Home » Massachusetts

Massachusetts Lawmakers Stand Against Federal Raw Milk Ban

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Liberator Online, News You Can Use by Alice Salles Comments are off

Massachusetts Lawmakers Stand Against Federal Raw Milk Ban

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Consumers should always have access to the products and services they want and need. As long as these products and services are not used to harm others, individuals are ultimately free to make their own choices, especially when it comes to what they put in their own body. This argument holds true when it comes to drugs, but it’s also true when applied to raw milk.

CowIn the United States, consumer access to milk in its raw form was banned by the Federal government in 1987. Long before then, in 1924, “Grade A Pasteurization” had become a recommended federal policy, but consumers still were able to purchase raw milk without the fear of having to fight the government to have access to it.

In 2011, former congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul made the news for his pro-raw milk stance, which was turned into an unsuccessful pro-raw milk bill. While many railed it as a victory to the establishment, the movement had just started to shape up.

Following in his footsteps, congressman Thomas Massie took the fight for milk choice to Washington a second time, dropping two bills addressing the same issues. At the time, Massie hoped to restore the farmers’ right to distribute raw milk once again, meeting the needs of their customers.

While his bills didn’t see the light of day, states picked up where he left off, pushing for local legalization of raw milk commerce.

Now, the Tenth Amendment Center reports, an agriculture bill drafted by the Senate Ways and Means Committee in Massachusetts is hoping to expand raw milk sales in the state, helping to nullify the federal ban on raw milk sales locally. An effort that could expand to other states.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, Senate Bill 2258 incorporates a series of measures relating to agriculture by allowing farms to deliver raw milk to consumers via contractual arrangements. The bill states that licensed raw milk farmers “shall be allowed to deliver raw milk directly to the consumer, off-site from the farm, provided that the raw milk farmer has a direct, contractual relationship with the consumer.”

The bill even allows farmers to sell raw milk from a stand, and whether the stand is or isn’t attached to the raw milk dairy wouldn’t serve as an impediment to local farmers. To Tenth Amendment Center’s Mike Maharrey, S.2258 also “open[s] the door to raw milk sales at farmer’s markets.”

Currently, Massachusetts consumers are only allowed to purchase raw milk on the farm. Expanding sale and consuming liberties helps consumers and farmers maintain a better relationship, protecting the purchase and consumption of raw milk locally once again.

While the bill is limited, it represents a stand against the federal government’s ban.

According to the US Food and Drug Administration, unpasteurized milk poses a higher risk of contamination. While the feds use the higher risk as a reason to keep consumers from having access to the product, state efforts to lift the ban could help the nation see that the criminalization of raw milk has been doing more harm than good to local economies.

It is the Tenth Amendment Center’s hope to see more states following suit, passing their own nullification bills, and helping local consumers to have greater access to the products and services they are willing to take part in, whether the federal government likes it or not.

Did the Government Offer a Contract to New Balance in Exchange for TPP Support?

in Business and Economy, Economic Liberty, Economics, Liberator Online, News You Can Use, Trade & Tarrifs by Alice Salles Comments are off

Did the Government Offer a Contract to New Balance in Exchange for TPP Support?

This article was featured in our weekly newsletter, the Liberator Online. To receive it in your inbox, sign up here.

Government has a way of selling incredibly bad economic deals by calling them free trade agreements. Haven’t you noticed?

ShoesThe Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, is a trade agreement between Pacific Rim countries, including the United States, that hopes to “promote economic growth; support the creation and retention of jobs; enhance innovation, productivity and competitiveness; raise living standards; reduce poverty in our countries; and promote transparency, good governance, and enhanced labor and environmental protections.” But according to information released by WikiLeaks, only five of TPP’s 29 sections deal with trade.

At the time, WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange claimed that many of the other sections dealt with Internet regulations, which includes details on what specific type of information Internet service providers will be required to collect once TPP is enacted.

To former congressman Ron Paul, TPP is dangerous because of the several items listed in its sections that benefit special interest groups. Instead of opening up the market, Paul argues, TPP would boost “world government,” meaning that international nations would unite for all the wrong reasons, such as spying on its citizens. Opening up the trade among individuals in different parts of the globe, Paul explains, has little to do with the effort.

To folks at Tech Dirt, TPP has always been bad, mostly because of the issues mentioned previously. But as reports claiming the US government has allegedly pressured a shoe company to back TPP in exchange for exclusive contracts hit the news, we learn that power players behind the TPP might be just as corrupt as the politicians under fire in South America over one of Brazil’s largest embezzlement schemes in recent history.

According to New Balance, an American footwear company from Boston, Massachusetts, the US government allegedly promised the shoe company would get a “big government contract” if the company stood by TPP.

Unfortunately for New Balance, the deal never came through.

According to the Boston Globe story, It wasn’t until 2015 that New Balance chose to stop criticizing the deal. Until then, the company resisted supporting the pact for years. If what New Balance now alleges is true, executives only chose to change their tune after the Department of Defense claimed it would consider choosing New Balance for a contract to outfit recruits.

So far, New Balance hasn’t received any official contract proposal, and New Balance now say Pentagon officials are intentionally delaying the purchase.

While the US government claims that the contract problem is not associated with TPP in any way, the company is now renewing its battle against the TPP. For all the wrong reasons.

According to Tech Dirt, New Balance claims that while most of the uniform purchased for the military is made in the United States, sneakers are the exception. With that in mind, New Balance decided to offer its products to the government, hoping to obtain a contract. That’s when a representative for the current administration “more or less” asked New Balance to accept a compromise version of the trade deal in exchange for a pledge of help in pressuring the Department of Defense to expedite the government’s purchase of American-made shoes.

According to the Defense Department, New Balance didn’t get the contract because its sneakers aren’t durable or inexpensive enough. Regardless of what the government alleges, Tech Dirt claims, the idea that the government may have offered the company deal if it sided with its trade deal is “highly questionable.”

SWAT Teams: We’re Above the Law

in Liberator Online by James W. Harris Comments are off

(From the Intellectual Ammunition section in Volume 19, No. 11 of the Liberator Online. Subscribe here!)

From a recent Washington Post column by libertarian Randy Balko, entitled “Massachusetts SWAT teams claim they’re private corporations, immune from open records laws”:


“[A] number of SWAT teams in the Bay State are operated by what are called law enforcement councils, or LECs. These LECs are funded by several police agencies in a given geographic area and overseen by an executive board ….

“Some of these LECs have also apparently incorporated as 501(c)(3) organizations. And it’s here that we run into problems. According to the ACLU, the LECs are claiming that the 501(c)(3) status means that they’re private corporations, not government agencies. And therefore, they say they’re immune from open records requests.

“Let’s be clear. These agencies oversee police activities. They employ cops who carry guns, wear badges, collect paychecks provided by taxpayers and have the power to detain, arrest, injure and kill. They operate SWAT teams, which conduct raids on private residences.

“And yet they say that because they’ve incorporated, they’re immune to Massachusetts open records laws. The state’s residents aren’t permitted to know how often the SWAT teams are used, what they’re used for, what sort of training they get or who they’re primarily used against.”