The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[better-dead-than-fed]

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.

Not a lie, because the "oranges" label was never meant to mean any more than what they FDA says it means. No one's being forced to pay attention to labels written in the FDA's language.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Not a lie, because the "oranges" label was never meant to mean any more than what they FDA says it means. No one's being forced to pay attention to labels written in the FDA's language.

The FDA never got involved with my stranger on the side of the road.

Well, only to protect the lie. like fascism does.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

The FDA never got involved with my stranger on the side of the road.

Well, only to protect the lie. like fascism does.

Great to leave the FDA out of the transaction, but that doesn't mean it's justified to assume that "orange" implies "GMO-free".

 

[kcchiefs6465]

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

My conjecture.

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".

Accusations? There's a 60 something page thread majorly of your posts of insulting insinuations and back and forth bullshit. Sentence responses and "na na" rhetoric. I'd hate to see what I haven't read. I'm sure we agree on aspects of this. Your point is in not wishing to expand FDA power and not wanting to be forced to pay for labelling?

Seems agreeable. Now you are for ending the subsidies? Because we'd first have to end the subsidies to even argue about taxpayer dollars paying for this or that. They are paying already.

You took 'trollishly' offensively even with my serious note that I meant it with all due respect. That was directed towards your single word or sentence responses and the back and forth ridiculousness that made it into a 60+ page thread. My post quoted above, was serious. It seems you will continue this on til no end, needing the last word while going in circles with people who by and large agree with you. You're speaking of your problems with the march. I am glad they are even marching. Especially considering the majority of people I encounter could not give two shits less about any of this. By 'any' I mean the direction of the country.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Great to leave the FDA out of the transaction, but that doesn't mean it's justified to assume that "orange" implies "GMO-free".

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not? I don't think the amount of harm is relevant to my own freedom of conscience, WHICH IS the freedom of religion that our founders fought and died to win.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not?

If you're scientifically literate, the world looks very different to you and that understanding empowers you. This is where the base is lacking with this whole Monsanto thing. This is what we need from prospective representatives. Until we have a route for hearing and evaluating these representatives positions on the actual applied sciences themselves that are coming from Monsanto we'll be at the mercy of tired political narrative. Nothing practical will come from that. If you review the bulk of the debate what we see are people defending what they surmise as a free market scenario and then placing it into context with liberty yet the fact of the matter is that this is a government controlled market where Monsanto is playing both sides of the fence and writing legislation. So my question is liberty for whom? If one were to approach it from a purely political premise. Define government in the context of what role Monsanto has assumed for itself here through our elected representatives.

I agree with the rat poison analogy but would place it into more specific/relevant language. The correct route is to demand why our prospective representatives agree with Monsanto in that they can rightfully experiment with human genes from an elevated position of writing legislation. What position do these representatives have on the sciences that would make them feel as if they were leading their base in their best interest by allowing Monsanto to write legislation that enforces these glorified science experiments on the human species?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Do I not have the freedom of my own conscience to believe that rat poison could kill me? And thus the right to avoid it secreted into my orange, whether it ended up harming me or not? I don't think the amount of harm is relevant to my own freedom of conscience, WHICH IS the freedom of religion that our founders fought and died to win.

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.

Injecting rat poison into an orange and then handing it to me as though it were an orange, would be a kind of aggression. Least of all by fraud. Possibly attempted murder.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Everyone has the right to inject rat poison in oranges, and you're protected by your right not to eat them.

This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

My conjecture.

Unsupported conjectures are a dime a dozen.

Now you are for ending the subsidies?

How are my wishes relevant?

There's a 60 something page thread majorly of your posts of insulting insinuations and back and forth bullshit. Sentence responses and "na na" rhetoric. ... You took 'trollishly' offensively even with my serious note that I meant it with all due respect. That was directed towards your single word or sentence responses and the back and forth ridiculousness that made it into a 60+ page thread. My post quoted above, was serious. It seems you will continue this on til no end, needing the last word while going in circles....

I never typed "na na". Link to it, or it never happened, and you're fabricating quotes deceitfully.

Where have I "gone in circles"? Link, or it never happened.

What's your personal definition of "trolling"? As I've seen the term used, it's always foolish to accuse someone of trolling. It would have been clearer if you'd simply accused me of "single word or sentence responses"; but that would have highlighted your hypocrisy. What's your objection to "single word or sentence responses"? When you see them, why don't you use the ignore function instead of crying troll?

If you don't want me to "continue this on til no end, needing the last word" why are you asking my position on subsidies? That's entrapment.

Why are you holding me singularly responsible for both the "back" and the "forth"? That's retarded.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

Do you mean that my post was a single sentence (like your own)? Or that I posted anything at all? What definition of "trollishly" are you using? Yours is a perfect example of the foolishness of crying troll.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

This is a perfect example of 'trollishly.'

I dunno man, I suspect he genuinely believes that.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Injecting rat poison into an orange and then handing it to me as though it were an orange, would be a kind of aggression. Least of all by fraud. Possibly attempted murder.

Now you're confusing the issue. The issue here is not the mode in which the orange is handed; the issue, in your own words, is:

He sold them as "oranges."

 

[GunnyFreedom]

He sold them as "oranges."

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.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

He sold them as "oranges."

And they were oranges.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Unsupported conjectures are a dime a dozen.

Probably cheaper.

How are my wishes relevant?

How are anyone's views 'relevant?' I was asking your personal opinion so as to gauge where exactly you are going with all of this.

I never typed "na na". Link to it, or it never happened, and you're fabricating quotes deceitfully.

Might as well have.

Where have I "gone in circles"? Link, or it never happened.

Circular circles

What's your personal definition of "trolling"? As I've seen the term used, it's always foolish to accuse someone of trolling. It would have been clearer if you'd simply accused me of "single word or sentence responses". What's your objection to "single word or sentence responses"? When you see them, why don't you use the ignore function instead of crying troll?

My personal definition of a troll is someone posting simply to get an emotion from someone. One who intentionally is argumentative with vague and meaningless retorts. I hardly use the word 'troll.' (one of those words that's losing meaning) You've been acting trollishly. Posting bullshit responses hoping for a reply, feeling superior for what it is you've been calling debate.

Even if I knew how to use the ignore feature I would not.

If you don't want me to "continue this on til no end, needing the last word" why are you asking my position on subsidies? That's entrapment.

To gauge your meaning in these unending threads.

Indeed.

Why are you holding me singularly responsible for both the back and forth?

Pretty much everything that could be said has been said.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And they were oranges.

with rat poison, secretly injected into them, and then given to you. With a smile, and a thank you for your business.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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.

Right, very true, it's not a market transaction, it's aggression. But the market is better at handling, punishing, minimizing, and generally "sorting out" aggression than the state. "Better at" is an understatement. The market can actually do it. The state can't. The state does the opposite. The state is incompetent against, in fact encourages, foments, and engages in aggression on a super-massive scale, all while all its customers are wanting it to be opposing aggression. Because it doesn't work.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

with rat poison, secretly injected into them, and then given to you. With a smile, and a thank you for your business.

Now you're confusing the issue, again.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Right, very true, it's not a market transaction, it's aggression. But the market is better at handling, punishing, minimizing, and generally "sorting out" aggression than the state. "Better at" is an understatement. The market can actually do it. The state can't. The state does the opposite. The state is incompetent against, in fact encourages, foments, and engages in aggression on a super-massive scale, all while all its customers are wanting it to be opposing aggression. Because it doesn't work.

All I want to do is cut government all the way back down to the Constitution and then allow it to demonstrate it's own genius. Once it does, and as we as a people come to a deeper understanding of liberty, then amend the Constitution to make it even better. Right now, fraud is a crime and it is constitutionally empowered at the State and federal level.

Once we stuff Washington back into it's Constitutional box, then we can actually see the parts within the Constitution which do and do not work, and work to amend it from there.

The US Constitution if taken perfectly is the closest thing to a voluntaryist document in principle that the world has every created for a Constitution. It has been corrupted in a couple places, but it can only be repaired and improved once we are upon it.

This government has become so corrupt that it commits aggression against us.