The Libertarian Case AGAINST Mandatory GMO Labeling

[GunnyFreedom]

 

[GunnyFreedom]

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Pretty much everything that could be said has been said.

So why are you still here?

I was asking your personal opinion so as to gauge where exactly you are going with all of this.

Where I'm going is irrelevant to the question of what policy is best. I'm not asking you to attend me personally, so if you do that, it's on you.

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.

What's your objection to being "argumentative" in a discussion about politics on a forum about politics. You don't mind appearing hypocritical?

Your emotional reaction is your responsibility alone. Only an idiot would presume to know my motives, intent, feelings, or hopes; only an obsessive buffoon would trip head over heels for character-strings he perceives as "vague and meaningless bullshit". If you choose to dedicate yourself to me, you will be by no stretch the first; but that's on you.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

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

That'll be a long wait for a train that don't come. Giving a group of people a monopoly on resolving disputes, including disputes they themselves are a party to, is not genius. It's a recipe for serial genocide. Government does not work. It never has worked. It never will work. Everything it does, has done, or will do is a complete disaster and failure and waste. You cannot deny this. We all know this. We can see it every day.

Right now, fraud is a crime and it is constitutionally empowered at the State and federal level.

Nope. There is no authority delegated in the Constitution to make legislation regarding fraud. Not there. Doesn't exist. A1 S8.

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.

Have you studied the Articles of Confederation?

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

That's true. It does. That's what it means to be a government. If you don't aggress on people, you're not a government.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

That'll be a long wait for a train that don't come. Giving a group of people a monopoly on resolving disputes, including disputes they themselves are a party to, is not genius. It's a recipe for serial genocide. Government does not work. It never has worked. It never will work. Everything it does, has done, or will do is a complete disaster and failure and waste. You cannot deny this. We all know this. We can see it every day.

Nope. There is no authority delegated in the Constitution to make legislation regarding fraud. Not there. Doesn't exist. A1 S8.

Those that are not delegated or denied are reserved to the States or the people.

Have you studied the Articles of Confederation?
That's true. It does. That's what it means to be a government. If you don't aggress on people, you're not a government.

I like that we the States have a weapon and a shield against fedgov when they come to aggress against us. That was the American form of government. It is why we were once free, and now are not.

It is what the Constitution says.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

Woah, back up; are you saying that they're actually trying to prevent companies from labeling their products as GMO free? A statist ban on being allowed to label one's own products with the facts/truth? Such a thing would be a 1st Amendment infringement.

Well, whatever the case may be, my point was that it's not a big deal at all to me to pay an extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food to let me know that it's real or fake. I care about getting specifically what I'm after, not some cheap, phony, altered, off-track imitation that I have no idea how unhealthy or maybe even how dangerous it is. If it's real, meaning it's not GE, go ahead and charge me the extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food. I don't mind paying for that; it's information that helps me navigate through and avoid what I want to avoid & I have a fundamental right to engage in trade by paying to get information that the entity I'm trading with is willing to provide.

It's better than throwing away $10,000 on garbage that's probably unhealthy, harmful, or doesn't provide nearly the same amount of nourishment or fulfillment of dietary needs. I'd probably end up having to toss something I bought that doesn't taste any good, because I didn't know it was GE when I bought it because they didn't disclose this, or in other words falsely claimed it was something else. Without access to the necessary information, I wouldn't be surprised if people end up wasting more money because the market is plagued with unlabeled genetically engineered stuff. That's terrible for the economy.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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.

I don't mind what they do as long as they're not being dishonest. It's all this dishonesty that's ruining society. I guess the only way to get people to stop the decay of society is to try to get as many people as possible to start caring about it.

 

[Neil Desmond]

As long as it's done one penny at a time, what's the problem with increasing the income-tax rate to 100%?

Huh? What do taxes or a particular rate have to do with this discussion? I don't see the connection.

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?

:facepalm: I'm perplexed. Maybe I'm an idiot. For some odd reason I was under the apparently wrong impression that you comprehended the situation. The initiation of force in such situations is itself the problem; it's a problem that results from statist mandates. People are opposed to such things because they're bad for the economy, meaning bad for society. My position is that false advertising is also bad for the economy, meaning the same thing: it's bad for society.

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

So far I haven't heard back from him.

 

[Neil Desmond]

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

I'm not sure what you mean by freedom or control, but if by "freedom" you mean liberty, and by "control" you mean forcing people to do something a certain way, regardless of whether or not it's the best or only way to do that something, then I'm for freedom and opposed to 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!

I might happen to be anti-GMO, but I don't consider myself an anti-GMO activist. I would be more accurately attributed as being anti-false-advertising.

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!

I'm not an activist for nor even in favor of state-mandated labeling of GMO products.

 

[Neil Desmond]

Now you're confusing the issue, again.

If someone is selling oranges without rat poison injected into them, then they may label them rat-poison-free oranges. They may also simply label them oranges without the "rat-poison-free" part, since it is not necessary to label something with what it isn't or doesn't contain. On the other hand, if someone is selling oranges with rat poison injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had rat poison injected into them. Here's an alternative way an orange with rat poison injected into it can be labeled that doesn't require explicitly stating that the object in question has rat poison injected into it: "DO NOT EAT THIS OR FEED TO ANIMALS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO KILL!"

 

[CCTelander]

So why aren't you boycotting this thread?



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



All I hear is hippies crying.

This explains a lot.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

if someone is selling oranges with rat poison injected into them, then they must not label them oranges without also disclosing that they had rat poison injected into them.

According to what authority?

 

[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?

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

My position is that false advertising is also bad for the economy, meaning the same thing: it's bad for society.

So what's the problem with initiating force against companies who advertise honestly but remain silent on certain issues which you idiosyncratically value?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So what's the problem with initiating force against companies who advertise honestly but remain silent on certain issues (GF- ^^ arsenic secretly injected into oranges) which you idiosyncratically value?

Life. Pretty much the first and most important thing that governments were instituted amongst men to protect.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Woah, back up; are you saying that they're actually trying to prevent companies from labeling their products as GMO free? A statist ban on being allowed to label one's own products with the facts/truth? Such a thing would be a 1st Amendment infringement.

But there's not really an FDA rule against labeling GMO-free products as GMO-free. Such a rule would leave a paper trail; but all you'll find is unsubstantiated rumor circulated after unsubstantiated rumor. Could the rumor have been planted by Monsanto's corporate competitors, and the corporate-hating rumor-mill acting here as unwitting dupes?

Well, whatever the case may be, my point was that it's not a big deal at all to me to pay an extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food to let me know that it's real or fake. I care about getting specifically what I'm after, not some cheap, phony, altered, off-track imitation that I have no idea how unhealthy or maybe even how dangerous it is. If it's real, meaning it's not GE, go ahead and charge me the extra 1 cent for every $10,000 worth of food. I don't mind paying for that; it's information that helps me navigate through and avoid what I want to avoid & I have a fundamental right to engage in trade by paying to get information that the entity I'm trading with is willing to provide.

It's better than throwing away $10,000 on garbage that's probably unhealthy, harmful, or doesn't provide nearly the same amount of nourishment or fulfillment of dietary needs. I'd probably end up having to toss something I bought that doesn't taste any good, because I didn't know it was GE when I bought it because they didn't disclose this, or in other words falsely claimed it was something else.

And your other point is that it's okay with you if the government initiates force against others who don't want to fund labeling of certain information which you idiosyncratically value.

Without access to the necessary information, I wouldn't be surprised if people end up wasting more money because the market is plagued with unlabeled genetically engineered stuff.

But even without the proposed government-expansion in issue, no one is "without access to the necessary information".

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Life. Pretty much the first and most important thing that governments were instituted amongst men to protect.

So your position is that government should be expanded without limit in order to prevent people from harming themselves?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

So your position is that government should be expanded without limit in order to prevent people from harming themselves?

American government has limits. They are called "the Constitution," and today the government has exploded far beyond them into a monstrosity that defies any recognition from our founders intent.

 

[better-dead-than-fed]

Life. Pretty much the first and most important thing that governments were instituted amongst men to protect.

And your position is that government should be expanded in order to prevent people from harming themselves?

 

[GunnyFreedom]

And your position is that government should be expanded in order to prevent people from harming themselves?

That doesn't sound like any position I have ever held, no.

To begin with 'protecting people from themselves' is a gross folly. Secondly, my only goal is to reduce the fascistic power now oppressing the free market and the marketplace of ideas.