california prop discussion

[Zack]

I asked this in a previous thread and I don't think anyone gave an answer, so I'll give people another chance, because I'm sincerely confused:

I do have a question for anyone that supports food labelling laws, or no, let's make it about GMOs in particular to keep it simple. Do you think Coca-Cola and Monsanto and all these guys are guilty of fraud? If so, what exactly would it have taken, as far as labelling is concerned, to make them NOT be guilty of fraud? What if Coke just put a parenthetical in the ingredients? Like this: INGREDIENTS: CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP (GENETICALLY MODIFIED), CARAMEL COLOR. Would that have been enough for you? What exactly is the fundamental basis of what you want, and does it absolutely have to involve hostile bureaucracies?

In other words: What do you want? Not what do you want to happen to Kraft or Pepsi or Monsanto, but on general principle, what do you want the state to do to people on your behalf, and what would it have taken through peaceful self-regulation to have made the states' armed incursion unnecessary?

 

[Jumbo Shrimp]

I asked this in a previous thread and I don't think anyone gave an answer, so I'll give people another chance, because I'm sincerely confused:

In other words: What do you want? Not what do you want to happen to Kraft or Pepsi or Monsanto, but on general principle, what do you want the state to do to people on your behalf, and what would it have taken through peaceful self-regulation to have made the states' armed incursion unnecessary?

These companies, especially Monsanto, through self-regulation will not disclose that their products are GM. They have a monopoly on the market meaning consumers have no bargaining power. I believe that omitting that their products are genetically modified is misleading and constitutes fraud. What they are selling is NOT corn or whatever, but a modified version of it and should be labeled as such.

 

[tsai3904]

@Gunny

You say that pay to play is a cancer on state governments. Do you think Prop 32 would get rid of that cancer? I'm just talking about the benefits of Prop 32 and not talking about the costs.

Also, do you think someone should be forced to join a union just to get a government job? If that is the case, do you think the union dues that someone must pay just because he is a government employee should be used for political purposes?

 

[Zack]

These companies, especially Monsanto, through self-regulation will not disclose that their products are GM. They have a monopoly on the market meaning consumers have no bargaining power. I believe that omitting that their products are genetically modified is misleading and constitutes fraud. What they are selling is NOT corn or whatever, but a modified version of it and should be labeled as such.

It's my understanding that farmers have generally known when they were buying GMO seeds, and that this was sold as a feature of the product. As I noted in the other thread, there is no doubt that the federal government has created an artificial monopoly for Monsanto through the use of IP law, and to a lesser extent, other laws and regulations. I believe Monsanto is one of the only companies that uses the government against its people in such far-reaching ways, and on such a massive scale. I believe that outside of the financial sector, Monsanto may even be able to make a claim of being public enemy #1 among corporations. But what's the connection, on principle, between what I just wrote and labelling laws for food companies?

Accusing essentially all food companies in the country of fraud is a serious accusation of crime. Where is the line drawn, even vaguely, between a good seller of GMO food, and criminal? If they are really criminals, do you think the feds close up every food company and restaurant in the country tomorrow, gangbusters style, and quadruple the population size of our prisons overnight? Can you give me an example of what a theoretical, oh let's say a small candy maker, could have been doing to make them not be criminals? What would their packages of candy have to say? Their food is essentially already toxic because sugar is. the fact that it's GMO sugar, well, I doubt even the biggest consipracy theorist would suggest that adds much toxicity by percentage, into the mix. So what could they have been doing to be a good company instead of criminals? Is the ingredients example I gave above enough to keep them out of government cages?

 

[UpperDecker]

I wonder how that will affect us here. I live about 20 minutes north of you... its such hard work trying to convince people how these things affect us all. Yup, rainbows and butterflies. Lol

I would think it would be positive for you, since companies will probably look to the surrounding areas to do business if this passes. And it really is hard, even though I am a college student with a minimum wage job, people still don't seem to understand what I am saying. I am getting used to that haha.

 

[dannno]

Accusing essentially all food companies in the country of fraud is a serious accusation of crime.

No, we are accusing the current FDA guidelines of being misleading, the companies are simply required to follow their guidelines and regulations.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

@Gunny

You say that pay to play is a cancer on state governments. Do you think Prop 32 would get rid of that cancer? I'm just talking about the benefits of Prop 32 and not talking about the costs.

Also, do you think someone should be forced to join a union just to get a government job? If that is the case, do you think the union dues that someone must pay just because he is a government employee should be used for political purposes?

The second section would take a really big chunk out of it, yes, but not entirely eliminate it. It needs to be 'future contracts for current donors' to remove all of it, and that just isn't addressed. It appears to address 'current contracts for future donors' and I think that will only eliminate about half of that problem, money side not contract side. Still the impact it has will be positive if not entirely curative.

If section 3 were limited to the paychecks of public sector employees only, I'd be fully recommending the passage even if I don't like section 1 very much at all. And that would seem to eliminate 90%-95% of the problem, so there is no need to expand the provision outside of the public sector anyway except to grab power. But to make it perfect in my eyes, they need to handle the other side of section 2, and limit section 3 to public sector employees.

 

[tsai3904]

The second section would take a really big chunk out of it, yes, but not entirely eliminate it. It needs to be 'future contracts for current donors' to remove all of it, and that just isn't addressed. It appears to address 'current contracts for future donors' and I think that will only eliminate about half of that problem, money side not contract side. Still the impact it has will be positive if not entirely curative.

If section 3 were limited to the paychecks of public sector employees only, I'd be fully recommending the passage even if I don't like section 1 very much at all. And that would seem to eliminate 90%-95% of the problem, so there is no need to expand the provision outside of the public sector anyway except to grab power. But to make it perfect in my eyes, they need to handle the other side of section 2, and limit section 3 to public sector employees.

I don't think it needs to differentiate between current and future contracts. Here's the relevant text of the bill:

85151.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and this title, no corporation, labor union, public employee labor union, government contractor, or government employer shall deduct from an employee's wages, earnings, or compensation any amount of money to be used for political purposes.

(b) This section shall not prohibit an employee from making voluntary contributions to a sponsored committee of his or her employer, labor union, or public employee labor union in any manner, other than that which is prohibited by subdivision (a), so long as all such contributions are given with that employee's written consent, which consent shall be effective for no more than one year.

To me, that says it can't be done, now and in the future, but I may be wrong.

Also, the way I see it is that the benefits far outweigh the costs. I agree it does expand its power grab but in practicality, it won't affect people. I would be very shocked to learn of just one person who has funds from their paycheck automatically deducted by their employer and forwarded to a political candidate or committee. If anyone has recurring payments, they do it by setting it up on their credit cards, through their bank accounts, or through PayPal. I just don't see it affecting anyone although I do agree that it does limit the choice to do so.

This may or may not apply but I do know that Ron Paul judges bad bills and weighs the benefits against costs. I remember during the payroll tax debate, he said he would do an analysis and if the tax breaks were greater than the unemployment extension cost, he would vote for it. I'm applying this same judgment in this situation as the benefits to me will far outweigh the costs. The unions have a stranglehold on our state politics and the crux of Prop 32 is asking the unions to raise funds from voluntary individuals instead of from people who are forced to pay because they want a government job.

 

[tsai3904]

Gunny, also, in regards to the $100 million in the death penalty proposition, that $100 million will be transferred from the state's General Fund. Knowing that, would you vote to repeal the death penalty?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

I don't think it needs to differentiate between current and future contracts. Here's the relevant text of the bill:



To me, that says it can't be done, now and in the future, but I may be wrong.

Also, the way I see it is that the benefits far outweigh the costs. I agree it does expand its power grab but in practicality, it won't affect people. I would be very shocked to learn of just one person who has funds from their paycheck automatically deducted by their employer and forwarded to a political candidate or committee. If anyone has recurring payments, they do it by setting it up on their credit cards, through their bank accounts, or through PayPal. I just don't see it affecting anyone although I do agree that it does limit the choice to do so.

This may or may not apply but I do know that Ron Paul judges bad bills and weighs the benefits against costs. I remember during the payroll tax debate, he said he would do an analysis and if the tax breaks were greater than the unemployment extension cost, he would vote for it. I'm applying this same judgment in this situation as the benefits to me will far outweigh the costs. The unions have a stranglehold on our state politics and the crux of Prop 32 is asking the unions to raise funds from voluntary individuals instead of from people who are forced to pay because they want a government job.

Wrong section from the ballotpedia site, the payroll deductions are not the part I was talking about 50%, I was talking about the prohibitions on donations from public contractors. They need to ban public contracts from donors as well as banning donors from public contracts.

 

[tsai3904]

Wrong section from the ballotpedia site, the payroll deductions are not the part I was talking about 50%, I was talking about the prohibitions on donations from public contractors. They need to ban public contracts from donors as well as banning donors from public contracts.

Yea I agree with that.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Gunny, also, in regards to the $100 million in the death penalty proposition, that $100 million will be transferred from the state's General Fund. Knowing that, would you vote to repeal the death penalty?

I have never voted for a bill that made an appropriation without an equivalent finance. ALL appropriations come from the General Fund unless it is specialized like a highway bill from a specialized highway fund. So whether it comes from the General Fund or not is irrelevant. Taking money from the general fund without financing the appropriation is a recipe for deficits and debt.

 

[WhistlinDave]

I'm voting yes on 37 as well. When they don't have an FDA and Ag dept led by Monsanto legal eagles, I'll be less demanding of labeling, but the platform is too warped here, imho. Free market consumer protections aren't allowed to function.

I still have to read through all of them in detail, but I will before I mail my ballot.

That is my take as well. Free market forces cannot ever bring about voluntary labeling or self regulation by producers of GMO foods. Because they look exactly like non-GMO foods. So how can I possibly boycott or avoid something I don't want, and apply economic pressure to producers of these foods, if I cannot tell them apart from the rest of the foods I buy? This is one instance where it seems that a regulation is actually the only means to protect my liberty.

In this instance, Liberty of the consumer (i.e. the freedom to make an informed choice about what I put into my body) is more important than liberty of the producer (the farmer and Monsanto), unless or until someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that those products are safe for human consumption over the long term. Until that is proven, then people need the ability to protect their health and safety, and the only way to do that is to know what you're buying. So if government's function is to protect liberty, then I do not see a conflict here by enacting this regulation, due to the circumstances.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

What I mean by that is, a balanced budget usually appropriates $100M for 'Project M' by taking $10M from Project A, $20M from Project B, $15M from Project C, etc and so on.

 

[WhistlinDave]

Regarding Prop 32, the LA Times calls this "A fraud to end all frauds." I will be voting No on 32.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/19/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120819

 

[tsai3904]

I have never voted for a bill that made an appropriation without an equivalent finance. ALL appropriations come from the General Fund unless it is specialized like a highway bill from a specialized highway fund. So whether it comes from the General Fund or not is irrelevant. Taking money from the general fund without financing the appropriation is a recipe for deficits and debt.

Got it. The proponents of repealing the death penalty say that it would save the state about $100 million annually. So we have repeal death penalty, possibly save $100M annually, and transfer $100M over 4 years from the General Fund to a specific fund. Is this worth voting to for or not? I am planning to vote Yes but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

 

[sailingaway]

Got it. The proponents of repealing the death penalty say that it would save the state about $100 million annually. So we have repeal death penalty, possibly save $100M annually, and transfer $100M over 4 years from the General Fund to a specific fund. Is this worth voting to for or not? I am planning to vote Yes but I would like to hear other people's opinions.

I don't think it will save because I bet they aren't counting the cost of maintaining those people through old age with medical etc. But morally I have issues, given overturned convictions based on DNA. I don't always vote on economics.

I think we need to save money on prisons by that vote to reform the three-strikes-get-life, law to take out non violent offenders, (as I read it), and by ending the drug war, as we can. But that isn't on this ballot.

 

[tsai3904]

Regarding Prop 32, the LA Times calls this "A fraud to end all frauds." I will be voting No on 32.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/aug/19/business/la-fi-hiltzik-20120819

Can you explain your reasoning?

Unions would still be able to spend money for political purposes even if Prop 32 passes. They just need to gather donations from voluntary individuals.

Things like this would still continue if Prop 32 passes or fails:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...5/auto-union-gives-1-million-obama-super-pac/

 

[tsai3904]

I don't think it will save because I bet they aren't counting the cost of maintaining those people through old age with medical etc.

I don't know the assumptions they used but I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have ignored that part in their calculation.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That is my take as well. Free market forces cannot ever bring about voluntary labeling or self regulation by producers of GMO foods. Because they look exactly like non-GMO foods. So how can I possibly boycott or avoid something I don't want, and apply economic pressure to producers of these foods, if I cannot tell them apart from the rest of the foods I buy? This is one instance where it seems that a regulation is actually the only means to protect my liberty.

In this instance, Liberty of the consumer (i.e. the freedom to make an informed choice about what I put into my body) is more important than liberty of the producer (the farmer and Monsanto), unless or until someone can prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that those products are safe for human consumption over the long term. Until that is proven, then people need the ability to protect their health and safety, and the only way to do that is to know what you're buying. So if government's function is to protect liberty, then I do not see a conflict here by enacting this regulation, due to the circumstances.

Sure they can, but just not in our current "captured regulator" environment.

Bear in mind that I actually introduced a GMO labeling bill in NC, but if we actually had a free market we wouldn't need it. Problem is that Monsanto owns the regulators, and sues the pants off of anybody who dares label their products "GMO-Free." Monsanto loses those suits, but not before they bankrupt the company doing it, so nobody has the guts to offer GMO free to their customers because they know that's a fast track to bankruptcy. Until we figure out how to deal with THAT, then I am willing to do GMO labeling.

Problem is that mandatory GMO labeling is a very anti-libertarian and anti-free market idea. My support for the idea is only an emergency band-aid until we can restore a real free market and not need it anymore. It will probably take another 15 years to bring about the conditions that allow GMO to be regulated by the free market, given the stranglehold of companies like Monsanto, so until that issue is solved, there are people out there who consifer GMO to be full-on poison, and they have a right to their conscience to decide that they do and do not want to eat.

So GMO labeling is just an emergency stop-gap. It kinda feels like I'm pulling a Paul Ryan "I'm voting against the free market to save the free market" in that particular arena, but I'm still of the same opinion.

The free market COULD handle the GMO question perfectly, but in our current environment it's strictly impossible. I support GMO labeling because I believe that consumers should have the ability to avoid GMO until we can restore the free market and allow the self-regulation of GMO's by allowing GMO-free products to self-label as such.

The logical solution would be to offer blanket lawsuit immunity for products that voluntarily self-label "GMO-Free" (so long as they are being truthful) but you can't do that on the state level because all Monsanto has to do is find one product that crosses the border and sue in that state to the same effect.