Thursday, April 4, 2013

What do you think of fining dairies for non-compliance?

What does Jim Bartlett of Bartlett Farm ( think of the ND House of Representatives passing SB 2072 (62 to 29) on April 3, 2013 which fines a dairy-animal share dairy $500 for each non-compliance?  Each cow share dairy, including two neighbors sharing one cow are the required to do the following:

(1)    Register with the state. This seems benign until one ponders the history of state registration. In recent agricultural history, states have used their registration role to sign up small farms for the National Animal Identification Program (NAIS) without the farm owner’s approval. This, when fully implemented will require that all livestock animal movements be tracked, logged and reported to the government at an estimated cost of an additional $15 per animal, effectively handing over control of each farm and animal to the federal government. Refer to for details. Gun registration in Great Britain led to confiscation of guns. Jewish registration led to the holocaust.

(2)    May not resell raw milk or raw milk products. This doesn’t affect cow sharing directly, but indirectly.  It undermines free market and private property rights, both of which derive from Biblical ethics.  Both free market or  laissez-faire ( "let do") capitalism and private property rights are rooted in the Eighth Commandment, “Thou Shall Not Steal” which has been the fountain of American prosperity based on stewardship since the 1600s.  On the other hand, the economic philosophy of secular humanism is interventionism and the economic philosophy of Marxism is socialism. Refer to for details.

(3)    Milk is to be transferred at the farm or delivered in accordance with the agreement. Besides interfering with the free market and individual liberty, this is a good example of the positive law philosophy of secular humanism. Instead of specifying what can’t be done in alignment with Biblical truth (“Thou Shall not steal raw milk”), what can be done is specified reflective of a view that the state sovereign and not God.

(4)    The individual receiving the milk has a shared animal ownership agreement and receiving on own behalf or for another with an agreement. Again, secular humanist interference with the free market and individual liberty. Keep in mind, to actually enforce each point will require a raw milk police force or a tattling system reminiscent of the Stasi.

(5)    The shared animal agreement contains warning. Besides the above, this reflects a bias toward pasteurized milk, and the support of that industry, which by comparison should be labeled as a health hazard before raw milk from pastured cows.

(6)    Annually, the owner of the diary farm provides standards and test results. In the free market, people ask and the dairy provides answers anytime and customers hold the dairy to their expectations by voting with their dollars.  Codifying common sense dumbs down the consumer and minimizes the dairy expectations.  People put their faith in the government regulator to maintain quality, which he really doesn’t and can’t do or take liability for.

(7)    A person may not publish a statement that implies the state endorses shared-animal agreements. If this gets signed into law, the legislature has endorsed shared animal agreements with a statement that it does not endorse shared-animal agreements. Apparently, logic is not required in making laws.

The Solution

To reverse this type of legislation takes a long term perspective. As explained above, this bill reflects and implements the formal religion of secular humanism. Secular humanism is the only religion given full voice in the North Dakota public schools (Clergy in the Classroom by David Noebel), which most legislators attended.  Therefore, the solution for the next generation is to return to Biblical education as reflected in the most popular book of 1776, the New England Primer. The Biblical influence of the New England Primer is through its use of the Shorter Catechism (