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.

Entitled to consume their products?

Zulske, apologies, but you really don't know what you're talking about.

My take on this issue:

While the author and narrator of this issue is in my opinion correct from a pure ideological position for liberty, I can't help but contest the hard fact that Genetically Modified Organisms in our food supply are a bioweapon.

With GMOs established as a bioweapon, your inherent liberty to defend your property it removed as individuals do not have the opportunity to decide where GMO seed travels in our environment and how it is consumed by thousands of species ultimately affecting the entire food chain.

GMOs infringe on your individual property rights similarly to radioactive nuclear fallout from Fukishima. We are all poisioned by the affects of contamination.

Like nearly anything in the market GMOs can be educated awawy from existence but how do you contest the massive influence GMOs have in the health of everything on this planet?

I purely believe that GMOs are a bioweapon and should be banned completely on every corner of the earth.



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

I Agree

I also see genetically engineered food to be a weapon used against the populace in the guise of a benevolent food company.

That is where the problem lies. The trick of Monsanto having the interests of the people in mind... it works.
And when it doesn't work, money will buy the people who will force it to work on we the people, without our knowledge and/or consent.

Let's just say it known to the people of this nation that these GE foods are being used as a weapon and every politician up to and including the president would take immediate action against it IF it can be proven. How do we prove this? Look at the struggle against the Federal Reserve and how long it has taken to just bring its atrocities to light.

And what is the best option if it is proven to be a bioweapon attack on the people? Deploy the troops and have them rush into a food company and blow the whole thing up?
No matter how effective that is the opposition would jump at the chance to make it out to be some kind of atrocity against the free market and I'm sure the same people who have their hands in the GE food also invested plenty of money into the media...

It's going to be a LONG and DIFFICULT fight... this isn't going to be a stroll in the park.

Educate everyone, make the truth known what Monsanto and their ilk are doing, be armed with TRUTH. Arm others with this truth. The Fed, the mainstream media, the dirty politicians, and these GE food companies will all go down. We'll route them out, but we've got to do it right.

Yes you are so right!

Monsanto has already tested GMO's with a sterility gene! who knows maybe the fascist company has already put it on the market by request of our government!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

It is purely your opinion,

It is purely your opinion, also many scientists, GMO foods are dangerous. Some scientists even believe they are better for you. So, first you will have to win over enough people that believe it is a bioweapon. Then you will have to use force to force companies to label them violating the non aggression principle. Now violating the non aggression principle no longer makes us libertarian.

Not quite.

You imply that I would have to use aggression but in reality I would simply have to enforce Common Law and enforce contracts, through the Constitution, defends my liberty and property rights.

If defendants are found guilty in a court of their peers, the defendant would face punative damages and possible time in jail for infringing my property rights ie. my body and ability to live among my own conscience.

People or companies introducing GMOs into society would be held accountable through judicial means.

If my kids die from radioactive fallout from Fukishima, how much is their life worth? The answer: No amount of money can remunerate life and hence the financial liability is the check and balance on these bioweapons for anyone who contaminates another with GMOs.


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

Drugs require lots of trials and test before being released

GMO's are loaded with drugs, how can we not require some kind of testing before we eat it!

Seems like a NO BRAINER to me!

Surviving the killing fields of Minnesota

Todays brainwashing: GMO's are safe

The way I understand it,

the government only requires the testing if the maker claims it prevents, treats, or cures something. It may be full of drugs, but if the maker makes no claims, there is no testing required.

In any case, the testing of drugs protects the makers from being sued out of business. It doesn't protect the public. Look at how many drugs make it onto the market despite all of the expensive testing, yet get recalled and become the cause of class action lawsuits. The government doesn't protect you, it protects them.

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

I remember working as a

I remember working as a delegate through the Missouri process and even traveling to Nevada to help Ron win. More than you would think in the liberty movement are out right socialists... that is why they support Rand Paul.

I actually remember arguing

I actually remember arguing with a Ron Pauler on how public schools are crap in the Nevada hotel. Real libertarianism only has around 1% of the population.


Check out this video explaining that libertarians are actually a very small amount of the population

I if I had to guess, I'd say

I if I had to guess, I'd say about 1% of the general population is libertarian and about 5% of the Daily Paul is libertarian, regardless of how they self-identify.

I can self-identify as the Queen of Sheeba, it don't make it so...

Or, No matter how much i *want* to be a vegetarian, if im eating a steak other people absolutely have the right to not consider me a vegetarian and write off my self-identification as mere wishful thinking.

But on the bright side, 5x the concentration of libertarians as the general population is great!


Until a week or so ago, I considered myself a Libertarian. Now I'm not so sure.

I grew up in a libertarian household (or so we all thought). Since I was old enough to vote, I defined libertarian thusly....

The belief that people should be permitted to do as they please unless it is harming another, combined with the idea that the US Constitution interpreted as closely as possible to its original intent was the most effective way to preserve liberty. We also believed that free market enterprise was the only way to avoid ongoing economic problems.

Since I began interacting here at the DP (as opposed to casually reading) I have come to a rude awakening.

The definition of "true" libertarian (as accepted here at the DP) seems to be acceptance of mises.org as the foundation upon which liberty is defined. Which essentially starts with the economic ideas of Mises (Austrian economics) and then allowing that philosophy to be applied to any and all facets of social interaction.

Its interesting, and I may some day get there, but for now I have too much to read and consider before I am a "convert" of the purist Libertarian definition as outlined there.

I really like reading Murray Rothbard, some of the others are interesting but not as personally resonating. The logic is solid, but I don't always find myself agreeing as quickly as they move from premise to premise. I need time to digest.

I am convinced that the Austrian school of economics is the most correct philosophy regarding how economies actually function, and it makes the alternative philosophies look ridiculous when compared. But I'm not sold on the idea that those same principles are somehow the fundamental laws of all human interaction.

I guess that makes me a socialist. all my life I have been way, way further in favor of serious government downsizing than anyone else I had ever met, but here at the DP, I'm a flaming progressive. Its unreal.

I agree entirely

We can't ask government to get involved, we have to ID these problems and decide what we spend our money on.

The very reason MOnsanto et al have these ungodly patents on seeds is due the Government getting involved in the first place...

I see many people defending their stance on GMO and having the gubbiment do something about it. Well my friends, the gubbiment isn't going to help your cause until we change the gubbiment and get it OUT of the market place entirely. WE take away the gubbiment control that is growing and then we can kick Monsanto in the nuts. That is Liberty.

So quit asking for what you will never get from government or you'll just keep wasting energy on a useless battle when we have a war to fight.

Nonsense argument

It's not socialism for people to protect themselves, their families and their community. Independent research has shown GMO foods to cause cancer and numerous independent studies show gradual organ damage from GMO foods. By this video's logic, food producers should be allowed to *add* chronically toxic levels of organic mercury, arsenic and a myriad of other toxic substances without labeling. Or maybe their should have the "liberty" to add unlabeled pharmaceuticals to foods.

Monsanto and others are selling toxic substances as "food," using what I think is clearly fraud in their labels, polluting the environment -- including the pollution of private property, and patenting life forms. All of this with the protection of their former employees and others in the Federal Government. If the Federal Government protection racket didn't exist, GMO crops would be gone.

It's a public relations con job to use the Federal Government to actively push and protect slow poisoning, private property pollution and fraudulent labeling and then use the "liberty" movement to try and keep people from doing what they can (under the circumstances) to protect themselves and their families.

Labeling GMO on food packages is simply a way of removing fraud from existing labels that already mention soy, corn, etc. "GMO soy" is not the same as soy, but a patented substance that I cannot use like "soy" for planting (without being attacked by the government).

Protecting ourselves is one thing

asking the government to resolve something they started, intentionally, is quite another.

It's still a short term

It's still a short term solution to a long term problem. It's the FDA that is the problem and who people assume is there for their protection.

It's there to protect Big Ag and their cohorts.

The real solution is abolish the FDA and any regulation on agriculture at all and then most of Big Ag will go up in a puff of smoke, and what's left will have to obey market forces. People will no longer be forced to subsidize the agency that is tricking them into believing that Monsanto products are safe. Yes people will have to think for themselves, but they will know they have to. Today people believe they don't have to think for themselves because the government protects them, when in fact it's because the government 'protects' them that makes it even more dangerous not to think for themselves.

So I support these at the state level, but with reservations. In our fascist state, the bad guys almost always end up using laws against us.

good reply & well stated.

good reply & well stated.

good reply & well stated.

good reply & well stated.

It's reasonable because big

It's reasonable because big ag only exists in the first place because of government policy, subsidies, and socializing the cost of IP enforcement.

In principle yes, consumers should be responsible and vote with their consumption choices.

As federalism is a semi-functional compromise of statism and liberty, however I think labeling laws at the state level are reasonable.

But be aware big Ag will now be likely to want to make this a federal issue as these laws get passed since national firms are at a regulatory disadvantage vs local firms that only operate in states without labeling laws. If big ag has to accept these laws they will want to force them on small growers in all states.

The OP is right. This is a cycle of violence and so long as the cycle continues the purveyors of violence win.


These GMO companies are infringing on liberty. They don't allow people to use seeds they save themselves from their own plants because they claim they own the dna they are often tainted with. I'm not talking about people even saving seeds that came from GMO plants, I'm talking about heirloom and organic growers who want to simply save their seeds from their plants and plant again, that is like the most basic human gardening we've been doing since the dawn of civilization and now these GMO companies are using over regulation to steal the freedom from a person who just wants to grow plants. It's going to be a global monopoly soon in a number of plants. GMO is not just a danger to our health, but to our freedom!

Not socialism, corporatism

Look it up:

It's about individuals wanting information. Eat GMO's if you want, labeling it won't stop you.

IMHO it is not socialism, it is self defense against corporatism

Monsanto ex Legal Eagles run FDA AND the dept of Ag. They create regulations allowing their use and barring/hindering competitors on a regular basis, using the force of OUR government to compel US. When they ban that the market might be free enough to manage this on its own, but this adds huge burden's to the market. Get rid of that, and I'm with you. Until then I want to at least know what is in the highly regulated food they are sending me.

Integrity means having to say things that people don't want to hear & especially to say things that the regime doesnt want to hear -RonPaul

Look no further than

Look no further than Jonestown.

wait a minute--

there are already several organizations (non-governmental) who are regulating gmo--

or companies that are regulating themselves--

it's quite easy to find; you have to pay more, but--

For the record, I'm not sure this isn't along the lines of warfare--

troops should be private, right? Why does the government have a military?

The constitution allows it--

GMO are a threat, but not everyone believes that--

the fact is that there are companies that are bullies, just as there are countries that are bullies, so the country isn't going to make the bullies go away--

having the 'government' involved is like asking the military to protect freedoms, when we know the military is just being used by the government/elitist bankers--

there might be people who like wars and don't think the military is needed; just let other nations attack--

why not?

It's freedom; let the other nation attack--

it's basically the same reasoning--

But it's a lie, because no nation has attacked the U.S.--

for many decades, if then--

and GMO and the companies that foster GMO are a big, international bullying business--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

It's not socialism

when the people want to know what they are eating. The people have the ability to choose what to eat and the companies have the ability to choose what to put on their labels. If people are demanding labels then companies will begin to label in order to increase business. People should encourage companies that do not use GMOs to create a voluntary labeling/accountability system so then people will trend towards that.

People demanding something of the producer of their goods is not socialism. That is how a market works, the people will get what they want or the business will eventually collapse.

Funny how people have no problem pushing

abortion back to the states but let the people come out in support for labeling inside their own states and it's socialism.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Actually, that was Nader's idea back in the 60s

Nader thoight why didn't we have many companies competing on consumer reports.. he never intended Nixon to take his idea and expand government to hundr4eds of departments doing for us, what a free market can do better.

I HATE gmo

but agree with this vid!

Christians should not be warmongers! http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance87.html


no-one is "demanding government make laws about who is using gmo and who is not." Eat all the gmo you want. I don't care.

It's hard for most people to see the reliance on government

Everyone says, "yeah, but. . ." for their personal issue when it comes to imposing the force of government on someone else. I don't get why people don't just stop eating food from likely sources of GMOs if they are that concerned about them. I personally think GMOs are bad news and don't eat them about 95% of the time, maybe more. I pretty much assume doritos are made with GM corn but the msg tricks me into thinking they taste real good.
I also don't think a labeling program would be honest or change anything but to even debate the specifics is to accept the tyrannical premise, which I don't.