The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[Danan]

Is it okay for Monsanto to dictate to farmers what kind of seeds they can use and have it backed up by our government ergo dictating what kind of foods are available for consumption? How is that libertarian? They want all seed stock to be round up ready and heirloom seeds to be eradicated. Which is why they are being sued. However with former Monsanto execs in positions of power within the administration how do you think that will work out? They are fighting the consumer every step of the way as well as using tax dollars to promote their policies around the world. Please explain how supporting that is a libertarian position.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...anto-Updates&p=5051486&viewfull=1#post5051486


http://www.naturalnews.com/031532_Monsanto_lobbyists.html

I'm not a friend of Monsanto. They are not a free market company and nobody said they were.

However, this evil should be fought at its roots. The problem with Monsanto is not that grocery stores are not required to label the food they sell properly. As a movement, libertarians should fight the violations of the free market in the agriculture sector, not destroy what's left of free markets in the trade sector in order to "combat" other problems.

For instance the ridiculous process of patenting food DNA. Get rid of intellectual property and Monsanto could deflate to a non-problematic size or even vanish.

 

[Carlybee]

I'm not a friend of Monsanto. They are not a free market company and nobody said they were.

However, this evil should be fought at its roots. The problem with Monsanto is not that grocery stores are not required to label the food they sell properly. As a movement, libertarians should fight the violations of the free market in the agriculture sector, not destroy what's left of free markets in the trade sector in order to "combat" other problems.

For instance the ridiculous process of patenting food DNA. Get rid of intellectual property and Monsanto could deflate to a non-problematic size or even vanish.

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

 

[Danan]

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

Then how would mandatory labeling ever pass? If it's impossible to change the fact that Monsanto is in bed with government and is lobbying them to enact terrible anti-free market laws, why would you expect this law, that supposedly hurts Monsanto, to pass?

And if it is possible to enact mandatory labeling in order to hurt Monsanto, why is it impossible to change the real root of the problem, while not violating libertarian principles in the process?

Mandatory labeling either never going to pass anyway or the wrong approach.

 

[Acala]

And how do you propose to do that when Monsanto is not only in bed with the government through lobbying but has tentacles holding government offices not to mention a former friend on the Supreme Court?

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?

 

[Carlybee]

Then how would mandatory labeling ever pass? If it's impossible to change the fact that Monsanto is in bed with government and is lobbying them to enact terrible anti-free market laws, why would you expect this law, that supposedly hurts Monsanto, to pass?

And if it is possible to enact mandatory labeling in order to hurt Monsanto, why is it impossible to change the real root of the problem, while not violating libertarian principles in the process?

Mandatory labeling either never going to pass anyway or the wrong approach.

I actually would prefer no manadatory labeling for reasons you mention but perhaps the push for it would incite voluntary labeling. The problem is there are so many products now containing GMO why would the producers cut their own throats? I do think that keeping up the pressure about Monsanto might eventually scare the crap out of those looking for votes the next election. And regardless of how it happens, we still need to know what is in our food. How do you propose we find that out without it being on the label? Just take their word for it? I never said it wasn't a conundrum.

 

[Carlybee]

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?

\\

Obviously government needs to be pressured to cut ties with Monsanto. It is as corporatist a relationship as the one they have with the banking industry. Do you know how to make that happen?

 

[familydog]

And this is exactly why your approach of passing yet another law is doomed to fail. Don't you see the logical disconnect in making the above statement and then saying "that another law enforced by that same government will fix the problem government created in the first place?

So, let me ask this...if corn or soy based ingredients were not required to show up on mandatory nutrition labels, would you be against adding them to the list? No libertarian or even conservative claims this will fix anything. The real issue here is consistency. Why waste your time speaking against a complete labeling system when you could be speaking against mandatory labeling in general?

 

[Acala]

So you telling people what to eat is not nanny-ish how?

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You are free to ignore my advice. Most people do! But stop bitching that you are being poisoned. You don't have to eat gmo products if you don't want to.

We shouldn't HAVE to spend time and money trying to discern what is NOT toxic just because most of it probably is.

You want government to take care of that for you! Hahahahahaha! That has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?

And it is our place to ensure that government GETS un-corrupt.

That will ONLY happen by pulling its teeth, not giving it more.

The guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.

I don't buy the argument that only the rich can eat healthy. You don't have to eat organic to avoid gmo. Stop eating grain and legume products and you are about 98% there.

Look, the problem is that the vast majority of people don't agree with you about gmos. If they did, market forces would change the market. The majority of people don't even know what gmo means, and of those who do most don't care. But instead of trying to educate them, you want to use force to change the market. That is the lazy way and the lazy way won't work. But it is ALWAYS the way when someone can't get society to agree with them, they resort to force. oh, they always have some compelling reason why it needs to be done THIS time, just like you do. But it is the wrong way.

 

[Acala]

So, let me ask this...if corn or soy based ingredients were not required to show up on mandatory nutrition labels, would you be against adding them to the list? No libertarian or even conservative claims this will fix anything. The real issue here is consistency. Why waste your time speaking against a complete labeling system when you could be speaking against mandatory labeling in general?

I oppose mandatory labels. I believe the FDA should be abolished. I do not support adding a single line of laws or regulations.

 

[Acala]

\\

Obviously government needs to be pressured to cut ties with Monsanto. It is as corporatist a relationship as the one they have with the banking industry. Do you know how to make that happen?

I object to the corporate business form entirely. I would like to see the personal income tax phased out and the corporate income tax increased steadily to make up the loss. I also support an end to all new corporate charters and all new corporate land acquisitions. That, plus the abolition of the department of agriculture and the FDA should take care of the Monsanto problem.

 

[familydog]

I oppose mandatory labels. I believe the FDA should be abolished. I do not support adding a single line of laws or regulations.

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

 

[Acala]

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Liberty stands or falls on principle. Either you advocate the use of government force against people to make them do what you think they should do with their own lives and property or you don't. As soon as you say that it is sometimes okay to invade people's freedom at gunpoint, you have lost the battle, even if you really don't like the people and are really offended by what they are doing. If you act to broaden the scope of government force - even by a gnat's ass - you have compromised the principles and you ARE working against liberty. If you say that MORE government is the answer here, you have essentially said that liberty fails.

 

[jllundqu]

Liberty stands or falls on principle. Either you advocate the use of government force against people to make them do what you think they should do with their own lives and property or you don't. As soon as you say that it is sometimes okay to invade people's freedom at gunpoint, you have lost the battle, even if you really don't like the people and are really offended by what they are doing. If you act to broaden the scope of government force - even by a gnat's ass - you have compromised the principles and you ARE working against liberty. If you say that MORE government is the answer here, you have essentially said that liberty fails.

Done.... /thread +++ REP

Now was that so hard?

 

[Carlybee]

I'm not forcing anyone to do anything. You are free to ignore my advice. Most people do! But stop bitching that you are being poisoned. You don't have to eat gmo products if you don't want to.



You want government to take care of that for you! Hahahahahaha! That has worked so well in the past, what could go wrong?



That will ONLY happen by pulling its teeth, not giving it more.



I don't buy the argument that only the rich can eat healthy. You don't have to eat organic to avoid gmo. Stop eating grain and legume products and you are about 98% there.

Look, the problem is that the vast majority of people don't agree with you about gmos. If they did, market forces would change the market. The majority of people don't even know what gmo means, and of those who do most don't care. But instead of trying to educate them, you want to use force to change the market. That is the lazy way and the lazy way won't work. But it is ALWAYS the way when someone can't get society to agree with them, they resort to force. oh, they always have some compelling reason why it needs to be done THIS time, just like you do. But it is the wrong way.

The government is using force right now and trying to use force to keep GMO ingredients off labels. Labeling is already mandatory. If I am being forced to eat em they should be forced to tell me if they are in there altho yes would prefer the force be market driven otherwise without busting their chops its the fox and henhouse scenario. I don't care what you say you cannot avoid them altogether and they are not just in grains. They are in fruits and vegetables and most prepared items. I do avoid them as much as I can.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

It seems to me you are trollishly (with all due respect) advocating for an entirely free market system.

Only idiots cry troll.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Who has given them the right to decide when something ceases from being one thing into another? (especially in the case of pig-matos and the religious consequence some may feel)

You're free to make up your own definitions for words, and then sue yourself, claiming you've been defrauded by your own idiosyncratic definitions.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

I've heard that they are ... contaminating non GMO crops then suing those farmers on IP infringement grounds - just more aggression to me.

I've heard of nothing stopping you from contaminating their crops and then suing them on IP infringement grounds.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

The government is using force right now and trying to use force to keep GMO ingredients off labels.

That rumor has been debunked.

If I am being forced to eat em

That premise can't be taken seriously.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Advocates of mandatory GMO labeling are not the enemy. They didn't create the fascistic food industry. They didn't create the rules. They are merely responding to corrupt and oppressive corporation-written regulations that have tangible and harmful consequences on peaceful individuals. No individual is harmed by adding a few characters to a ingredient label which is already mandatory. The only harm comes to a corporations bottom line which is indirectly stolen from small and local producers. The reality is that mandatory nutrition and ingredient labels are not going away anytime soon. Fighting against adding the words "contains GMOs" does nothing to advance the cause of liberty.

Fighting government-overreach by advocating government-expansion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

They guy who can only afford to eat Ramen noodles has just as much right to poison free food as those of us who can buy organics.

If the grain in ramen were not high-yield semi-dwarf, the ramen would be a lot less affordable. Just saying...

There are economic realities to consider here. If the anti-GMO statists' dreams came true and all the states of the world suddenly banned the predominant strands of wheat, corn, and soy (all of which are GMO) a massive food shortage seems pretty likely. Even with a gradual "phase-out" ala light bulbs I think there would be massive starvation. These new strands are more efficient. There's a reason they've taken over --they make good economic sense. Yes, the gov't goons have helped too, but even in a free market they'd likely have taken over.