Is Your Choice Of Food A Fundamental Right?


Suverans2's picture

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to own and use a dairy cow or a dairy herd;”

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow;”

“no, Plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice…” ~ Attributed to: Wisconsin Judge, Patrick J. FIEDLER

Anyone, what are "Plaintiffs"?

Black's Law Dictionary (c.1991) begins it's definition with, "A person..." Would that be an "artificial person", or a "natural person"?

    Artificial persons. Persons created by human laws for the purposes of...government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
    NATURAL PERSONS. Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons, or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government. Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802

Remember, "that which one creates, one controls", or, to be more specific, "one has a just claim to control".

    PERSON. A man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it implies. … Persons are divided by law into natural and artificial. Natural persons are such as the God of nature formed us; artificial are such as are created and devised by human laws, for the purposes of society and government, which are called “corporations” or “bodies politic.” 1 Bl. Comm. 123 ~ A Dictionary of Law [Black's Dictionary of the Law, 1st Edition], pg. 892 [Emphasis added]

Again, we must ask, are "citizens" created by "human laws" or by "nature"?

Samarami's picture

Government by its very nature is criminal. If you cannot grasp that basic truth you will be whanging and whaling back and forth in the center of the court forever -- never advancing toward the goal (freedom).

Always lamenting that you "should" have a right to this or a right to that.

Agents of state (that would include the little "judge" quoted in the "ruling") will not and cannot grant or protect rights. Ever. If you allow them, they will certainly take away what you thought of as "my rights" (often they do that even when you do not "allow" them -- tried boarding a commercial airline lately???)

Robert Higgs wrote an interesting essay:

But in it he committed one fatal error -- he slipped and used "my rulers" once (but, after rereading the piece I see he put "our" in quotes the next time: "our" rulers). I'm convinced that if you continue to use such descriptors you will never achieve genuine "freedom". If I cannot define the problem, I'll remain IN the problem, and the problem will remain WITH me.

I am a sovereign state. I pledge allegiance to no flag. Although I am a sportsman (probably in better physical condition than 98% of all the other 75 year-olds in my city), I refrain from attending episodes called spectator sports. My main reason for that is by avoiding such places I don't have to deal with the embarrassment of having patriots hiss and chastise when I refuse to engage in state worship and remain seated while some nerd chortles a poorly-written "anthem" that is billed as "national". In cases where I am chaperone to grand-kids or where I have kids in the game and can't avoid it, I take that opportunity to go to the men's room.

I suspect I am going to live to see the day, and this at once saddens but again encourages me, when impending world economic collapse will engender massive black markets and total ignorance of edicts of state. All state agents will be rendered impotent. The only thing keeping them strong today is "voluntary compliance" by state subjects, a first class sham.

All ignorance is NOT bad ignorance. Sam