Is marching against monsanto liberty activism??

[Natural Citizen]

It is fucked up, we routinely have people here arguing in favor of govt control over private property and trying to frame it as some type of liberty bullshit.

What we have is a revolving door between government and industry representatives that repatriates representation and the very definition of government itself. By arguing in favor that Monsanto (and others in the industry) have the right to legislate individual rights away from natural citizens is also pro-government. The merge of corporation and state is called "Fascism". We call it this because that is what it is.

If Monsanto pens legislation that affects me, the citizen, does this make Monsanto "government"?

 

[specsaregood]

What we have is a revolving door between government and industry representatives that repatriates representation and the very definition of government itself. By arguing in favor that Monsanto (and others in the industry) has the right to legislate individual rights away from naatural citizens is also pro-government. The merge of corporation and state is called "Fascism". We call it this because that is what it is.

I must have missed it; exactly which individual rights is Monsanto legislating away from natural citizens?

 

[Natural Citizen]

I must have missed it; exactly which individual rights is Monsanto legislating away from natural citizens?

Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Aside from this there are currently 85 bills on GMO labeling pending in 30 states, as well as dueling bills in Congress.

 

[mrsat_98]

Monsanto is good for you.

Is that what passes for intellect in your world? Please stop voting, right now.

neg rep for an anti monsanto post? If this type of behavior passes as acceptable in your world, just keep right on worshiping it.

http://www.gematrix.org/?word=monsanto

 

[specsaregood]

Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Aside from this there are currently 85 bills on GMO labeling pending in 30 states, as well as dueling bills in Congress.

While I'm against that bill simply because I believe in the idea of the states acting fairly independently; that is a pro-freedom bill. That is the federal govt saying you can't mandate speech. That bill isn't banning voluntary labeling. Angelatc is right; we are in an upside down forum where a bill preventing mandated labeling is an anti-freedom bill. That is certainly not legislating away individual rights. Got an actual example of that or just more leftist madness?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

While I'm against that bill simply because I believe in the idea of the states acting fairly independently; that is a pro-freedom bill. That is the federal govt saying you can't mandate speech. That bill isn't banning voluntary labeling. Angelatc is right; we are in an upside down forum where a bill preventing mandated labeling is an anti-freedom bill. That is certainly not legislating away individual rights. Got an actual example of that or just more leftist madness?

Maybe I'm just in a post-workout fog, but I'm getting lost somewhere in this post; I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

Perhaps you or someone else could clarify for me, in the event that it's me and I'm just not getting it.

 

[specsaregood]

Maybe I'm just in a post-workout fog, but I'm getting lost somewhere in this post; I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

Perhaps you or someone else could clarify for me, in the event that it's me and I'm just not getting it.

The bill he linked to as an example of "exactly which individual rights is Monsanto legislating away from natural citizens? " is a federal bill that would prevent the states from passing laws forcing labeling of foods containing GMO.
1. I'm against said bill because I think the states should make up their own mind.

2. But the bill itself is pro-freedom. The bill aims to prevent governments from forcing people to label their products (mandate speech). It does not prevent voluntary labeling aka: speech.

Natural citizen thinks that preventing states from mandating speech is in someway legislating away individual rights of citizens. if anything, it is legislating rights away from state governments.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The bill he linked to as an example of "exactly which individual rights is Monsanto legislating away from natural citizens? " is a federal bill that would prevent the states from passing laws forcing labeling of foods containing GMO.
1. I'm against said bill because I think the states should make up their own mind.

2. But the bill itself is pro-freedom. The bill aims to prevent governments from forcing people to label their products (mandate speech). It does not prevent voluntary labeling aka: speech.

Natural citizen thinks that preventing states from mandating speech is in someway legislating away individual rights of citizens. if anything, it is legislating rights away from state governments.

Specs, you didn't address my question.

If Monsanto pens legislation that affects me, the citizen, does this make Monsanto "government"? Thank you...

 

[specsaregood]

Specs, you didn't address my question.
If Monsanto pens legislation that affects me, the citizen, does this make Monsanto "government"? Thank you...

No more so than if you penned legislation. And the answer is no, it does not.

 

[Natural Citizen]

...the answer is no, it does not.

Hm. OK. That's interesting. Why not?

I still have a question regarding your model of free speech with the entity but need to get a better grasp on your position here if I'm to answer the question that you present in relevant terms and to scope.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The bill he linked to as an example of "exactly which individual rights is Monsanto legislating away from natural citizens? " is a federal bill that would prevent the states from passing laws forcing labeling of foods containing GMO.
1. I'm against said bill because I think the states should make up their own mind.

2. But the bill itself is pro-freedom. The bill aims to prevent governments from forcing people to label their products (mandate speech). It does not prevent voluntary labeling aka: speech.

Natural citizen thinks that preventing states from mandating speech is in someway legislating away individual rights of citizens. if anything, it is legislating rights away from state governments.

To the extent that yet another federal law expresses the supremacy of the central government over local governments, it does harm individuals, as a more centralized government cannot be good for individual rights. But the limited matter of mandated labeling or disclosure regulations, which indeed is anti-freedom, is separate from the broader concern about the mercantilism and corporate welfare issue with regards to Monsanto (aka, Satan), which emphatically is pro-liberty.

The effect of the entanglement of big government and big business to the point where individuals literally have no recourse if victimized by a mega-corporation, does damage individual rights to life and property. I note the pro-Monsanto resources cited tend to relentlessly cast the matter in left-right paradigm terms, the surest sign the propaganda objective is to obscure these issues by keeping the public divided by the two-party paradigm. Regardless, if we are pro-liberty, we are against corporate welfare, and fascism by way of corporate controlled government, even if the left also doesn't like the latter.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The science is, of course, still unsettled with the lack of legitimate independent research. Although we are starting to see independent research evolve abroad where labeling is the norm. Labeling provides a legitimate, formal, paper trail for doctors and scientists to assess the health problems thatare said to come from these concoctions and, quite frankly, why industry here in the states lobby against a paper trail that leads back to them. I mention this in context with your comment regarding a limited matter of mandated labeling or disclosure regulations being anti-freedom.

Excellent points, btw, Peace&Freedom.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I note the pro-Monsanto resources cited tend to relentlessly cast the matter in left-right paradigm terms, the surest sign the propaganda objective is to obscure these issues by keeping the public divided by the two-party paradigm.

Cannot stress this enough. Absolutely spot on. Excellent observation.

Relevant to this phenomenon is a paper that I had shared in the updates thread...

GMO industry wants to throw substantive science out the window in favor of changing the language. We see this in many scenarios of social engineering. This one is comparable to the model we saw when global warming didn’t work out like some folks had hoped and so it had to be changed to climate change.

Monsanto does seem acutely aware that the battle between supporters and opponents of GM has heated up and is extremely fierce. Moreover, after years of accumulating what Fraley views as an unfairly bad reputation, the Gene Giant has decided to change strategy: It plans to get closer to the consumer so it can work at convincing skeptics and critics of the safety of its products and the positive effects biotechnology presumably has on world agriculture.

Monsanto admits it has a growing “credibility crisis” among consumers worldwide but it is playing an old discursive trick, asserting that this is not a problem of risk but of risk communication. According to Faus’s report, Monsanto’s lack of credibility is more complicated as illustrated by consumer rankings for ‘Most Evil Corporation of the Year."

Projected industry campaign...

Monsanto likely realizes this is more than a problem of risk communication and is instead more a question of taking control of risk characterization to manipulate and create confusion and hence inaction among the broadest consumer market segments possible. Doublethink style, education is obfuscation

Obfuscation...

“The artist in the age of digital reproduction becomes an information manager who is best when s/he recognize how to manipulate language and other symbolic discursive games, especially through what we might term systematically-distorted communication. Presumably it then becomes a simple matter of activating mass media discourse agents to define and constrain truth claims and the qualification of those deemed able to make objective truth claims by virtue of a particular (reductionist) way of knowing the world.”

Continued - World Food Prize winner outlines shift in strategy FOCUS ON CONSUMERS NOT JUST GROWERS

Also discussed here... http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anto-Updates&p=5539241&viewfull=1#post5539241

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hello folks angelatc has decided that marching against Monsanto is not liberty activism. I am glad she cleared that up thru negative iming me by private message.

(Mod delete)I will continue to hold republicans accountable.

As acptulsa reminds us, this has been a bipartisan overstepping. Leaders who function within both of the mainstream political parties parrot the language of these industries. Both provide political platforms that reflect industry narrative and that promote industry backed legislation.

Of course, the only practical way of holding either of them accountable in the area of genetically modified food and special interest lobbying specific to legislation to it would be for the citizens whom these elected and prospective electees are supposed to represent to demand a position on not only science itself but also specific to genetic modification of food. As it is, they are getting a free pass by having the luxury of not being presented with these questions as well as the luxury of not having to discuss such things in deserving context with foreign and domestic policy. Agribusiness is relevant to not only domestic policy but also foreign policy and a host of other areas yet representatives continue to parrot the industry narrative in terms of the consumption model. Presenting mercantilism as something of a free market notion. That sort of thing. Without a position on science, there is no way of determing if they are even qualified or competent to lead given the presence and influence of it where these industries relate to legislation, policy (both domestic and foreign) and all of that.

I'm speaking frankly here just because this is something that I've spent a great deal of time discussing in more depth elsewhere around the board. Power concedes nothing without a demand. Never has, never will and so it is in the best interest of the people to demand that their prospective representatives provide a position on science itself where this issue is relevant. And it is relevant across the board.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Marching doesn't do squat.

Liberty Eagle, do you recall the Civil Rights March in 1963? The Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The 14th amendment could be said to be equally relevant with regard to the March Against Monsanto. Specs never got back to me, though, so we were not able to finish that discussion or expand upon it further.

 

[fr33]

I don't like Monsanto but I'm not opposed to GMOs. Marching against wars, police, and spying seems more important.

 

[jbauer]

Marching against a company involved in the fascist system is activism for liberty no matter how you want to spin it.

Companies that are given special treatment by our government are part of the problem.

So...then all of 'em right?

 

[jbauer]

Koch ally to introduce Monsanto-backed bill to bar state GMO labeling laws

Aside from this there are currently 85 bills on GMO labeling pending in 30 states, as well as dueling bills in Congress.

You mean other then it can't be feasibly tested for, so its just another marketing 101 BS just like all the "organic" that is anything but? Monstanto doesn't give a $hit about whether you use their GMO crops.