The case for mandatory GMO labeling – even if you believe in limited government and the fr

[liberdom]

Let's forget government regulation. The organic industry need to take it upon themselves to label their food packages "non-GMO," and we'll buy them. Simple solution.

agreed. And I've gladly chosen to buy cheap, organic, GMO or not.

 

[liberdom]

GMOs are a threat to the balance of nature, PERIOD.

balance of nature? What have you been reading? Georgia Guidestones?

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Let's forget government regulation. The organic industry need to take it upon themselves to label their food packages "non-GMO," and we'll buy them. Simple solution.

It's not that easy. Though a lot of companies have been winning, it was like climbing a mountain just being able to package milk as non-hmo. Some companies still put a disclaimer that it hasn't been proven the hormones they put in some milk affects health negatively, thanks to corporations.

 

[liberdom]

It's not that easy. Though a lot of companies have been winning, it was like climbing a mountain just being able to package milk as non-hmo. Some companies still put a disclaimer that it hasn't been proven the hormones they put in some milk affects health negatively, thanks to corporations.

Vegans aren't complaining, and not everybody is as picky as some people here like to think, some people simply can't afford "better choices" even if they cared. So I agree, it's not that simple, because we're assuming the market even wants it this way.

 

[ProIndividual]

You can't fight if you're starving to death. Take away the ability of a state to get seeds (after everything has terminator gene) and they won't be able to grow food. How long will ground hogs and squirrels last?

edit: BTW, the same corp.s that control the seed are in bed with the empire at the moment.

Why would you be starving to death when you have the gun, and they don't? Guy with gun trumps guy with ear of corn.

And I'm not one that believes companies are worse than the state, sorry. I'm against coporate personhood, and I'm not anti-company.

All which you fear is the result of barriers to entry into the market via regulation that has nothing to do with harm or fraud, hence the companies you are angry at (and for good reason) have more than market level market share and competitors that would otherwise bankrupt them have an inability to compete with them effectiviely, or at all. Also, when they harm people, the state won't hold them liable. When they lose a lawsuit, responsible parties do not go to prison, and fines are not collected from the responsible persons who commited the acts, it's added to the price at sale for future consumers, and the little guy who did nothing but own stock (made no decisions in the company) pays via devalued stocks.

Corporate personhood (a creation of the state) and the state are the problem.

 

[ProIndividual]

Yes, I'm quite sure it is the state sanctioned dictionaries fault that the definition of the word disagrees with you.

But the word is a philsophy...anarchy is just a society organized according to anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy about an enlightened transition to stateless society. None of that implies a lack of law. I would like you to point me to the book by an anarchist author that advocates no law. If you find one, it will be an illegalist, an egoist, or an insurrectionist...2 of them are leftists, the third is a non-philosophy because it has no ethical theory (it's an ideology therefore). Every other of the dozens of types of anarchism call for law, defense, etc.

I suppose the dictionary doesn't Pc-up the "N" word? I have a 1930s dictionary that says 'black race, woolen hair, large lips, wide nostrils, anyone but Aboriginal Australians or Asian Indians'....but that's not the lie our dictionary pukes at us now, is it?

When I was a kid they taught in dictionaries the "N" word meant "low, uneducated, loathesome person"...as to lie to us and say even a white person could be one...to make it seem non-racial. The internet is great, as now the word is returning to its true meaning...a racial term, nothing more.

The dictionary is full of PC BS. Anyone who doesn't realize that needs to study a bit...especially philosophy.

Anarchy (from the ancient Greek ἀναρχία, anarchia, meaning "absence of a leader"), has more than one definition. In the United States, the term "anarchy" typically is used to refer to a society without a publicly enforced government or violently enforced political authority.[1][2]

And even that definition is wrong. "An-" means "without", "archon" was the term for city-state rulers in Ancient Greece. "Anarchy" means "without rulers", not without leaders. We believe a football coach should be free to lead a team, a teacher to lead a class, etc...those are VOLUNTARY hierarchy. We only oppose compulsory hierarchy.

If we didn't believe in leaders we couldn't have jobs...lol.

Outside of the US, and by most individuals that self-identify as anarchists, it implies a system of governance, mostly theoretical at a nation state level although there are a few successful historical examples,[5] that goes to lengths to avoid the use of coercion, violence, force and authority, while still producing a productive and desirable society.[6]

That's what it means inside the USA too..again the definition isn't exactly right. The difference comes down to, in reality, leftists saying free markets are "coercion", and Americans pointing out "not if it's voluntary". Leftists would ban free markets...we point out in America that banning something implies coercion (not very anarchist of them).

Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be immoral,[7][8] or alternatively as opposing authority in the conduct of human relations.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Proponents of anarchism (known as "anarchists") advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[9][15][16] voluntary associations.[17][18]

No mistake there...other than the owrd "political". Anarchists seek to abolish the state (compulsory, as opposed to voluntary, government and it's forced monopolies on law and defense based on geographic area)...which logically abolishes politics. Politics is about fighting over who rules who...if you have no rulers, then there is no such thing. All we have in a philosophy...the "political" modifier is not necessary. It's like calling Socratic philosophy (Socrates) a "political philosophy". No, it was just a philosophy.

I don't think I need to quote for you our legal philosophy...I'd bet you trust me that we have one (or have heard of it before). I'll spare you...but we do not advocate in any way, shape, or form a lawless society. There are no "anomists", only anarchists (where anomie is lawlessness).

I'd also like to point out our rightful place in libertarianism for the record...

Libertarianism refers to political philosophies that emphasize freedom, liberty, and voluntary association. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition. Libertarians generally advocate a society with a government of small scope relative to most present day societies or no government whatsoever.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines libertarianism as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[1] Libertarian historian George Woodcock defines libertarianism as the philosophy that fundamentally doubts authority and advocates transforming society by reform or revolution.[2] Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[3] According to the U.S. Libertarian Party, libertarianism is the advocacy of a government that is funded voluntarily and limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.[4]

Now, enough telling me what the meaning of the word "anarchy" is...as colloquially it means "chaos", because state schools have a vested interest in telling you a society organized according to the principles that leads to its very abolition is "chaos"...precisely because it's not at all chaos, and precisely because it's an existential threat to the state. What it means is voluntary organization of society, panarchism in law, and panarchist synthesis in economics.

 

[Bman]

Government should this, government should that blah, blah, blah.

My wife is a vegetarian. She wants that all of our house hold cleaners, soaps, etc are not animal tested. Every time I go shopping for these items I have to do some research if a brand I have previously validated is not available. Sometimes I cannot tell on a certain brand, but have never not succeeded in finding that item in another brand that fits.

Some personal responsibility would go a long way on this rather than watching that dip shit Bill Maher and friends talk nonsense.

 

[liberdom]

Government should this, government should that blah, blah, blah.

My wife is a vegetarian. She wants that all of our house hold cleaners, soaps, etc are not animal tested. Every time I go shopping for these items I have to do some research if a brand I have previously validated is not available. Sometimes I cannot tell on a certain brand, but have never not succeeded in finding that item in another brand that fits.

Some personal responsibility would go a long way on this rather than watching that dip shit Bill Maher and friends talk nonsense.

yep. People wanting government to mandate labeling is like people wanting goverment to mandate warnings on investments and loans.

 

[row333au]

GM grass linked to Texas cattle deaths

Tifton 85 grass suddenly started producing cyanide gas, poisoning cattle - cyanide are transferable to meat if introduce in blood streams to muscle fibers

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57459357/gm-grass-linked-to-texas-cattle-deaths/

 

[Travlyr]

But the word is a philsophy...anarchy is just a society organized according to anarchism. Anarchism is a philosophy about an enlightened transition to stateless society.

More bullshit from ProIndividual. Anarchy is a state of mind where stealing other's intellectual property is okay, and misquoting people is alright as long as it further's an agenda. Anarchy is not honest as constantly proved by ProIndividual. They are simply dishonest people and don't give a damn about anybody but themselves. Anarchists lie in order to keep the powers-that-be in power. The oligarchs do not want to obey the law and neither do anarchists. They are on the same team. Hegelian Dialect.

See how ProIndividual cut the last 1/2 of my quote out? He did that to be dishonest. Rothbard himself is the one who claimed to support minimal government as I have included the full quote in my signature.

"You guys have been lying to your recruits for years. Rothbard advocates for minimal government..." - Travlyr

They just keep on lying to see if you will believe their bullshit.

 

[thoughtomator]

ProIndividual is simply a clever troll who is spinning the conditions of feudalism as some sort of utopia, in outright denial of any non-financial aspect to human liberty. Should he ever have the opportunity to engage in any of his social experiment fantasies, he will find the free market in violence will assert itself most convincingly.

Given that his philosophy, masked in whatever terms, is existentially hostile to the foundations of human liberty (and thus is hostile to Ron Paul), I fail to see why he is tolerated here.

 

[Working Poor]

I think you're missing the point. Government exists to preserve the righs of men against all who would wish to violate them. If GMOs are a legitimate threat to our liberties, it is the duty of government to enforce laws that protect consumers from false advertising.

they are a legitimate threat to our health thereby also a threat to our liberty.

 

[MelissaWV]

they are a legitimate threat to our health thereby also a threat to our liberty.

Threats to our health:

Bad air and water (so we need the EPA to protect our liberties).
Terrorists (so we need the CIA, NSA, TSA, etc).
Unsafe items coming on board planes (so we need the TSA).
Lack of exercise (so we really should have a DOMYA - Department of Moving Your Ass).
Genetics (we should probably start looking to restrict the breeding of people with bad cells).

Sadly, the "it's a threat to health so it's a threat to liberty" argument leads to precisely that road.

 

[BamaAla]

If the GMOs caused dead zones, and eventually would threaten us all, then that would threaten their business...so it wouldn't be worth it to create a finite business out of an infitinte demand like food. It's like saying unregulated loggiing leads to deforrestization...when in reality only public lands face the tragedy of the commons. Private lands (like 99% of logging lands are private) have no such issue, because the loggers don't want to log themselves out of an industry. They maintain it via property rights...they replant forrests and regrow them, and cut down less than than grow, and slower than they grow. Forrest that get logged have usually been logged numerous times, once or twice each, every generation.

I'd bet dollars to donuts these "dead zones" are public land, not private.

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

 

[liberdom]

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

But they ARE destroying the land! The media is just hiding it from you! What if it does get to Iowa later? Do you only worry about your own backyard?

 

[thoughtomator]

Threats to our health:

Bad air and water (so we need the EPA to protect our liberties).
Terrorists (so we need the CIA, NSA, TSA, etc).
Unsafe items coming on board planes (so we need the TSA).
Lack of exercise (so we really should have a DOMYA - Department of Moving Your Ass).
Genetics (we should probably start looking to restrict the breeding of people with bad cells).

Sadly, the "it's a threat to health so it's a threat to liberty" argument leads to precisely that road.

On the other hand, dismissing out of hand any kind of threat is not correct either, as then you dismiss murder, rape, arson, robbery, and so on. Anarchism only works if everyone is civilized to begin with, and humans do not take to civilization all that easily.

 

[Travlyr]

That's the problem: the dead zones don't effect corn growers in Iowa; they kill wildlife in the gulf. If GMs destroyed the crop land, they'd be gone tomorrow; unfortunately, the problem is way down the Mississippi (and various other places around the world.)

While I do not like the idea of spraying herbicide and insecticide on food, I do not have enough information to determine if GMO is bad or good. Evolution is GMO. GMO has been around for centuries. Has anyone studied this? If so, please share.

 

[MelissaWV]

On the other hand, dismissing out of hand any kind of threat is not correct either, as then you dismiss murder, rape, arson, robbery, and so on. Anarchism only works if everyone is civilized to begin with, and humans do not take to civilization all that easily.

When did I say that we should dismiss threats? I am saying the Government is not the one to call for this one. Getting into the habit of "save me Government" when one's health is threatened is an oft-repeated first step down a very slippery slope.

 

[liberdom]

While I do not like the idea of spraying herbicide and insecticide on food, I do not have enough information to determine if GMO is bad or good. Evolution is GMO. GMO has been around for centuries. Has anyone studied this? If so, please share.

Conspiracy theorists certainly have "studied it". While you are correct evolution is genetic modification, but I think there's a point to be made that human modification and human selection may differ from natural selection. This isn't saying its bad, and I think its unfair that conspiracy theorists and fearmongers blow that out of proportion, always assuming humans must fail if they mess with nature.

 

[Travlyr]

Conspiracy theorists certainly have "studied it". While you are correct evolution is genetic modification, but I think there's a point to be made that human modification and human selection may differ from natural selection. This isn't saying its bad, and I think its unfair that conspiracy theorists and fearmongers blow that out of proportion, always assuming humans must fail if they mess with nature.

You throw the word conspiracy theorist around like confetti. Conspiracy is real. Theories are real. Some theories prove to be facts with the scientific method of proof. That is the best we have at the moment. I'm okay with that.

What we are discussing is the fact that Monsanto, and others, have developed seeds resistant to herbicide and insecticide in order to increase production and profits. Is is good to spray chemical herbicide, and insecticide, on plants that humans ingest? I doubt it, but I do not know. I'm looking for someone who knows.