laws. It’s an authority I am glad exists, and is a great opportunity for citizens to petition their local and state Governments to nullify Unconstitutional trends. It is one of the best tools the people have to restore a more Constitutional Government and free market. This is a tool I find perfect for the food freedom movement, especially in relation to RAW MILK. 

State nullification is related to another term I think is very important to know, albeit knowing that term definitions don’t make for an interesting blog post:

Jury Nullification, best summed up by John Adams, 

“It is not only his right but his duty…to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of the court.” [Source]

 Jury nullification is as useful as State Nullification, and really helps us understand that the the people have the power to reject unconstitutional law at the State and legislative level with State nullification and State elections, at the judicial level with jury nullification, and at the Federal Level with Federal elections.

Jury nullification is the power of a juror to vote innocent or guilty according to how he or she sees the case. In cases of unjust and unconstitutional law, it is the power to vote innocent. This does and has worked before, and can exemplified by many cases that occurred during the Prohibition period in the United States. 

I think this Bill and this philosophy of Nullification is something the Raw Milk and Food freedom movements should take notice of, along with all groups pursuing more liberty and more Constitutional law in other respective issues. The fact that there is a power to reject what we see as unjust is a beacon of hope and an important tool for restoring just, fair, and Constitutional law.

Check out Nullification, by Thomas Woods, to find out more about this important tool. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Constitution, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·

The Ron Paul Raw Milk New Hampshire Difference

Jan 9th, 2012
by Admin.
5 comments

People value their health and the freedoms surrounding  it as much as they value their financial freedom , and for a candidate not to take a stance on an issue like Raw Milk in New Hampshire is a lost opportunity and a lost moral responsibility.

It is a lost opportunity because there are people out there searching for someone to fight for their right to do what they want with their property (their body), and there are a lot of them. Current estimates of raw milk consumption in the United States estimate 3.04% of the population consumes Raw Milk, which is about 9.2 million people (Source).

It’s a lost moral responsibility because it is the exact duty of a public servant, to serve the public, even when it means getting into legal and Constitutional talks on the authority of the Federal Government. We need to talk about this. We need to talk about what role Government plays in dictating what a free man or free woman can put into his or her body.

Of course, the Texas Congressman, Doctor, and Presidential FrontRunner, Ron Paul , did not lose his responsibility or this opportunity, unlike ALL the other candidates on either side (D/R). Watch the following video from a New Hampshire Event and check out Ron Paul’s H.R. 1830 Bill (AKA Legalize Raw Milk Bill). 

YouTube Preview Image

Liberty Defined

It is unacceptable that Raw Milk New Hampshire farmers and farmers of every other state have to worry about being raided by the Federal Government. It is unacceptable that in a time where cutting spending is necessary for our survival as a sovereign nation, the Feds are spending taxpayer money on guns and vests and SWAT teams to raid FARMS.  

It is unacceptable that small business owners, in a time of recession and close-depression, caused by Big Government and the Federal Reserve, have to worry about being raided and having their product and capital destroyed.

It is unacceptable that in a time when the Constitution needs to be revived and our rights restored, bills like NDAA and SOPA have support from congressmen. It is unacceptable that in a nation required to govern by Constitutional law, a person can not walk up to a farmer, appreciate his hard work, and purchase a glass of milk. 

We either own our bodies or we do not. We either have the right to claim our bodies as our property, and therefore the right to choose what goes in, or we do not. The minute we allow Government to make the decision on what’s allowed in our bodies, it sets the precedent that you no longer have a right to your body, and instead, the Government does. 

And this is the Ron Paul Raw Milk New Hampshire difference. You can sum up a candidates views on your rights and freedom in general by their stance on health freedom. Raw Milk emulates the situation and presents a perfect opportunity for candidates to declare their opinions to people who care about their health and their right to their bodies.

Dr. Paul understands the philosophy of liberty, and understands how that philosophy interacts with the market, the Government, and the individual. No other candidate has mentioned this issue, and with the New Hampshire 2012 Republican Primary tomorrow, it looks like no other candidate will receive the votes and support associated with the issue. 

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Civil liberties and Rights Related, Constitution, Farming Related, Free Market, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · ·

Food Label Laws and the GMO Food Label

Jan 2nd, 2012
by Admin.
1 comment

Food Label Laws are laws enforced by Government requiring food manufacturers and producers to label the foods they sell in specific ways. 

An example of this is the requirement for food manufacturers to list ingredients and certain additives in foods, besides the Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) list. This is where one of the many problems of food labels occurs, despite the benefits many people would claim on behalf of required ingredient lists. 

The GRAS list is a list of additives and the like, recognized as safe by scientists and Government. Of course what’s not mentioned here is the massive revolving door between Government and agriculture/pharmaceutical corporations, and these industries and non profit groups that approve the standards for these labels.

These special and corrupt relationships allow for regulators and legislators to be promised future jobs as executives in respective industries, in return for favorable opinions and support on demand.  The GRAS list is an example of an action by Government I see to be taken in the future with the GMO Food Label. And the GMO Food label and food label laws are really the focus of this post and a defining issue in the food labeling argument. To read a little more on the GMO Food label before moving on, you can go HERE. 

Food Label Laws and the GMO Label

Back to the GRAS. The GRAS list is a situation where Big Gov decides which additives don’t need to be seen on ingredient lists, and which ones do. This allows shady additives to make their way on to the list, similarly to how Genetically modified foods have made it into the food supply. It also allows for the safer ingredients to be seen, as required by one law, and the unsafer ingredients to be shifted to the list, permitted by another law.

And if the revolving door is present now, without a GMO food label law, how would things change with one? Companies aren’t just going to stop spending money on lobbying or stop promising jobs. And certainly, the Government officials who accept lobbying and future jobs aren’t just going to act morally because a new law was passed. They don’t do it now, and will always be prone to it (with a couple exceptions).

Immediately following and most definitely prior to, a plan for genetically modified foods around the GMO food label law would be instituted, and the power given to Government would be taken advantage of. If the people support a GMO food label, we are not only supporting a GMO food label. We are supporting the authority of Government to intervene in the food industry, and with the logic present in politics today, every industry.

These issues come about because of too much Government intervention, and companies shifting their focus to satisfy Government demand for money and jobs in return for regulation that hurt small business and grant more power to the involved parties (not the people).

The solution to the problem is not more Government intervention, but more citizen intervention. If the people, or the market, change as individuals, and consequently, cause change in other people’s lives because of their own individual efforts, a new demand will prosper. 

The demand for food labeling will result in grocery stores that do label, food manufactures that label, and organic producers who offer non genetic options. By allowing the market to solve this problem, instead of the State, we avoid the abuse of power in the future by officials who decide to label foods in other ways, that may be completely unfair to healthy foods.

After all, every law passed not only gives power to those currently in office, but those who will take that office in the future. Are you willing to put your trust in every future official who takes office and has the authority to act on a law, like a food label law? 

We also avoid the abuse of power that results in small businesses facing new regulation and new taxes, and larger companies getting exemptions or simply being able to profit off the expensive Government intervention which damages their small business competition.

Human action is required. Freedom can be taken advantage of by different parties, which is an issue many bring up with in relation to big business and the free market,  but the key here is that the people are actually free to take advantage of that power. The current system of centralized power legally takes power away from the people, and puts it in the hands of officials, who then sell that power to lobbyists and who knows who else. 

You’ve probably heard the saying, “Freedom isn’t free”, and as cheesy as it may sound, it really isn’t. You have to put in effort for your freedom, and we all have to decide whether our rights are worth the effort. I believe they are.

Recommended reading:

Human Action, by Ludwig von Mises

Ahmed Serag

Posted in: All Posts, Free Market, Health Politics.
Tagged: · · · · · · · · · · ·

The Primal Blueprint Book and Primal Economics

Dec 27th, 2011
by Admin.
3 comments

What happens when Austrian Economics and Primal Nutrition come together? Knowledge! Recently, Tom Woods of the Mises Institute of Austrian Economics  interviewed Mark Sisson of the Primal Blueprint Book and website. 

The Primal Book

I, being a fan of both Tom Woods and Mark Sisson seperately, before this interview, can completely understand why this would happen. When I first discovered Mark Sisson’s Primal book, it opened my eyes to an entirely different way of thinking about health, nutrition, exercise, stress, and sleep. It gave me a lifestyle I was confident enough with to get rid of unwanted weight, any type of sugar/bread habits/addiction, and bad habits in exercise, sleep, and stress-management.

And not too long ago, the Mises Institute and Tom Woods, and many others from and experts of that institute, revolutionized the way I think about politics, economics, and history. This type of information has never been more important than it is today, which makes it exciting and enlightening.

I’ve wanted the two groups to come together and now they have,

Tom Woods interviews Mark Sisson on the Primal Book: Interview

Key Points:

  • The Primal Blueprint is not a diet, it’s a lifestyle, a way of taking control of your own health through knowledge of the body and knowledge of gene expression and its relationship to diet and lifestyle
  • The overload of sugar and grains in our diets is responsible for much of the blame fat gets, and responsible for much of the excess weight and insulin problems we see rising
  • The body can be healthy, and it functions best when healthy, and each of us has the capability to get healthy with the correct form of eating, movement, sleep, and so on 
  • Getting healthy important now with rising and already high healthcare prices, inflation will only lead to higher costs in the future
  • Mark explains why he believes grains are unnecessary, explains the large amount of research against grains, mentions lectins and anti-nutrients, which take nutrients from the body or prevent the nutrients from digestion, which can lead to various disorders 
  • On the 6-11 servings of grain recommended in Food Guide Pyramid, Mark explains that the best way to take control of health is through knowledge and research, and that the movement to change the way of thinking present at the USDA and within the Food Guide Pyramid, is bottom-up. It takes individuals and human action to change the way society and Government thinks.
  • On the issue of deprivation and restriction, the feeling may be present at the beginning, but disappears soon-after, and the creativity with primal foods coupled with the benefits of Primal nutrition beat out the sweets and fast foods. 
  • Mark Mentions that Cholesterol is one of the most important nutrients in the body, and that the research against cholesterol should not disqualify the research for Cholesterol
  • Mark Mentions that protein consumption does not impact uric acid levels as negatively as fructose does, which is found in fruit, but also in many other processed foods as a form of sugar. Meat or other protein foods can be mistakenly identified as the culprit when changes in Uric acid are recorded.
  • Most body composition, the split between muscle and fat, is related to hormones, and the amount of exercise required to influence the changes is much smaller than recommended
  • Mark explains his workouts consist of two short weight lifting workouts, one sprint workout, and any type of non exercise related movement, such as walking or favored sports when time favors it
  • On the question of including a little bit of grains or not, Mark explains what works for him and his supporters, which is a test of whether grains work for each individual. Dropping grains for a couple weeks can give an idea of what benefits might come from dropping grains altogether, rather than including a smaller amount of grains.
  • On the issue of the emphasis of grains in schools, even sometimes over fruit and vegetables, any progress to be made has to be grassroots. Each individual changing the way they eat, the way they move, and so on, will have an effect on others. Mark also mentions becoming active in local Government and local school boards to drive the issue. 
  • With fermented legumes and fermented grains, Mark explains it much deeper in the Primal book, but explains that even while better than regular grains and legumes, shouldn’t be the basis of a primal blueprint book type of lifestyle, but can be included

Mark finishes off the interview mentioning the amount of information in the book, and having read it, I have to recommend it to all readers. He goes much deeper in to the reasoning behind why conventional nutrition is wrong, and explains his positions in the Primal Blueprint book, backing it up with research and examples. It was a life-changing book for me, and I hope it can be for you; this is the perfect book for the new year.

The Primal Blueprint

Ahmed Serag

 

Posted in: All Posts, Diet, Hydration, and Nutrition, Fat Loss, Fitness and Exercise, Lifestyle and Stress.
Tagged: · · · · · · · ·

← Earlier Posts