Mr. Combest has the link to a St. Joseph News-Press story on an absolutely ludicrous idea that combines the worst parts of the nanny state with the worst of rent seeking. Can you believe that some people, in 2008 … in America … think they have the right to produce milk without hormones, and to actually put a label on the milk saying that? If we allow this, pretty soon we’ll have to let liquor stores say they have the "coldest beer in town" even if they can not prove with certainty that it is, indeed, the coldest in town. Perhaps there is a legitimate reason why small dairy farmers should be prevented from labeling their milk "hormone free" — which it is — other than pressure from lobbyists for larger dairy farmers, but I can’t possibly imagine what that reason would be. At least one consumer quoted in the story understands capitalism and liberty:

"It’s my choice, whether it’s healthier or not,” Karen Schaefer said as she grabbed two bottles of Shatto milk from the dairy case. “If they don’t use the hormones, they should be allowed to say that.”

A supporter of the proposed ban on labeling hormone-free milk as hormone-free has a less clear understanding of such things — or perhaps he does understand, but just wants to throw up as many roadblocks as possible for his competition:

“In saying their milk doesn’t contain something, they are implying that other products do, which often isn’t the case,” Mr. Hegeman said.

So the fact that the small producers might IMPLY something (this must be said like Chris Penn in Reservoir Dogs) is now grounds to limit their freedom? This has to be the most unconstitutional proposal in Missouri since Ladue tried to ban signs protesting the Gulf War from someone’s yard. (This must be said like Lionel Hutz, attorney at law. I am not going to say where Lionel Hutz comes from, because if you don’t know, I have no desire to associate with you.)