“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: 

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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

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). 

Click here to view the embedded video.

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

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. 

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

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

To get a better understanding of a word, the dictionary gives sentences that the word is used in. I like to give examples:

Will Ron Paul Kill the Iowa Caucus?

Iowa GOP Worry about Hacker threat to Caucus

Click here to view the embedded video.

[Had to go to RT, who I commend, to show the bias in our media, although the media here claims to be a Free Press]

Even though the Iowan people are choosing their candidate, which seems to be Ron Paul (according to the latest polls all putting him in-front), the Governor of Iowa, had the audacity to say this, in response to the rise of Ron Paul in Iowa:

“People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third,” Governor Terry Branstad told Politico. “If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states.” [Source 1] [Source 2]

This is the Governor of Iowa saying that his people’s votes don’t matter. I wonder how his opinion would change if Ron Paul were to come in second, instead of first? Would he say people should be focusing on first and third place, and ignore the vote of hundreds of thousands of Iowans?

What is going on here? What is going on when the State Governments bend to the will of the Federal Government, and the allegedly free press institute campaigns of propaganda that only perpetuate more Government control?

What happens when the voice of businesses and corporations disappear, and certain corporations realize the only demand they need to meet in the absence of a free market economy (which is the case in America)  is that of the Government’s?

What happens when the people’s voice no longer matters, or more specifically, when the people decide their voice does not matter? 

It was the people who through their states, granted specific priveleges to Government, which are different than rights. We mutually agreed to allow the Government certain powers and obligations, while simultaneously commanding them to respect and take an oath to protect the people’s rights. That is a privilege. 

The Iowan people are a free people. The state of Iowa is a member of the United States of America, and by itself, an independent free state. It is the free people of Iowa who should be deciding who their free state chooses as a candidate for 2012.

The people have the right to vote, the right to free speech, the right to petition their Government, the right to protest, the right to gather, the right to their property, the right to keep and bear arms, the right against unreasonable punishment, unreasonable search, and unreasonable seizure. This is just a small list of the rights the people were born with. 

The Government has the privilege to protect our liberty, not seize or limit it, not censor or eliminate it, but to protect it. And the Government, and its Government controlled press, should realize that the people of Iowa are free, and that screwing with their votes, and screwing with their freedom, only motivates them to learn about freedom more, and to speak about freedom more.

The people of Iowa should realize that our rights do not exist if we ourselves do not acknowledge them.

Learn about your rights, read the Constitution, and realize that regardless of what a poll says, what a vote says, or what a propaganda perpetuating press says, the spread and growth of liberty in the minds of people is not something that can be tallied nor does it need to be tallied. And regardless of the outcome of the Iowa 2012 caucus, the message of liberty has already started to spread.

I stand with the people of Iowa and their dedication to the Constitution and freedom. 

“It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men” -Samuel Adams

“No Government and No army can stop an idea whose time has come” -Presidential Front Runner Ron Paul, speaking on the spread of liberty

Ahmed Serag

In the last Republican Presidential debate, an interesting question was posed, with an even more interesting answer, and it all surrounded the issue of Government intervention in your health. The question was not about healthcare, but had more to do with health as a lifestyle, including the topics of diet and fitness.

The question was on whether Government should have a place in deciding what is right for the health of the majority of citizens or not. And the particular answer I am focusing on is the one by Congressmen and Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

You can see this question and answer starting at the 9 minutes and 10 seconds mark:

Ron Paul-Government is trying to Protect You from Yourself, Q/A  9:10

Ron Paul-50 Issues that Affect Our Freedom

None of the controversy around the issue is exaggerated, and I would even argue that it’s not getting enough coverage.

Government is swiftly realizing how beneficial control over our health can be. New Government positions means more lobbying money, and more corporate/Government decisions on what direction your health heads in (more power). This of course means the market (you, me, everyone else) is losing power, and the choice to pick successful trends and failed ones is fading.

Some examples of how dire the consequences of Government intervention in health, diet, and fitness can be:

Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack expressing his love for control over health decisions

Mandatory Mental Health Testing results in Child being taken away

Should Obese children be taken away from their Parents? 

I could see more power resulting in more “protection”. Protection is the term used by lobbyists and State agencies to justify your required sacrifice of liberty, choice, and control of yourself and your actions. 

Fitness protection, Diet protection, health Protection, beauty protection, where would it end? 

In the name of health protection, standards would be set for healthy physiological markers, doctors would be pushed to do certain things when numbers exceed or dip below a range, insurers would be enticed and punished into including these guidelines as their own. Government would dictate what trends are healthy and which are not, and would impose laws accordingly.

In the name of fitness protection, fines and regulations would be instituted to punish companies who don’t require exercise, or insurers who do not push certain exercise trends on their customers. Of course, the trends these companies would have to push would come from the people dictating they do so, a conflict of interest clear as day light.

In the name of diet protection, campaigns, coalitions, local laws, bills, federal laws, taxes, subsidies, bailouts, and raids would be used to dictate what the public cannot eat, and what they can eat. This would effectively mean that you do not control your own body, that your body is not your property, and because it is not your property, you do not have the rights you believe you do, such as choosing what foods to consume and which ones not to. Alternative diets would be deemed crazy, and ill-advised.

To help you understand how crazy this is, how would you react if it was in another industry?

In the name of beauty protection, Government would dictate what makeups are safe, what chemicals or substances are allowed in them, which ones are not, what you’re allowed to wear, what you’re not allowed to wear, how you’re allowed to wear your hair, how you’re not allowed to wear it, etc… As ridiculous as this sounds, plenty of Governments around the world already do this, and this isn’t even as threatening as the things listed above.

The answer to the question is that it would never end. The solution to obesity and health is a tough one, and that’s somewhere we can all agree, but I also believe that we can agree that more laws, more regulations, more taxes, more rules, and more stress, is not the answer.

Just like technological advancement pushes other industries past limits and hurdles, technological advancement can occur within diet and fitness. Whether it be in physical technology, communication, or methods and research, people, which is the market, will pick the superior methods of “getting healthy”. But the beautiful thing about the free market, is that when those trends do not work, or they are no longer sufficient, new ones will arise, and alternative options will arise and prosper.

Government intervention, application of certain solutions to the entire population, taxes, subsidies, laws, fines, punishments, requirements, and the restriction of innovation and change, is not the answer to obesity. In my opinion, none of this makes people lose weight, and if it does, you can bet it’s by the worst methods, and through the quickest, and probably most dangerous, ways. 

The solution to obesity is for every person to find their own solution. Laws don’t cause weight loss. People cause weight loss. And just like we all dedicate time to learning in other areas of life, whether it be parenting or at work, or some subject in school, if people truly want to lose weight and/or get healthy, they have to dedicate time to it.

It takes knowledge, and it takes activity, real and nutritious foods, and lifestyle changes. It requires people taking responsibility for their actions, and their own health, and acting where action is required. You cannot legislate that.  You just have to ACT.

Ahmed Serag

With the power of money, corporations and individuals can lobby our Government to impose taxes, laws, regulations, subsidies, bailouts, and special contracts that make specific products winners, and other products losers. Through what will be explained below, you will get the idea of how a lobbyist could be deciding what’s on your plate and how much it costs.

Food lobbying, or more generally, lobbying, is a form of petitioning the Government that corporations and others use. This petitioning often results in billions of dollars being spent in efforts to place a specific companies interests ahead of others in the mind of the person being lobbied.

And the use of “billions” is not exaggeration. Just for the year 2010, lobbying totaled over $3,500,000,000; yes, that is 3.5 billion dollars (Source).

And in 2011, lobbying costs come out to around 2.5 billion dollars, with over 12,000 lobbyists petitioning our congressmen for favors (Source). 

Normally, lobbying as a form of petitioning the Government would fall under the first amendment, and the right to have your needs and wants shown, respected, and talked about, is a fair one. But what has occurred today is the enlargement of Government, and thus, its intervention in markets and industries never meant to be disturbed. Lobbying has grown alongside Government, making the consequences of it more transparent. The President now has over 14 cabinets, all built specifically to interfere in industry, markets, and a normal way of life, for the general security of all those involved, a lobbying heaven.

The entire reason food lobbying has become such a big issue in the diet and fitness industry, and an issue in the general scope of serious problems,  and has become such a powerful tool for corporations and the like, is because someone is out there putting out the demand. The market is satisfying a demand put out by Government, albeit a demand that the public would rather not be there. 

Corporations lobby for bills that increase Government power and regulation abilities, so that the Government can then have the power to return the favor with increased taxes, regulations, subsidies, and buddy-contracts. It has distorted the market and most definitely caused an artificial system where Government and big business pick the winners and losers in industry. This was perfectly exemplified with the financial bailouts of 2008.

The solution to this problem that many preach involves more laws. Some want more Government regulation in the industry, or even want lobbying made illegal, but this would only push the industry more underground than it already is. Most people have no idea what’s going on right now, and it’s on the record, can you imagine what would happen if it were all off the record? 

MUST WATCH: Notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff explains the lobbying “playbook” 

The only realistic solution here is to remove that option and demand. If there is no demand, there is usually no supply. If Government isn’t big enough to give special favors out in every industry, corporations can’t lobby for those favors, and they have to compete, especially with small businesses willing to satisfy niche markets and focus on innovation.

The hundreds of millions of dollars the agriculture and pharmaceutical industries spend on lobbying isn’t going to just disappear because congress passes a law, it can only lose its effect. This applies to the other industries as well.

And that happens through small Government. In the diet industry, superior trends, such as Paleo and Primal, cannot advance beyond a certain level in the market because of all these different variables Government has introduced, and that’s something we talked about HERE. This exact situation occurs with innovative products, and successful small businesses.

The consequences of allowing Government and food lobbyists to intervene more in the health industry can already be seen. We have nutrition education programs being started by companies that own predominantly grain-based foods, we have regulations and harsh laws that punish organic foods and result in full out raids on small farms, we have Government growing fond of dictating what people eat, and what they don’t eat, and we have the continued growth of all of this, despite the regulation and “solutions.”

If we truly wish to have control over what we eat, and you truly wish the people to have control over the market, the market must be freed, and we must be freed. The best regulator of industry is the free market, becuase it is the people’s decision on a product that decides whether it wins or loses, and that is the driving force behind innovation and technological advancement, and that should be the driver of trends, not lobbying.

Ahmed Serag

But, the Paleo and primal message is suffering, and in my opinion, it is because of the erosion of the free market and the principles the free market introduces, which are beneficial to innovation and business. Within the last couple of years, The monopolized markets have only become more monopolized, while small businesses and great ideas, like Paleo and Primal, have suffered, for reasons that are discussed below. 

Many people like to take a stand against the corporations that manufacture food, and think that taxing and introducing regulation will fix the problem. The problem being that much of the food on the market is considered junk, by many people, and the opportunity for healthier choices to not be forced to the front, but to just get to the front, are limited.

This stand is taken because the corporations are seen by the people as the ones who don’t choose better ingredients, or choose profits over personal rights or safety. And they may very well be doing those things, but the root of the problem is not with the symptom.

What we fail to realize is the outstanding support for regulation and taxes by many of these corporations, and the outstanding support for candidates willing to introduce taxes and regulation, by these corporations. For example, why wouldn’t “Big Agriculture” support taxes, when estimates place close to 80 percent of subsidies given to farms by the Government go to large agriculture businesses?

Large corporations that are favored by Government, which produce a large portion of foods, only grow more successful with taxes and regulations. Taxes and regulations are introduced, and small businesses have to comply, along with corporations. But what is a small business to do with limited capital, a destroyed loaning system, and a whole mess of new regulations and tax code? How are they supposed to hire anyone? How are they supposed to satisfy the paleo or primal demand, or any demand for that matter?

Corporations satisfy the demand of Government because Government has intervened in the market. Your choice of foods usually creates the demand, but the special relationship between Gov. and business allows for the creation of demand by those who satisfy it. And as I’ve mentioned, the taxes, regulations, and subsidies, all benefit that relationship and not the businesses many congressmen and lobbyists like to claim they are helping.

This is why lobbyists lobby for more Government power and intervention, so the favor can be returned the monopolies with taxes and regulations for competitors. The lobbyists allow corporations to skip the whole “satisfy consumer demand” portion of the market equation. Why not make a cheap product, that may or may not help the consumer, and allow for taxes and regulation to drive out the competitors and their products, which may satisfy consumer demand?

And this is exactly how companies like Monsanto, the genetic modification kingpin, can get so large. A few simple searches will show you how Monsanto has practically taken over the FDA and the USDA with the revolving door that allows employees to switch between high level positions in Government and industry. Check out this graphic.

If the Paleo and Primal movement, more specifically, the people within these movements, are serious about the message, then a simple understanding of taxes, regulation, and the free market, is in order.

The message will gain the success it deserves in the free market, where the people are free to create the demand, and businesses and individuals are free to satisfy it. Innovation faces a tough environment when the costs for starting a business are skyrocketing because of taxes, and the inflation tax, and the environment for creating a business is full of regulations and slips that could cost thousands.

A few important videos the Paleo and Primal movement should take notice of:

I Just Want To Be Healthy

- A passionate video by Sean Croxton of the popular Underground Wellness website and movement, recent author of The Dark Side of Fat Loss. A true call for freedom and justice, mentions the Rawesome Foods Raid and the fact that tax dollars are spent on raids on small farms and small businesses.

Dr. Ron Paul Raw Milk

-A simple and powerful message by Presidential Candidate Ron Paul, author of Liberty Defined, on why the Raw milk freedom issue, and every health freedom issue, isn’t about the food, or the lifestyle, but about your freedom to do it.

Also, for those of you who aren’t familiar with Paleo or Primal, and might want to become familiar: 

The Primal Blueprint, by Mark Sisson

-A simple and persuading explanation that crushes many modern myths about food and fitness, and offers a unique and researched way of facing the challenge of fat loss and health.

The Paleo Solution, by Robb Wolf

-A detailed and entertaining look into the Paleo lifestyle, the research behind it, and how to incorporate it in the modern junk food packed world.

The Liberty and Paleo movement have many things in common, most notably, the search for truth, and the effort to give the truth the opportunity to flourish in what seems like a myth filled world.

If we believe in these causes, we need to make our voices heard; share the information, contact your representatives, and continue to learn and educate yourselves (me too!) in the fields that interest us, like health and fitness, but also in the freedom that allows us to be interested in those things. 

Ahmed Serag

[Note: You can hear Representative Ron Paul on subsidies here: Ron Paul subsidies are just payments to big corporations]

These subsidies allegedly protect from surpluses in food supply, which could be damaging to prices and those earning from those surpluses. They also used to allegedly protect the consumers against radical increases in crop and food prices. These policies remain in effect, despite claims that the US pays more for crops than others and has been for quite some time.

What really happens is that a small percentage of large farms or businesses receive the majority of the percentage of subsidies, although they don’t need it, and act in disregard over the fact that subsidies have now reached about a quarter of a trillion dollars within the last 10 years.

These farmers are promised minimum crop prices and annual payments, allowing them to collect money that is not needed, and artificially controlling the prices and availability of certain crops and foods. Of course, there is little mention of the damage this does to small farmers, or the damage introduced to the business when Government intervenes.

Government food subsidies and Government agricultural subsidies are just Government intervention, which most often results in regulation, taxes, and the insertion of artificial money.

Of course, large companies joyfully receiving subsidies and a majority of demand because of prices or other factors, can afford to deal with new regulation, lower purchasing power, and taxes. The real effect is on the small farmers who can’t and shouldn’t have to deal with this.

The people also face the burden, which is paying more money in taxes for subsidies to farms, paying higher prices because of inflation (an increase in the supply of money) , and paying higher prices because of increasing cost for farms to deal with new regulation. Additionally, the subsidization of such a large group of foods at such a massive level completely distorts the market, possibly introducing a stall in technology advancement.

This is where the issue crosses health and liberty. In my opinion, forcing the American people to pay for a private company’s business transactions is a clear violation of property rights. It unfairly distorts the agricultural industry, forcing taxpayers and small farms to pay the price. Secondly, the printing of money isn’t something meant to be taken lightly, and as decalred by the Constitution, was a right given to Congress, not the Federal Reserve, and not to expend money in various industries.

This is also a threat to the health of the American people, because technological advancement plays a key role in improving health.

In this situation, the subsidization that has plagued the agricultural industry and that has contributed to a near-monopoly on crops, has resulted in crops like sugar and corn being used in the majority of foods consumed by Americans. Normally, I wouldn’t have a problem with an industry being dominated by certain products, if those products were truly chosen by the market and not by Government intervention and artificial Capitalism.

The market does choose corn and sugar, but the other crops that could have a chance at taking their position, at better satisfying consumer demand, are given so little chance to compete because of what we talked about above. This can obviously have a domino  effect, because if no crops but the subsidized crops are getting planted (exaggeration), where is the room for healthier alternatives to come in?

The situation isn’t exactly at that point yet, but most people also don’t realize how widespread these few crops are in our foods. Technology is what allows for advancement in all fields, including health. We can’t indirectly or directly limit farming, innovation, or research, although the actions here do that.

It is technology that can make us healthier, introducing new ways for people to keep track and learn, and introducing new ways for people to connect and become active. It is also consumer demand that creates the need for research, or it used to be at some point. It was consumer demand for a new solution to the dieting trend in the 80s and 90s that led to much advancement against the theory that fat is bad for you and should be avoided at all costs, despite the fact that we need the macro nutrient to survive and operate optimally.

This is exactly why all the large agriculture companies support farm bills that introduce new regulations, taxes, and give more power to the Government. When you’re producing the food that goes in most products, have shares in the companies selling those foods, and have Government officials offering up power they shouldn’t have, there is little room for benefit for the average farmer and taxpayer. 

This intervention only hurts the farmers below these massive companies and the taxpayers, and not just in farming. The excessive printing of artificial money weakens our currency across the board, and this is simply money we don’t have.

Let the market decide what crops are most needed, and allow innovation to take its natural course and offer some revitalization to agriculture and health.

Ahmed Serag

Related Posts:

Blue Hill Food Freedom Ordinance and Raw Milk Targeted

Rawesome Foods Raid: Safety or Tyranny?