Yeah, I've been doing that to extract the cream, but can this layer stick together like a thin sheet, like the one you get from boiling milk, which is made of denatured proteins and not fat?

Not a valid argument. It is reasonable to assume that babies do not want to be circumcised because they feel pain from the experience and certainly do not remotely comprehend why it should even be done. It would be reasonable to impose a ban on circumcision until the age of 18, or, even better, 21. In other words, an age where  the child is no longer under the control of the parents and can make his/her own informed  decisions up to a point, as to whether he needs to be circumcised or not.

A newborn baby trusts their parents to make the best decisions for them. It is the parents' responsibility to feed them the right foods, keep them at the right temperature and make sure they are safe from dangers. The parents can make mistakes, but so can the State. What's more, the parents can safely be assumed to have the babies' best interest in mind. The State has it's own interests in mind. Even if the State made the best decisions, we don't condone slavery simply because the slavemaster knows better than the slave what they should do with their time. Giving to the State the power to make these decisions, is the best way to ensure an enslaved society.

What's more, making restrictions on rights based on age necessarily distorts the natural path towards self determination and adulthood. As now children are not only concerned with making their own decisions and emancipating from their parents, but being legally allowed to make them and having to wait for an arbitrary age to emancipate from the State. I personally see no reason why a 3 year old should not be able to decide if they want a circumcision or if they don't want one. But if you're not going to allow them to make this choice for themselves, then certainly the responsibility and power to make it should be with their parents, not the State.

It can't be reversed per se, but it can be fixed. How long it'll take, nobody knows.

I wouldn't worry too much about the Earth as a whole though.

http://youtu.be/z90So8IjMKI?t=1m12s

I am worried about our health, the health of us humans, I mean. I think there is a decent chance that we started eating cooked meat regularly as a result of a plan by those in power to keep the enslaved ones sick and dependent. I don't think that was the original reason for ever doing it, but I think there's a good chance that it is how it became ubiquitous.

You have no idea what you're saying, and don't even deserve a reply. Please educate yourself on these topics before making such blatantly ridiculous statements.

The democratic state itself  has no real power since the politicians are owned by special interests, those special interests usually being large companies.

If is through the State that they exert power, it is the State system where the power lies. For everybody else, it is considered a crime if they steal, murder, rape and torture. But for State agents, it is considered not only acceptable, but a social good (or necessary evil). The State is the only agency that people at large will accept this from. They won't accept it directly from the companies. Hence the power lies with the State, not the companies that happen to control it temporarily. And as I explained, many countries in the past and present have had very large, powerful and destructive States with not a single large company in sight, and while these companies were made illegal just like you propose. The problem is not the companies. The problem is the delusion that gets the masses to accept oppression if it's coming from someone in an official uniform. Your proposal makes these people in funny costumes a lot more powerful. Your proposal is nothing but rebranded socialism. And I'm not even sure about the rebranded part.

No, it isn't the same thing at all!  Attacking capitalism does not imply socialism at all, as there are multiple other  anti-capitalistic, non-socialist philosophies such as individual anarchism, fascism and libertarianism.

Capitalism simply means economic freedom for everyone in an area. Socialism means economic slavery for everyone or most in that area. There is only one axis along which this can be measured. You're either for freedom, or you're a socialist. Sure there are points along the middle of the line, like fascism. Libertarianism and capitalism in this sense are one and the same. Your ideology, by your own explanations and suggestions, is much closer to socialism than even to fascism.

However, a meritocratic society based on peoples' real personal value/contribution to society  rather than money, would be the best option.

That is what capitalism is.

Making them less productive is The Whole Point

Socialism is the only ideology which can claim that they want to reduce someone's productivity as a goal in and of itself. When someone is more productive in a civilized society based on trade, everybody in that society, -except their competitors-, benefits. The only reason to want to destroy that is out of envy. Socialists feel better when others are made worse off, even if they are made worse off too in the process, because it quenches their envious nature.

Pure, meaningless semantics.The companies do not just buy power, they ARE the power. Big SU companies included  Amtorg, OKB Gidropress, Hydroproject, and other State-owned large companies of various sorts.

A "company" that is not for profit and is funded through taxation is not a company. It is a part the State.

I was not promoting socialism.I was attacking capitalism, which is not the same thing at all.

Yes it is. Well, I suppose you could be more towards the middle ground and supporting fascism, but no, you are supporting socialism.

Banning large companies also does not per se  involve wealth distribution , as owners could still diversify into other sectors of the market, creating other small companies, provided each was quite separate and had its own unique culture etc.

Now you're talking about wealth redistribution. In any case, in the post I was responding to, you said it was a problem that some people have too much wealth. That is socialist thinking.

Also, you don't understand the benefits of specialization and division of labor. If someone is really good at running a company which produces beef, forcing them to diversify into other areas of the market necessarily makes them less productive, thus everybody except their competitors will be made worse off.

The State is controlled by the large companies, so has no power if the large companies are effectively neutered.

No, it will just be controlled by somebody else. The companies are simply buying what power the State already has, they're not creating it. There were no large companies in the USSR, was the State powerless?

Dear God! I was not promoting socialism at all, just the opposite, namely individualist anarchy.Austrian economics, just like socialism, is heavily flawed, especially given the fact that, nowadays,  too much wealth is now concentrated in the hands of too few individuals.

You have no idea what you're saying, and yes you are promoting socialism, you just don't realize it. The only ideology which cares about wealth distribution is socialism.

And btw, most anarchists are communists, which is the end goal of socialism. The only difference is that they want to skip that step, and go directly to communism.

Then all that will happen is that once a company reaches that size, it will split into two different companies, and it'll be the same thing, but more costly for the consumer because of the additional costs associated with running two companies instead of one. What you will get is lower quality products, and for a higher price.

The problem is not big companies. The problem is the State which has power to sell, and big companies buy protection. And with protection, comes the thinning out of their competition. If you want to solve this problem, the way is not to attack big companies, but to remove the State, and in particular the democratic republican State, which is the most dangerous of all. Your proposal gives more power to the State, not less. So it is the very cause of the problems you are troubled with.

Yeah, there are many ways to age it. Some age it in the fridge, some at room temperature. I haven't aged mine so far. If you're gonna age them, they need to be pressed first. You can make an improvised press with items you'll have in your home, but if you get serious about it then you're probably gonna want to either buy one already made, or manufacture a proper press if you're skillful like that.

Many people who age their cheese add wax at a certain point to air-seal the cheese and prevent it from losing moisture and from getting mold on the outside. But in most cases this mold would be good for your cheese and for your health, and the wax wouldn't be. But it's up to you what you want to do.

Really? Dude, we've all heard this hyper-libertarian Randian stuff before. Many times. Stop acting like it's so special. Just shut up about it.  It's irrelevant to the purpose of the board, and that's that.

We'll see if it is irrelevant when all the things that make you healthy are made illegal because your lifestyle is deemed to not be in tune with the "common good".

Jeune, you have no idea what rights are.

Well in Belgium there is, and I'm pretty sure these worker's rights can be found all throughout the European union, including Spain.

You're not talking about rights, you're talking about laws. Someone doesn't magically gain a new right that they didn't have before (and that others don't have) when a politician writes a new law.

If they are being harmed with pesticides because they are not provided the necessary protection (protective suit, masks...), then their right to good health is being violated.

There is no right to good health, there is a right to not have your property polluted against your will. They have no right to be provided protective suits, masks or whatever. If they want those and the employer doesn't offer them, they can quit. You have a right not to have pesticides pollute the air on your land. You don't have a right not to have the air you breathe sprayed with pesticides when you are on somebody else's land and quite aware that pesticides are being sprayed on top of you, and you are staying in there by choice.

This is very simple. If you go into someone else's house, you don't have a right to demand that they put out their cigarette because the smoke is bad for you. You can ask. If they refuse to put it out, you can leave. Your rights have not been violated if you choose to stay in their house and knowingly breathe in smoke you didn't want. You don't suddenly gain a right that you didn't have before when your reason for being in somebody else's property is for work rather than leisure. Just like they don't suddenly lose a right that they had before if their reason for having you there is for work instead of leisure.

Among other things. Right to hygiene must be written somewhere there too.

Again, there's no such thing as a right to hygiene. Just because some politician wrote somewhere that these things must be provided, doesn't mean they are rights. It also doesn't mean that whoever is not provided with these things is now a slave. If anybody is the slave here, it is the employer who is being forced at gunpoint to provide things to his employees besides that which he contractually agreed to provide for them.

Well, in french, the word "exploited" is commonly used in situations where the person is abused, works a lot in often bad conditions, and is given little in return.

That's a lot of different terms which describe different situations. And again, nobody has a right to work conditions that they deem appropriate or to wages that they deem good. If they don't like what they are being offered, they are the ones who should quit. In the same way that an employer doesn't have a right to employees that provide good quality labor for a low price. If the employer doesn't like what his employees provide, he should fire them.

You need a cheese cloth or any kind of cotton cloth to strain the curds (solids). That's cheese. Some people use metal strainers. It'd work but you'll probably lose some of your solids. I also hear metal will disturb or kill the bacteria in the whey (liquids).