The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[familydog]

Are you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? Isn't that the obvious solution under your analysis?

Again, I don't support mandatory labeling and most others here don't either. I don't know what you're talking about. I simply don't understand the outrage about adding a couple of words to an already mandated label. It's irrelevant, pointless and obfuscates the real issue of fascism in the food industry. But I'll bite and answer your question and say no. Monsanto's stolen profits are more than enough to cover the cost.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Again, I don't support mandatory labeling and most others here don't either. I don't know what you're talking about.

I'm talking about your stated positions:

No individual is harmed by adding [FDA regulations mandating GMO-labeling]

Government does not get bigger because a couple of words are added to an already mandated label.

-----------------------------------

I simply don't understand the outrage about adding a couple of words to an already mandated label. It's irrelevant, pointless and obfuscates the real issue of fascism in the food industry. But I'll ... answer your question and say no.

Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread, so I don't buy your assertion that its discussion in this thread is irrelevant, pointless, and obfuscatory.

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF?

 

[Neil Desmond]

I'm talking about your stated positions:







Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread, so I don't buy your assertion that its discussion in this thread is irrelevant, pointless, and obfuscatory.

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March?

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF?

Well seeing that my money already funds Monsanto in the form of the subsidies they receive, I really wouldn't much care if some of that money, which will be taken regardless, is used to label their deceptive food.

We can talk about being robbed to pay for their labels after we cease from being robbed to pay for their chemicals and 'corn.'

As I'm seeing it, it wouldn't cost the American taxpayers any more. Monsanto could decide how to spend our money to make it work.

It is a matter of principle, I understand that. Two wrongs might not make a right. If I am sold something that is advertised as is, it ought be what it is marketed as. Perhaps we'll never agree on that. (that a 'tomato' with added animal genes is not the same as a tomato, or that a sterile eel-fish is not the same as a salmon) That's fine. But there is a good portion of people who would, taxonomists be damned, say that when you introduce pig genes into a tomato, for example, it ceases from being a tomato as the world knows it. Whether you can visually tell the difference or not.

Monsanto's subsidies need ended. That is something that I'm sure we both can agree on?

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so?

Quite honestly if GE foods were cheaper than the regular their profits would probably go up. Could be the difference of buying chicken/pork hotdogs and beef. I think there are other reasons why they do not want their food labelled and do not want other company's food labelled as "GMO free." It could have to do with health consequences if people started to realize correlations. (just some speculation) It really wouldn't be a bad thing (GE food) if they'd get out in front of it. (some of their practices aside)

The subsidies need to end. The government collusion as well. I'd very much like to see the FDA abolished as much as the next. I want clear cut legislation that states that these creations are not the same as the regular world over understanding. You've had some very good wording of how this could be stated, Gunny has offered some good posts on how it could happen Constitutionally.

While they are forcing the labelling anyways, I think this is an insignificant side-step. They take our monies anyway. When we cut that off and abolish the FDA, then we will better posed to talk about the means of restitution should you buy something that is not what it claims to be. (something I'd like to see touched on) It is very much a violation of person.

 

[DamianTV]

What would be the problem against companies doing this VOLUNTARILY? Do they have something to hide? Oh yeah, they want to piss on our backs and make sure we are not allowed to know that it is not rain. As much as I am fully against GM foods, if any maufacturer were to actually come clean and be willing to VOLUNTARILY share that information with us, they'd actually earn my respect for the sake of being HONEST with their customers.

Now, what if CELL PHONE CONTRACTS were HONEST?

What if EULA's were HONEST and not written in LEGALESE?

What if CREDIT CARD AGREEMENTS were HONEST?

What if BANKS were HONEST?

What if CORPORATONS were HONEST?

What if POLITICIANS were HONEST?

If ANY of the above were actually true, the world would be a much better place. But these entities do not survive by being honest. They survive by being deceptive. They take advantage, manipulate perception, exploit legal loopholes, deceive, extort, intimidate and threaten their clients who are often forced into accepting a service or product by one of these mega giants against their will. Required to buy Car Insurance, and Health Insurance.

But my question still remains. Why wont any of these entites even make an effort to make a name for themselves by being HONEST with their customers? I could only imagine that an HONEST entity would actually go quite far.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Adding words to an already mandated label is the topic of this thread

And it's the wrong topic. It is that way because people are pissing their pants over the fact that the world is saying no to exposing themselves to a glorified science experiment and the folks who are saying yes to the tyranny are scrambling to change the terms of controversy thus prolonging some grain of relevance in the process of change. And that's fine, really. Perfect, actually.


bdtf, listen. Do you hear that? It sounds like thunder off in the distance. Clouds are turning grey....wind is picking up....

Oh, yes. A storm is coming.

[video=youtube;Ifa33dLp6OA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Ifa33dLp6OA[/video]

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so?

As long as it's done one penny at a time, what's the problem with increasing the income-tax rate to 100%? And what's the problem with the initiation of force against companies who decline to add labels with the information you personally and idiosyncratically choose?

P.S. What's the status with your query to the taxonomist?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Perhaps we'll never agree on that. (that a 'tomato' with added animal genes is not the same as a tomato, or that a sterile eel-fish is not the same as a salmon) That's fine. But there is a good portion of people who would, taxonomists be damned, say that when you introduce pig genes into a tomato, for example, it ceases from being a tomato as the world knows it. Whether you can visually tell the difference or not.

What's the evidence that a "good portion" of the world sees it your way?

Monsanto's subsidies need ended. That is something that I'm sure we both can agree on?

But if I agreed to that, I'd be opening myself up to accusations of "mind-masturbation aspect that this whole circle-jerk provides"; "posts on this topic having my mental gymnastics circle jerk"; having the "last word"; "bumping"; and "patting myself on the back".

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Suppose the statist bastards do get their way and companies are mandated to label GMO products; what if they pass the cost on to the consumer? That's gonna be what, somewhere in the vicinity of a whole penny for every $10k or so?

Baby steps. It's baby steps, my friend. Are you wanting to take baby steps towards freedom, or towards control?

The cost of the label, anyway, is fairly minuscule compared to damage caused by the attitude of the activism. You anti-GMO activists are taking the following, very common strategy:

We see Problem X. (In this case, people being ignorant of the GMO issue)

We should solve Problem X. (Sensible enough)

We shall solve Problem X by getting our nation-state apparatus to "Do Something"(TM).

Success! Now our nation-state has solved our problem!

You see the problem? It's just the wrong way of going about things. It's the wrong thought process. It plays into the perpetual attitude that everyone has that problems can be solved by the state. Your actions implicitly communicate that you think that the state is too small. We need bigger government. Right? I don't think that's what you actually believe. You are undermining your larger belief system, the larger cause if freedom, by following the process above.

People in general assume that any problem can be solved by government. This implies that the problem must have been caused by insufficient state intervention. Intervene more: problem solved. People in general, however, are totally wrong about this. Let's not be wrong with them!

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

And it's the wrong topic.

So why aren't you boycotting this thread?

It is that way because people are pissing their pants

You mean the Monsanto Marchers explicitly advocating state-mandated GMO-labeling?

bdtf, listen. Do you hear that? It sounds like thunder off in the distance. Clouds are turning grey....wind is picking up....

Oh, yes. A storm is coming.

Sink or swim.

All I hear is hippies crying.

 

[Qdog]

So I can make my own brand of food, with Rat poison in it... and you guys don't want anything to be done to me? Just let the free market sort it out? What about the poor few who ate my brand and died?

Now lets pretend that I have FDA, and government protection against lawsuits and prosecution like Monsanto does. I think something needs to be done. Labeling, or let the people hang those bastards from a tree.

 

[familydog]

Why aren't you willing personally to cover all costs for adding a couple of words to already-mandated labels? If the Monsanto-Marchers sought you out in person and used force to steal your money to cover the labeling costs, could you then understand objections to the government-expansion advocated by the Monsanto March and some on RPF?

With all due respect, your lack of reading comprehension is only matched by the lack of critical thinking on this subject. I don't need morality lectures considering I made it clear I don't support mandated labels of any kind. If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Just let the free market sort it out?

Yep. The free market works. Government doesn't. It just doesn't. The solution to a problem, any problem, even a problem so monumental as rat poison, is never, ever, ever the government. Not if you want a solution that works, that is. Because government doesn't work.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

... As much as I am fully against GM foods, if any maufacturer were to actually come clean and be willing to VOLUNTARILY share that information with us, they'd actually earn my respect for the sake of being HONEST with their customers. ...

... Why wont any of these entites even make an effort to make a name for themselves by being HONEST with their customers? I could only imagine that an HONEST entity would actually go quite far.

I find it remarkable that companies are declining to add labels saying:

This food is not from recombinant DNA and RNA techniques, cell fusion, gene deletion or doubling, introduction of exogenous genetic material, alteration of the position of a gene, or similar procedure,

Apparently, companies are free to put this on labels, and if they're not doing that, it's because Monsanto-Marchers are misdirecting their demands (i.e., "pissing their pants").

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

With all due respect, your lack of reading comprehension is only matched by the lack of critical thinking on this subject. I don't need morality lectures considering I made it clear I don't support mandated labels of any kind. If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.

Really I was only addressing your admitted failure to "understand" objections to government-expansion.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

If it makes you feel good about yourself defending a quasi-state institution whose existence is dependent on regulations, then more power to you.

You have the correct position, familydog. Indeed, all labeling laws must be repealed, and all agricultural intervention as well.

But to agitate for government action to solve the problem undermines your libertarian message. If you hate Monsanto because of the state's intervention in propping them up, then proposing a solution which consists of state intervention completely muddles any libertarian message you may have been trying to spread. It then seems you're not against state intervention at all, you're just against Monsanto.

Opposing the government-agricultural complex is a perfectly libertarian position. It's just the specifics of this labeling issue which is technically anti-libertarian in the policy prescription and totally anti-libertarian and lousy as an activist strategy.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

So I can make my own brand of food, with Rat poison in it... and you guys don't want anything to be done to me? Just let the free market sort it out? What about the poor few who ate my brand and died?

Are you suggesting that producing, selling, and buying rat-poison should be criminalized; and everyone taxed for enforcement of the prohibition; innocent bystanders downed in shoot-outs between black-market rat-poison cartels and a new Federal Department instituted to wage war against the cartels?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

double-post deleted

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Yep. The free market works. Government doesn't. It just doesn't. The solution to a problem, any problem, even a problem so monumental as rat poison, is never, ever, ever the government. Not if you want a solution that works, that is. Because government doesn't work.

The objection is really that you have some stranger selling oranges, ripe from the tree. Only he doesn't tell you that he injected them all with a tiny little bit of rat poison because it hooks you and it will keep you coming back until you are dead. He sold them as "oranges." wouldn't that be an aggression? If you wanted to buy arsenic you would have asked for the arsenic oranges. The whole sale was based on a lie. That's not free market, especially when that lie is protected in court by the federal orange grower board.