FREE TRADE BAN: 90 Days in Jail? Farmers Fight Back
by Bob EwingShould farmers get thrown in jail for 90 days and hit with $1,000 in fines for engaging in free trade?
Unfortunately, that’s the law in Lake Elmo, Minnesota.
And that is why the farmers are fighting back. Tuesday they rallied [check out the pictures here], coming from around the state to secure their constitutional rights. Yesterday, the Institute for Justice—the libertarian law firm that defends economic liberty nationwide—took the farmers’ case to federal court.
On December 1, 2009, the city council in Lake Elmo—a rural city just outside St. Paul—decided that it would begin enforcing a law that makes it illegal for farmers to sell products from their own land unless they were grown within Lake Elmo.
The city’s politicians argue that they are protecting Lake Elmo’s rural character. In fact, they are destroying that character by making it impossible for their farmers to earn an honest living and increasing the likelihood that family farms will fail.
Consider Richard Bergmann.
Richard and his wife Eileen have farmed in Lake Elmo for nearly 40 years. They work together with their three grown children. Part of their family farm extends beyond city limits, and that part is actually where they grow most of their pumpkins. And now it’s a crime to sell those pumpkins in Lake Elmo.
In order to keep their business afloat, Richard and Eileen need to add to their inventories with pumpkins and Christmas trees grown on different farms, so they regularly engage in free trade with farmers around the country.
Tuesday, the Lake Elmo city council got together and decided to change their draconian law…for the worse. They deleted a provision in the city code that made it legal for farmers like the Bergmanns to sell products they grow on their own property at a different location in Lake Elmo.
The change will mean that Richard and Eileen won’t even be able to sell products that they grow just across the street without facing fines and threats of jail. The change is a cosmetic adjustment that does not fix the underlying problem: Farmers cannot engage in free trade.
Thankfully, the U.S. Constitution was crafted to guarantee the right to earn an honest living free from unreasonable government regulations. Lake Elmo is violating the American founding ideals of economic liberty and free trade by forbidding farmers from selling non-Lake Elmo products on their farms.
In May, the Institute for Justice teamed up with the Bergmanns and their trading partners from around the country in a major federal lawsuit designed to strike down Lake Elmo’s free trade ban as a violation of the U.S. Constitution. At yesterday’s hearing, the Institute asked a federal judge to prevent the city from prosecuting the Bergmanns until the lawsuit is settled.
The suit has already received national media attention, and the farmers, working together with the Institute for Justice, will not stop fighting until their right to economic liberty has been vindicated.
For more on the lawsuit, click here.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
127 Comments
Another example of govt. intervention in our lives. They will eventually tell us what we can and cannot grow in our own garden, what animals we can have, where we can work, who we can marry, etc. Probably even have to apply for a permit to die. God help us all!
It's crap like this that makes me wish the Bill of Rights had started and ENDED with "Congress shall make no law".
Intrusive government getting too big for its britches: NOT what our Founding Fathers were about!
Lake Elmo city politicians apparently need to be introduced to the tradition of a good old tarring and feathering; perhaps even being run out of town on a rail. Then replace them with some fine Americans who understand FREEDOM!
There's got to be someone with a grudge somewhere or some supermarket paying paying off the pols.
Follow the money.
Wonder how many drilling rigs and refineries are located within the city limits of Lake Elmo. I guess this is selective protectionism though, so it must be OK.
Bush again?
IJ is the only lawyerly type place where the dark side of the force has not permeated. Maybe Lake Bert and Lake Ernie can get in on the action when no food is delivered to Elmo and it's sad inhabitants are forced to drive across the county to their McDonald's and WalMart
What IS it with Minnesota politicians?
That said, a couple quibbles about the article: it makes it sound like the pumpkin field is attached to the farm but happens to extend outside the city limits. Yet in the article linked at the end, it says the pumpkin farm is actually several miles away. Hardly outside the spirit of the apparent goal of locally-grown produce, but it never hurts to get the little things right.
Also, maybe it's because I'm currently in a pre-coffee state but I'm having trouble parsing exactly what activity was legal under the original law passed on December 1st, that became illegal with the revision on Tuesday.
Hope you follow up, I'd like to fully understand this!
Oh, and another thing… Even at the city council level there are junior douchebag tyrannical rulers in waiting… hoping to ascend to the anointed "dear leader" role. We better be knowing who these fools are so we can stunt their career of hapless nannydom…
What, is Lake Elmo the "Mini-Me" of the obama administration?
and how many auto assembly plants, hospital equipment mfgs, how many electronics mfgs, how many meat processing plants, how many feed lots. but farmers, no rights. this town needs a bit#@ slap stat!
i'm not really understanding the purpose of this "protectionist" law. Who benefits from the law here? Certainly farmers are harmed and that's easy to see but, i don't get the city's intentions. Maybe a closer look at who is on the City Council will explain things a bit better or the Mayor's background. This all seems a bit odd.
But, the free-market should be protected at all levels and these farmers have a hard enough time surviving without some PencilNeck writing decrees that no one understands.
The harsh part of this story is the fact that people like the Bergmann's go to work every day, take care of their family's and probably had no idea that their local govt was even comptemplating such an action. Like just about all of us who read and post on the Big sites they are producers without the time and energy to go to a city council meeting and voice. Hopefully the Tea Party movement has started the ball rolling but the good citizens of Lake Elmo, and across the country, need to focus squarely upon the city leaders who passed this and legally, peacefuly, make their lives a living hell.They are people too. They live and work in the same town, county etc. Boycott their business's or places of employment. Shun them (not hurt them) on the street and pack every city business meeting to the rafters with legal displays of defiance.
We know whose "ass to kick". Time to go out and kick it.
Or maybe the citizens of that town should vote their government out of existence. This is possible in many states, a de-certification election that dis incorporates a municipality.
Ah yes, the government, infinitely more wise than us, protecting the citizens of Lake Elmo from rogue vegetables.
Let me try to determine what kind of logic is at work here:
Law enforcement is a good and necessary function of government AND the law was passed by the government SO since law enforcement has to enforce this law (and law enforcement is good) this law MUST be good for the citizenry….
…..Except that we have this pesky little thing called FREEDOM that is explained quite clearly in the CONSTITUTION which overrides any stupid bureaucrat whose cousin owns a farm in town and doesn't like competition or (fill in the blank with stupid reason).
Drag these idiots into court and and around the town square so that everyone can see what a progressive/socialist looks like. It is not THEIR POWER, it is OURS!
WE THE PEOPLE!
FREEEDOMMMMM!!!!!!
Fantastic!!!!
I can't stop laughing!!!!
Here's the reductio ad absurdum:
Lake Elmo: "We want to preserve our rural character, so we're going to make farmer's markets illegal."
Brilliant!
I sometimes think we should bring back public humiliation for knot-heads who come up with this kind of garbage. A few hours in stocks in the public square being pummeled with rotten produce would serve them right.
[...] » FREE TRADE BAN: 90 Days in Jail? Farmers Fight Back – Big Government Should farmers get thrown in jail for 90 days and hit with $1,000 in fines for engaging in free trade? [...]
Sadly, farming is the only industry (at the moment) that has not seen a significant rise in unemployment. With laws like this, that may become a thing of the past. I hope IJ sticks it to the CIty Counsil, and the Bergmann's come out of this victorious.
HUH? Rural character protecting? Kind of picking on farmers, isn't it? What's the "beef", with farmers, unsightly roadside stands, what? When you run the farmers out of business, the land will be sold to lets say, manufacturing and or maybe warehouses, etc. That wouldn't ruin any rural character would it? I know lets build a WALMART, that'd be attractive! Wouldn't that be the same as DEMANDING that those on the city council not be allowed to earn an income outside the city limits? Or any accountant with an office within the city limits can only have clients from within the city, how about attorneys,and how do grocers even get their produce? ABSURDITY IN ABUNDANCE! A prime example of : When you fail to become involved in politics, you will be ruled by your inferiors. Get involved folks! All politics is local!
I think San Fransisco just started its regulating sugary drinks in vending machines that are in public facilities.
Check out the regulations in many "neighborhoods", you might discover that it is already a violation in many places to grow a garden.
The large agricultural businesses and food producers don't want people growing gardens or raising livestock etc., and for the most part have succeeded in their quest to control the supply of food, and much of it with the help of government and laws restraining activities of individuals.
This is just a mirror image of our country's future if We the Citizen Taxpayers do not put a stop to this shinola!
Haven't we had enough yet?
Haven't YOU had enough yet?
Oh, they are already telling some of us what animals we can have. They could try to tell us what to grow and not grow in our gardens, but I have a feeling that before they get to that, they will have overstepped reasonable bounds in other areas, likely leading to a bit of a bloody mess. Bottom line: Everyone better start figuring out who they are, where to draw the line, and how to stand up for what's right. Either the big gubberment powermongers are going to figure out that they better sit down and shut up or else the tree of liberty is going to be due for a good wattering……just speculating, of course…..
[...] Big Government has it. [...]
I bet if you dig deeper you will find some rich Lake Elmo farmer who is rubbing elbows with local politicians in an effort to put his competition out of business.
Yes, I wish that Bob Ewing would have taken some city council names; perhaps even video interviewed some of those tin pot podunk dictators so that we could remember their faces when they turn up again like a bad penny, running for a higher office.
Watch the video.
As one who has bought tomatoes from a roadside vendor, only to realize once I tasted them, they were
from the same producers in MX that the local grocer was selling, I can see the rationale for this particu-
lar locally imposed rule. It sounds to me as though these folks operation is sufficiently large to have an
on farm 'stand' for their pumpkin and Christmas tree sales. This leads me to believe there is a hidden
motive for this suit, that these folks may be 'fronting' this suit for a much larger, nation-wide operation.
I'm not sure whether to be FOR or AGIN, on this one.
Always ask the vendor if he, himself raised the produce, and where he raised it. If the tomatoes are tot-
ally blemish free, and very uniform in size/color they have been graded, which indicates they have been
run through a packing shed (not fresh/picked prematurely). The excess uniformity rule may be applied
to almost any fruit or veggie as well as the too clean rule (a little dirt is a good sign). Look at the boxes
the vendor has sitting around with extra inventory, if they look too clean or new the produce has probably
been bought from commercial vendors (imported) Many local truck-farmers use their boxes over and over,
until they fall apart, it is another good sign that the produce is local and fresh.
This type of thing is normal here in Minnesota. We have the DFL party here which stands for Democratic Farmer Labor, and they do very little to help farmers and honest working people. They have been doing things here for years that Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do nationally. Things like socialism, welfare for everyone, and high taxes. People have been streaming in from Chicago for years just for the good welfare, it has been proven that some have maintained residence here but actually live in Chicago and nothing is done about it. The main newspaper, the Star Tribune(I call it the Red Star), had nothing about this farmers situation because in their eyes this is not news it just everyday life.
What would you expect from a state that would send Stuart Smally to the senate?
Ya think?
under, don't know if you're a veg gardener, but I will relay, pumpkins require boo kooz of space,
each plant needs at least 100 sq ft (10'x10'), to produce optimum crop, even more is ideal.
These folks may have raised their pumpkins outside city limits due to a space issue, although
that fact may change nothing related to this lawsuit.
I thought they were considering or had passed a national provision that clamped down on private gardens because the produce might travel across state lines making it interstate commerce.
The living Democrat mascot.
Just one question? If the local government can regulate the local farmers from selling their own produce in the city, does it imply that they can also prevent grocers from importing produce grown outside the city?
I'm torn on this one. On the one hand this is clearly an asinine bill that will actually hurt the character it's purportedly trying to help; on the other hand, the original intent of the Founders was to give greater freedom to localities and states in regulating their populations even up to making stupid laws like this.
He's their token bridge Troll. I know a guy who's thinking about making Al Franken garden Gnomes.
okay which one of the scumsuckin'politicians did they piss off????? which one of the pissants are they in competition with…doesn't it always come down to FOLLOW THE MONEY???? always remember, large or small POLITICIANS ARE SCUM…….
Vote all the incumbents out. All the way down to the frickin PTA ! These people are all "well intentioned" but we all know what that means…
Yep. The only way to stop this is to vote them out, and run for office yourself if necessary!
I think the farmers of the central valley in California would differ with the employment in farming statement. That said, it seems the end game is to remove private ownership of every necessary industry. Transportation, finance, healthcare, and food. Wait for the big push to nationalize housing. They have great plans for efficiency apartments they bought as surplus from the collapse of the soviets.
This is from the Socialist Republic of Minnesota that gave us Al Frankin, Minnesota is a mess and this silly law doesn't suprise me what so ever.
Someone on the city council knows someone who is losing money because of these farmers,a check of the family tree might be in order here.
"Soon". Try to buy restricted use pesticides. Try to build a hog house. Don't spray on a breezy day. Don't let that cow pi$$ in the creek. Don't sell puppies with certification, inspection, permits and whatever else they can throw at you. Don't kill your on livestock for your own consumption. The common denominator. Fees and fines. Don't pay the fee, pay the fine. Nuff said!!!!!!!!!
Hey idiot, move on to the next stand. DON'T bring the government!
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of trade
Imagine what a different country it would be if someone had put THAT in the Constitution
When farmers start yelling about all of the Federal Subsidies they get then lets talk about the small cites and stupid.laws limiting the free market.
I'm thinkin big chain UNION grocery stores. Maybe there are some land developers that would like to squeeze small farmers out. Maybe greedy Elmo politicians need a shopping center for the tax base. Usually farmers are more united than competitive because they usually share a mistrust of of governmental regulation.
HEY Granny………….ALINSKY MUCH?????? HUUUUMMMMM?????
I believe I said I was unsure which side my sympathies would fall, need more info.
BTW, I'm a real TX farmer who raises thousands of acres of wheat, corn, and cotton,
my own vegs too.
Too bad Gran, you probably lost a potential ally, with your name calling Alinsky tactic.
NOW, all of a sudden my 'give'a'shitter is BROKE.
What does Congress have to do with this? This is a local ordinance, an apparently poorly crafted ordinance, but local all the same.
My guess is when they are saying, "protect the rural character," is that the intention was to protect local farmers from having someone set up shop in town and sell big agriculture (that would be a good Breitbart site, BigAg) products under the auspices of a local farm market. It is having the unintended consequence of harming some local small farmers and the city counsel should seriously take a 2nd look at how it was drafted.
I do have a great idea for helping small local farmers that could be handled by Congress: Get rid of Big Ag Subsidies that promote consolidation of family farms. The Heritage Foundation has a nice article discussing subsidies from a couple of years ago: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2007/06/...
I'll bet if the Bergmanns asked the city to annex the remainder of their land so the city could get the property tax revenue, the city would annex in a heartbeat. This is the result of Nanny State style good intentions that are killing our nations free enterprise and liberties. A neighbor of my son's was working on his car in his cramped garage because the homeowners association won't even let you change your oil or replace your windshield wipers outside of your garage without getting in trouble and the vehicle fell on him, crushing him to death. If he had been able to work on it in his driveway it probably wouldn't have been a fatal accident. Stupid liberals want to liberate us from our rights.
nice points midwest, ………….or those local bankers and accountants, who buy themselves a farm,
at rock-bottom price, when some poor hard-working farmer is at the end of his rope, because they
are first to know who's suffering financial hardship. This happens a good bit in my area.
Generally, people who 'work' for a living share a mistrust of government regulation. In Minnesota, I wouldn't be surprized if they pass a law making you wear a helmet to do yardwork. Nanny State….
"Don't spray on a breezy day"………….not only don't spray, don't even plow a field if breeze is over 15mph,
it was in the cap and trade bill. On the TX Hi Plains, there would be no more farming, we call 15mph,
dead calm here.
The small 'truck-farm' operations discussed in this piece receive no Fed subsidies, possibly
they are eligible for low interest USDA loans.
Those darn out of town pot growers are cutting into the mayor's trade?
While that is terrible about your son's neighbor, I don't see what Homeowners Associations have to do with a Nanny State.
They were initially created by Real Estate developers to handle the management of waste water in developments. Developers (private entities) expanded the scope of HOAs in order to increase the value of the houses they were trying to sell. HOAs are private entities that have no real association with any government entity and in fact have greater powers over their members as they don't have the same constitutional restrictions that a town or state would have.
Choosing to move into a neighborhood with an HOA effectively means you are willing to live by whatever rules they want to make. I wouldn't want to live in a neighborhood with an HOA for that exact reason. If I want to plant a peach tree or paint my house neon green, I don't want some corporation telling me I can't. I also don't want an HOA forclosing on my house because I failed to pay a fine for not cutting my grass.
So true. I moved away to CA for 15 years. Been back now for 20+ years. The first thing that struck me when I got back here was MN was a socialist/commie state. Even worse than CA. CA was just starting to head in that direction when I moved back to MN. Imagine my surprise when I got back here and MN was already there.
True, aharris, but we are promised a republic state in the U.S. Constitution. MN has not been a republic for a very long time. We've been Socialist for even longer than CA.
Another example of liberals (who else would think of such a law) attempting to do good without having any clue about the real ramifications of their actions.
Bush come back again? what ? louis
In the days of our Pilgrim fathers they instituted the Public Stocks for the express reason to humiliate those who flaunted the norms of the society. Seem the good citizens of Lake Elmo need to erect a set of "Stocks" across from city hall in the public square, tomatoes to be provided by the local farmers.
The Bergmanns are "wealthy" land holders. I say holders instead of owners because according to the Progressives everything of value is owned by the state and must be regulated by the state. With a living and breathing Constitution (Kagan?) the Bergmanns are getting more than their "fair" share, as they are profiting from the land. This is why black markets were big in the Soviet Union. I can't believe I am seeing the same pattern in my beloved USA.
The food nazis. They want to control what we eat and where it comes from.
I like the web because it lets a lot of people know how lake elmo is stupid.
There are alwys wicked Democrats behind these moves.
So how is this different from Congress demanding that a certain percentage of car parts be US-made for a car assembled in the US to be considered US-made and not an import? Congress can pass laws like this, why can't Lake Elmo. In the long run, Lake Elmo will protect its rural character by forcing its citizens to leave and make a living elsewhere. In the meanwhile, I hope they have laid out good roads to St. Paul so the remaining citizens will have an easier commute to work.
Is Algore wanting to pick up some "cheap" property for another compound?
As soon as we have global warming, they can raise and sell local oranges and citrus. Until then, no citrus in Lake Elmo.
This type(social/commie)of government is new to a lot of people in the nation and I laugh because people with ties to Minnesota can spot it a mile away. The rest of the country is now getting a taste of what it's like, I just hope it can be stopped nationally before it turns this country into a Minnesota.
Congress? Nothing, directly. But wouldn't it be nice if government in general thought that it was their job to protect freedom of trade, rather than make sure that the results of trade were "fair"?
Read the details again.
The local government is regulating local farmers from selling non-local produce, from a non-permanent retail outlet, in the city.
What that farmer is doing is trying to bypass the regulations on grocers, both on purchasing products and in regards to a permanent shop, in order to undercut competitors.
This is far from the cut and dried thing excess of government being portrayed.
Those who cannot do, becomes politicians.
Is it that bad a law?
What it restricts is what good can be sold at roadside stands. These are, by definition, seasonal "stores". That means that farmer is not being subject to all the rules and regulations someone operating a regular, full-time, grocery would be subject to. Instead he has a simple restriction placed on him – he can only sell produce grown on his farm.
Now apparently he has land outside the city limits. Why doesn't he set up his roadside stand there, beyond the regulatory reach of the city, and sell whatever he likes there? Obviously he wants access to a better location, one inside the city limits.
Nothing to be torn about. It's unconstitutional, plain and simple.
"The city’s politicians argue that they are protecting Lake Elmo’s rural character. In fact, they are destroying that character by making it impossible for their farmers to earn an honest living and increasing the likelihood that family farms will fail."
Another worthless debate: Neither side of the argument is true. "Lake Emo's rural character" will not be taken over by Japanese exports and family farms won't fail by selling pumpkins from a plot of land 100 yards over the county's border.
Go back to work farmers and you county officials go fix that darn stop light in the middle of main street. Nothing more to see here. Move along.
Farming has not been hit as hard as many other industries, at least last time I looked at the stats which was some time ago. I really don't like the way things are headed tho.
Another example of government going against the will of the people and in favor of special interests. This must be brought to an end.
I suspect "bypass the taxes" is more important to them, assuming the people behind the law do not own the local brick and mortar stores.
I wouldn't be surprised.
And a fight between shopkeepers and roadsiders seems a lot more likely. We have the effectively the same thing in NYC with street vendors.
My previous post of this disappeared (I guess because I posted too many links with it?)
So here is the jist of it, everyone should see the film "Food, Inc." immediately. Download it, rent it, see it on PPV or Amazon VOD, whatever. Just watch it! You will learn a ton about how the government, in bed with certain mega-corporations, is making the lives of small farmers absolutely miserable. This subject needs to get waaay more attention… http://www.foodincmovie.com http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0027BOL4G/
What I want to know is how soon will Pelosi's land for her winery be given RESTRICTIONS? This unpatriotic being can suppress the lives of others trying to make a living and feeding Americans but Nan and her commie cohorts are above-it-all!!
Here's the thing . . .
Ever since we started paying farmers not to grow stuff, because the Supreme Court wouldn't let FDR fine and imprison farmers for growing what they wanted, we have been caught in a trap of subsidized food that has plagued many before us, and many more now. It leaves us with two choices, neither of which is pleasant:
1. Stay the course, and let our modern, (mostly) morally cleaned up latifundia rule, accepting that it means the destruction of small farmers (or at least their reduction to quasi-sharecropper status, surviving from government loan to government loan).
2. Cut the subsidies, both for growing and not growing, and accept food prices stabilizing at twice or more of their current level.
Since "nobody" wants to pay more for food, and has no issue with taxes on "the rich" paying for their subsidized food, not to mention the deep pockets of the agricorps, you get three guesses as to which one is guaranteed to survive until the entire country collapses, no matter who winds up in power.. (Hint: Its not the second one.) (Bigger Hint: Its the first one.)
who gives a s&!% where they own land to grow the damn pumpkins
what right does ANY person or body have to tell them they cannot
earn a living with the fruit of their labor
That is one bad ass granny
probably has a bottle stashed behind the cookie jar
Nah, hippiec……….pure-dee-moonshine………..she ran to the broom closet to hide
……….or maybe find the back-up jug.
more like the mini-me of FDR and the AAA legislation that was at first struck down by the SCOTUS… but the second version went unscathed
» FREE TRADE BAN: 90 Days in Jail? Farmers Fight Back – Big Government…
I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog
…
This no doubt was probalby prompted by someone who thought they could gain from it. Otherwise what would the genesis of this statute be??
In Minnesota you pretty much have to hold your nose as far as its politicians are concerned.. Just think, Amy K, Mark Dayton, Walter Mondale, and who could forget the biggest laugher Al Franken.
Oh I forgot Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison.
I live in Burnsville, mn which is 20mi due south of Mpls and our mayor, in her infinite quest to leave a legacy, has promoted and had built a performing arts center in our "downtown", that is sapping our city of it resources. That thing, all shiny and new, only hosts free stuff and does not draw any performers. Even George Jones backed out.
Our lawmakers are out of control both locally and most certainly in Washington.
AS to this story, I have to ask, who made it their business to engage in this regulation? Vote them out now..
this is a good start but the sooner we can take down the damaging practices of Monsanto, the better. That outfit in conjunction with the feds are running the small operators and seed savers out of business.
Maybe if politicians faced jail time for giving us garbage like this we might see an end to it.
I understand the point of some of the people who are torn on this issue, but you must remember: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
And here I thought she was making cookies with all that cooking going on
now i realize it was mash
"pummeled with rotten produce" Classic – GREAT!
BZ you are always well informed, so I may be missing something here.
The way that I read it is that they are prohibited from setting up a stand (on their own property) and selling produce/products that are not grown in the city limits. BUT they can set up the stand and sell produce/products that are grown the city limits. So, as far as not being subjected to rules and regulations of a regular full-time grocery – I fail to see why, if that is the case, they would be allowed to set up a stand and sell any produce/product.
The bottom line is that if city council is actually trying to preserve the "rural character", it cannot possibly matter which side of the road the produce/product is grown on. You are either allowed to have a stand or not and it is not city councils job to tell you how to stock it.
Try to find a neighborhood without a HOA anymore. The point was the abuse of power that the government and government approved boards have over our lives. It is ridiculous that, as in my son's neighborhood, an HOA can set arbitrary rules, against the overwhelming majority of its residents, that they want to put into place and the homeowners have an almost impossible time trying to redress the issues. It is just like the intentions announced by the Democrats for a lame duck session of Congress in December, after they lose their majority in the upcoming elections, where they intend to ram through any and all legislation that they desire in direct opposition to the obvious desires of their constituents. That is not representative government, it is the Nanny State agenda of we know what is best for you and you aren't smart enough to make your own decisions. Congress, the White House, and other entities with power over our lives are way too rules happy.
The whole point is that if the government assumes the right to limit the selling of any produce by any person they can ban the sale of all produce they see as unfit by all people. Also this is just another protectionist policy like what our farmers encounter in the world, applied on the county and city level. What has happened to the concept of free trade.
That's the problem – there is not enough information here to be well informed, and that sets off my paranoia.
Generally, the whole point of your roadside stand is to allow farmers to engage in the same small scale retail as your home business crafter. Rather than tell a shoemaker he MUST sell to a retail shoestore, he can sell HIS shoes to passersby. That is an equitable situation, and fully in character with a "rural character" of family farms and crafts.
The thing here is, this particular person is going beyond that. He is not selling his produce, he is selling someone else's produce. That is like the shoemaker purchasing name brand sneakers and selling them along with his shoes. And that makes them both full-fledged retailers and NOT farmers and crafters. Now, in fact, this guy is becoming Wal-Mart, and not merely gaining an unfair advantage over every other farmer with a roadside stand who sells only what they grow on their own farm by their own labor, but also all the full time retailers who have to maintain stores and staffs year round, as well as comply with all the laws regarding retailers.
As for setting the city line as the limit, while that does sound highly suspicious of the city council, let us again consider the other side. We would not consider it outrageous if the federal government required food grown outside the US to be labeled as such, or a state government to restrict what food products can be described as products of their state, why is it outrageous for a city to limit what is offered as "local" produce?
Think of it like that hot sauce ad, where the cowboys react with shock and horror at the hot sauce produced in NYC. Would you consider it fair if I brought down my buddy's hot sauce recipe and sold it from a roadside stand down a bit from you, along with some locally grown food, casually letting everyone assume the hot sauce is a locally produced, local recipe, characteristic of your county? And if not, who would you feel has the most legitimate authority to regulate such?
Now maybe that is me spinning it too far. That very well could be because, as I said, there is simply not information for anyone to be well informed. I need a lot more information, and I think everyone else should want a lot more as well, before deciding whether this is an out of control city council, or whether this is someone trying to game the system and dressing his case up in the Constitution to try and elicit undeserved sympathy.
Can one take seriously a city named Lake Elmo? When the US is plunged into the next Great Depression, we are going to need the farmers, why does government want to tick them off? I'm growing tomatoes, cucumbers and watermelon, I should be set. I advise everyone to learn to hunt and grow food, just in case. Like the boy scouts say "be prepared"
Ahh the old Pace Picante sauce argument. Just kidding.
I think that this is one of those cases when two reasonable people can disagree.
Great talking to you.
As I said, I'm not ready to agree or disagree yet, I am just suggesting an alternative view. When enough information appears I'll be able to make an informed decision, and comment from that. (Yes I know, what kind of lunatic wants to post informed opinions in a political blog?)
Great talking to you too.
[...] The Worst Sort Of Nanny-State, Big Government Regulatory Impulses July 13, 2010 Posted by taoist in Liberty. Tags: Freedom, Government Regulations, Nanny Statism trackback There’s a town in Minnesota that has made a law to jail anyone for 90 days who sells home-grow…. [...]
Our Trackback……
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]………
You must be logged in to post a comment.