19 votes

GMO vs. Liberty: Even Those in the Liberty Movement Demand Socialism

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


Forget the labels... Just ban the fake food!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Nope. Not true.

Green house production is the future. 80-90% less water consumption and much more production density per sqft. Grocery stores producing much of their produce section in the roof greenhouse. Less trucks on the road shipping overseas produce. More homes with greenhouses, more community gardens, urban grow spaces...

Even if the prevailing order stays in power, and GMO's continues to be peddled, the sheer pressure of the organic and local movement will see to this. Agriculture is the one bright spot going for this continent.

This post was a response to another post further down saying we need GMO's to feed the world. Sorry I didn't post it where I intended.


If I wanted to replace mandatory state cash assistance programs with silver assistance programs to aid indigent classes with sound money strategies would that be considered socialist or libertarian?

the REAL difference IS that socialism can have libertarian policy to effect human action in a liberating way. There's nothing immoral about that; it competes with communism and works against the establishment.

this underestimates the structure of the classes by equating all socialism with communism.

p.s. the reality is that creating sound money strategies out of indigent classes would flip the democratic party upside down... and may God willing flip the stars back to upright on the Republican ticket.

Get your head in the game

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

If allegory wants to sell me

If allegory wants to sell me a box with corn in it, and the outside of the box clearly has no labels oin it identifying what type of corn, whether or not it is GMO, what the nutritional facts are, etc

And if I WANT to buy this bot, caveat emptor, would you interfere in this A-B transaction?

Would you force him to label it to your satisfaction?

Would you claim that this transaction, that YOU were no part of, that BOTH people who were a part of consented to the extent of their involvement, should be interfered with?

The Parties to the Contract aren't exactly people, they're MNC's

and that is not a free market so policy matters.

Since under the FDA GMO's are GRATS- Generally Recognized as Safe.

Grats means no need for labeling.

No labeling means no traceability; people can not track causation damages from GMO back to the parent companies who should be held liable.

no labeling means no liability.

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

What if Allegory wanted to label it "organic?"

You understand he is prohibited, unless he pays the fees and fills out the papers for the government?

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

if allegory wanted to label

if allegory wanted to label it organic and was prohibited by law, then id support specifically repeling THAT law.... not adding other laws or obligations.

You see how "ALL food must have labels" is no more a libertarian answer than "NO food can have labels", right?

this isnt "all food must have

this isnt "all food must have labels" although that does exist. This is "gmo food must have labels" because of the implicit fraud(as defined by new labeling laws) in selling something that looks like a food recognizable for thousands of years but is in fact not.

Ventura 2012

Only if the Bot is dangerous to the liberties of we the people

Deception is unconstitutional.

we have a constitution that was supposed to stop fraud by allowing a transparent market protected by "we the people". But corporatism pushes our bodies to become unconnected to natural law by a deceptive policy.

I am not saying administrative agencies should always intervene, I am saying there is a reason why they are not in this case.

If I were in the mafia and the law was to shoot tax evaders, but I lobbied to just rough them up a bit... is it now considered immoral?

A true flower can not blossom without sunlight and a true man can not live without love.

There Appears to Be

lots of fanatics and Monsanto trolls here these days.


There are lots of Leftists here...

...who care more about getting government backing for their anti-GMO crusade than about liberty.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

And I

would not be surprised to learn that allegory is one of them...

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

That's an awfully big jump.

Those who want the existing law that forces food producers to label the ingredients of their products to include GMO foods are socialists and communists: hilarious.

I would just like the ban on labeling a food 'non-GMO' to be lifted. Somehow Asian foods are labeled as such but food produced here is prohibited to have these labels. It is just another hit against small businesses.

Your welcome

to eat all the GMO shit!

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

jeffjeffjeff's picture

Couldn't agree more and I

Couldn't agree more and I cringe when I hear liberty people suggesting requiring GMO labeling, especially at the federal level. It seems that the Climate Change debate is very similar as well where people think it is too big of a problem that only the Big Federal Government can solve. I believe the answer to these issues is stronger protection for property rights. I'm not a legal expert but it seems that this type of stuff perhaps could be handled better through our justice system and maybe that's where the reform needs to come from.

I Thought it was the STATE level

Isn't that what we want? The STATES to decide this stuff?


If you find that gmo's are very poisonous

would this change your mind?

GMO technology uses viruses and bacteria to invade the cells with the DNA. There is also a pesticide built in called Poncho. The BT bacteria now lives in all Americans guts thanks to Monsanto's GMO's. Then there is the Antibiotic that is inserted as a genetic marker so Monsanto can Identify their product, They use this to sue organic farmers. Why do you think the family doctor refuses to give antibiotics any more, because they are useless thanks to Monsanto.

So eat well your GMO food has several different viruses, bacteria, antibiotics and a nasty pesticide to boot.

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Poncho is used on Conventional crops as well.

It doesn't matter if it is conventional corn or gmo corn, both utilize the application of poncho, or Clothianidin. So GMOs have nothing to do with the use of this product.

Bt corn utilizes a gene of the Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria, allowing for the corn plant to produce a protein that prevents the caterpillar from feeding, and causes damage to the lining of the stomach of the caterpillar, thus causing it to die. So Bt Corn does not have a different amount of bacteria than conventional or organic corn.

As for viruses, they may or may not be used. It is used as a delivery system for the gene.

And your comment on Antibiotics I don't know where you got from. But it is true that Monsanto sues organic farmers for "using" their product. It is a sad joke that the court systems went in favor of Monsanto and only goes to show how lost the USA is.

Do you know how they got Poncho approved safe for bees?

In their tests they sprayed a 2 acre field and placed several hives in the middle. the bees were allowed to fly any where they wanted, this was the biggest joke ever for testing scientifically! Anybody that knows bees know they don't forage close to the hive. What is more fantastic the EPA accepted this as a legitimate scientific test. They first claimed that bees could take 50,000 ppm exposure, but now they figure 5 ppm is not good. Poncho is the most deadly pesticide to come on the market because it is a nicotine derivative. Nicotine derivative pesticide are reproduced by the plant, GMO or not, hundreds of times stronger than can be legally sprayed. They now know Poncho has a half life in the soil for 19 years! It is going to destroy all the soil for growing any thing! Why have the civilized world banned this product if it is so good? This is produced by Bayer, a German company has been kicked out of it's own country.

In India their have been cattle that dropped dead 24 hours after feeding on BT cotton. Since this is the same BT in the corn how can it be used for human consumption. I am sure you know that most feed lot cattle are near death after eating GMO corn, they must slaughter before 3 years of age.

Yep lots of viruses and bacteria in GMO's

It is well known that Monsanto places an Antibiotic markers in their corn seed so every plant replicates it. This is how they can easily identify cross pollination and demand the organic farmer pay up or risk his farm in the courts.

But hey 1 farmer has beat Monsanto in the courts and Monsanto was forced to pay to have GMO's removed of the property! Check out the video at the bottom of my post for some real honest answers on how vial and putrid GMOs are!


Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

Effective Stuff that BT (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxin

BT Corn also
- Kills human kidney cells ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_Toxin_Kills_Human_Kidney_Cells.php );
- Kills cows (http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Syngenta_Charged_for_Covering_Up_Liv... );
- Kills sheep ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.php );
- Linked to a variety of human illnesses ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MILTBT.php );
- Adversely effects mice immune systems ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MON810gmMaizeMiceImmuneSystem.php );
- Causes Liver & Kidney problems in rodents ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Feed_toxic_new_metaanalysis_confi... );
- Reduces mice fertility ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GmMaizeReducesMiceFertility.php );
- Contributes to the development of cancer ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_cancer_warning_can_no_longer_be_i... )
- Kills beneficial crop insects ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_Toxicity_Confirmed_Flawed_Study_E... );
- Creates BT-Resistant Rootworm ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Bt_resistant_rootworm_spreads.php );
- Increases the use of Clothianidin because it is part of Acceleron seed treatment products marketed by Monsanto for use with BT Corn ( http://www.i-sis.org.uk/SmartStaxCornCorporateWarOnBees.php )

If a person or company is subsidized by gov't

then gov't "has the right" to regulate how it sees fit.

Voting and Lobbying is the 1st Step towards Socialism.
---In America we called the 1st Step "capitalism"
---Once everyone could vote we called it "corporatism"

That is really free and lose with the definitions

"has the right" ought to be "leverage". You're equating our perverted system, with what it started out to be. People governing themselves, with checks and balances, and distribution of power, with an informed populace, is the most successful experiment in Liberty in history. What's the phase, representative democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others? What are examples of successful anarchy?

I don't believe in "rights"

so I can accept "leverage" if you can accept the fact that most "liberty folk" argue in terms of "rights" and that gov't has declared itself an "entity" with "rights" (and if people vote and lobby then they are supporting that claim ipso facto).

There were NO checks and balances back then -- there was Mass Scale Land Theft, Democide-Genocide, Rampant Rape and Sodomy, the Selling off of Loved Ones, No Rights for Women, and Religious Persecution.

The "checks and balances" was so wealthy white men could not steal from other wealthy white men, hahaha.

In 1790 only the "Founders" could vote -- poor whites had no vote. In some states only certain religious groups could vote, nowhere could women vote -- I wont waste time debating this.

There is NO successful anarchy -- it has not been tried yet, consciously -- it has only arisen after chaos and horror (Somalia); of course several countries are trying to "shape" the anarchy into democracy or something else.

This about sums up Rand's take when he cast his vote on labeling

that was so contentious around here recently.

Daily Paul cured my abibliophobia.


http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GM_Feed_toxic_new_metaanalysis_confi... :
"A meta-analysis on 19 studies confirms kidney and liver toxicity in rats and mice fed on GM soybean and maize, representing more than 80 percent of all commercially available GM food; it also exposes gross inadequacies of current risk assessment"

Once a GMO crop is released, it spreads across the globe like a virus (perhaps a little slower) infecting all of the non-GMO crops (destroying private property), so that all we are eventually left with is a GMO-contaminated version of the crop. Organic farms are being contaminated, so there will not be any options soon. (See: http://www.progressive.org/0901/lil0901.html , for example).

Currently soy, corn, canola, papaya and cotton are almost all GMO versions. As can be seen from a previous post, sugar beets and alfalfa will be the next contaminated crops. The GMO industry has been pushing hard to get approval for release of GMO wheat. GMO Salmon may be approved by the FDA. In addition to infecting these crops, GMO DNA can jump to other species and infect other crops: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDNA_Does_Jump_Species.php

In my experience, the FDA, USDA and EFSA (Europe) are nearly 100% completely captured agencies. Lobbying them is useless -- it is the exact same as lobbying Monsanto (except the agencies may pretend to show an interest to waste your time). Obama worked for Monsanto's law firm and threatened a country for not allowing GMO foods, so I wouldn't bother with him. The courts will back the GMO industry because the Federal Government backs the industry and their "science."

I think the only solution in the U.S. to help prevent what I consider slow poisoning and irreversible contamination of much of the food supply is to act locally and on a state level. Spread independent scientific information. Ban GMO crops (for pollution of private property, for example), require that existing labels designate GMO and non-GMO ingredients, start private certification organizations, etc.

Monsanto's Playbook: I've been researching various toxic products since the early 1990's. Coincidentally, some of these products were sold by Monsanto. Here are some of the tricks to expect from them:

1. Science: For every independent study finding toxic effect, they can fund 2-3 studies that have major flaws that magically show no toxic effects. Sometimes these studies will be funded by trade groups that they belong to (e.g., IFIC). Subsequently, numerous reviews are written by scientists using industry research which confirms that their toxic products are "safe." Each study and review is often followed by a press release.

While the flaws in the research are major, they are designed to not be noticed by most scientists and physicians. For example, I spoke to one scientist years ago about research on a product sold by Monsanto and others that demonstrated that it caused gradual neurological damage in animals (at levels humans were exposed to). Subsequent research by a government scientist confirmed these findings. However, the industry conducted studies with numerous flaws. One such flaw was that the humidity in the chamber with the toxic product was so high that most of the toxic chemical stayed in the water and did not flow in the air to the chamber with the animals. I have seen studies where human subjects and animals were given drugs that prevent side effects as well as various statistical acrobats to claim "no significant effects."

2. Government Agencies: The FDA stopped paying attention to any research showing toxic effects from Monsanto products such as GMOs. That is why one barely hears a peep from them when their is independent research demonstrating organ damage, cancer and other nasty effects from GMOs. It's better for Monsanto if they keep quiet. The EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) is forced to comment because every time independent research comes out showing how faulty their last review is, they have to agree to conduct another review. Numerous times I (and friends) have sent them copies of independent, peer-reviewed, published research and numerous times they simply ignore it and avoid including it in their review. The old version of the EFSA (EU Scientific Committee on Food) used to have committees and at least some of their reviews were drafted by a single person. No one could ever figure out who that person was.

3. There was a time on the Internet, when USENET discussion groups were still popular, that the head of Monsanto scientific affairs would actually engage in debate about some of their toxic products. Since that time, they have engaged PR Groups to shape the message. One of their PR companies had a conference many years ago on combating the bad publicity they were getting on the Internet. I don't know exactly what they've been up to since then, but I suspect that they have people on quite a number of discussion groups, slant Wikipedia articles pay off various scientific groups, etc.

What about the numbers?

It seriously pains me to hear all of the anti-GMO talk. People need to understand that even if GMO is worse for you than non-GMO, we need it for survival. In order to sustain the world's current population without GMO, we would need to convert well over half of the world's habitable lands into farmland. In other words, if GMO were outlawed, there would be mass starvation. It would be the worst human die-off since the Plague. We would literally have billions of people dying in the couple of years following an international ban.

You have ingested the propoganda

of the biotech/government partnership hook, line, and sinker, and doubled down with your own thinking based on misunderstanding. WE DO NOT NEED GMO to survive. Wow. I mean wow.

You Just

keep telling yourself that. "GMO's are GOOD, DDT is GOOD for ME"
Then go read this. I suppose THIS is good too!




#1 I don't see many (or any) in the liberty movement calling for an outright ban, just labeling (to disallow fraud).

#2 where do you get your numbers? From Monsanto? I find the claims hard to believe.


Freedom - Peace - Prosperity