What does Jim Bartlett of Bartlett Farm (www.BartlettFarm.us) 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 www.noNAIS.org 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 www.summit.org/resources/worldview-chart/
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
(www.reformed.org/documents/fisher).
