19 votes

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




Comment viewing options

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

HOLY SHIT

THE COMMENTS HERE ARE DEPRESSING
THIS IS BASIC NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE PEOPLE
WHAT ARE YOU DOING

LOL

No company has a valid right to defraud people.

_________________________________

Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

Double-edged sword.

Aggression is already being forced upon us.

To even grasp the amount of accumulated punative damages from GMOs integrated into society would bankrupt the entire ecomonic system as the health related affects and future pain and suffering is immeasurable.

You want to talk about aggression?

Do you have a choice to NOT consumer GMOs or be contaminated with GMOs in 100% of your life through your engagement in your surroundings? No.

How about volunteerism?

I am a true believer in both of these fundamental principles and that is why these bioweapons called GMOs break the common law.

C4RP

_____________________________________________

Watch this dry yet astonishing Dr. Robert Beck cancer treatment lecture on Google Video - search "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkiX0jJJozk

If

If you believe Big Ag is committing fraud by using GMO's, then mandatory labeling regulations by the Federal Government would make sense. After all, fraud (injustice) should be met with force in a Libertarian society.

Not that we live in a Libertarian society, but I'm just saying.......

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just well-informed

Can We Trust Monsanto?

The same company that put out a commercial years ago that showed kids saying (DDT is GOOD FOR ME)?

skippy

this all comes down to

this all comes down to whether you believe you can patent food. you can't invent peanut butter--it is made in your mouth every time you eat peanuts. you can't invent a plant--mother nature does it every day. all of this stems from flawed philosophy.

Unlabeled GMO food = a fraud on the consumer

In a free society, fraud is not sanctioned. There is nothing un-libertarian about proscribing those who would commit fraud (and a deadly, murderous fraud, at that) by requiring that they fully disclose the unhealthful nature of their product to the consumer.

It is only fraud

if a false claim is made for a product. Making no claim is not fraud. If you fear a product contains GMO ingredients and it is unlabeled do not buy it. Ask the seller. If the seller does not know what is being sold by his establishment, tell him to find out since a purchase will be made only when you know the answer. If the seller lies to get a sale, then it is fraud. There is no need to get the government involved.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

When unlabeled GMO "food" is marketed as real food...

...that is fraud, pure and simple.

MOnsanto needs arrested.

One more time - NO ONE CAN SELL YOU NON-GMO ANY MORE. Got that? It is ALREADY contaminating the ENTIRE food supply. I pay extra to buy "Organic, heirloom"seed from reputable dealers, and they admit there is an average of 1-3% GMO in there - can't be stopped.
See the problem there? Lying retailers will sell you contaminated food, they jump through the hoops to get that "organic" certification BUT IT IS STILL CONTAMINATED.

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

#1 non-disclosure of a

#1 non-disclosure of a material fact is fraud #2 Courts are government too.

Ventura 2012

"Courts are government too"

Yes, but (for civil matters anyway) they only act at the request of a victim, and only after a crime has occurred. Contrast this with regulatory agencies, which act on their own behalf, and prosecute people not for committing crimes, but for non-compliance with regulations supposedly designed to prevent crime.

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

This resolution merely

This resolution merely defined fraud, it did not establish a regulatory agency.

Ventura 2012

I understand that.

But a lot of anti-GMO people are talking about extending to some regulatory agency the power to enforce mandatory labeling. I just wanted to make the general point that reliance on government courts to settle disputes about fraud or torts relating to GMO is entirely different than relying on government to enforce regulations concerning GMO.

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

Fair enough. I am not in

Fair enough. I am not in favor of regulatory agencies versus using courts although I do think regulatory agencies can imperfect although net beneficial at the State level. The Federal regulatory agencies are unconstitutional though.

Ventura 2012

Should Coca-Cola disclose

Should Coca-Cola disclose every ingredient in its formula? Or should McDonald's do the same with their Big Mac sauce?

Another thing I don't get. What is wrong with GMO? Aztecs were doing that with corn thousands of years ago.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

You don't know the difference between "hybrid" and "GMO" do you?

You need to learn. You also need to start a farm, then you will learn what "the problem" is.
I do not care if YOU eat all the GMO you want, but non-GMO is LEAVING THE PLANET. Will you considering helping me keep some non-GMO around because I do NOT want to eat GMO.
No one forces me to drink coke, and I do not ever touch the stuff. But if the ENTIRE food supply was coke, how would you feel about it?

This is the article that got my posting privileges revoked:
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18212165-dr-stan-...

That's the whole problem with this debate,

you don't understand what's wrong with GMO, and it takes a bit of research to figure out. While you're at it, try to discern the wickedly creative marketing designed to derail your understanding.

lets restate this, FOOD

lets restate this, FOOD LABELING IS SOCIALISM. It violates the non aggression principle making that person violating it a socialist.

yes, but you think Mises

is a socialist. Go outside and get some fresh air!!!

It does violate the non-aggression principle...

...but it is not socialism. If you define every State violation of the NAP as socialism, the term loses all meaning. You can say it's socialistic, or it has the same logic as socialism, but it's dishonest (attempt at guilt by association) to call it socialism.

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

Calling GMOs regular food

Is fraud. In a free market society fraud is a first use of force, and you can defend yourself against it. As soon as the fraudulently labeled food hits the market, it is an act of aggression.

Sounds like you are using a

Sounds like you are using a very specific definition of fraud to justify government regulation in the free market.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Is murder legal? If not, then why allow GMO to secretly murder?

Dump the philosophical manure: Is murder legal?

If not, then why allow GMO to secretly murder us?

Just aksin'

"Cowards & idiots can come along for the ride but they gotta sit in the back seat!"

"philosophical manure"

This kind of anti-intellectualism worries me more than just support for mandatory food labeling. This "no time for thinking, we're being murdered!!!" kind of attitude is the stuff that Leftists rely on in debates, because their arguments cannot stand on their own. We're better than that, we don't need to make lame emotional appeals, because we're right, and we can prove it, using "philosophical manure," as you put it.

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

The problem with all GMO's

is that they are fast tracked to market with no research, not testing. One day there will be a day of reckoning with this type of mentality. But we can't sue the seed companies for any thing they have their free pass from congress. The Japanese brought a gmo based food over ten years ago, the had to pull it fast many people died! Just a matter of time it happens again.

Let's just remove IP rights on life, to fix this problem! Monsanto and the other fascist companies could then no longer sue farmers for growing organics. Without the fascists I think hemp would have been a choice of farmers by now. Hemp requires no manipulation for a crop, and farmers can replant own seed. Hemp would save our precious bees from extermination!

If we require no labeling can we at least require the food to be safe before we have to eat it. All gmo's are unproven, we are the lab rats!

But hey we get our free drugs with GMO's and free pesticides built in, so eat up!

Gold standard: because man can not be trusted to control his greed

This is the problem here, some of these folks believe that GMO..

Food is safe. So if we forced people to label liquids as having H20 then that would be pointless force. But at least labeling for public safety is not socialism.

Deep down everyone is Libertarian.
Live and Let Live, form of government.

Food labeling is not

Food labeling is not 'socialism'. Furthermore, i havent seen any so-called tea party or libertarian advocate for the abolition of food labels in the u.s. because such labels are 'socialist'. so if they arent for abolition of food labels why arent they for honest food labeling instead of leaving out some of the ingreients?

Food labeling is not

Food labeling is not socialism. Forcing companies to label their products because you feel entitled to consume their products is socialism.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Ben Franklin

Slow poisoning

If a group of people thinks that slow poisoning with unlabeled GMOs is violence against themselves, their family and their community, they have every right to create a law to prevent the attack -- or at least create a law to allow people to be able to avoid GMOs. For example, I don't mind a state law that requires labeling of food products that have certain levels of mercury, arsenic, cyanide, prescription drugs added. Good luck selling a version of "liberty" that promotes unlabeled products with any possible ingredient and at the same time discouraging cities and towns from making that illegal.