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.


Long time, no see. But good to see you commenting again. Oh, and good luck kicking that Doritos habit.

People have a right to know what they are eating.

Companies like Monsanto want to keep people uninformed about what they are feeding them. Government is a creation of the people and there is a role for government in regulating unscrupulous companies that would do harm. I see no inconsistency there.

I'd rephrase...

...You have the right not to eat something if you don't know what's in it. Thus, you have the right not to buy it if you aren't sure what you are buying.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).




...and you also have a right to your money back if you've been sold one thing misrepresented as another, and a right to restitution if you've been harmed by a product. But that is the extent of your rights, they do not extend to forcing others to make their products according to your specifications.

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

no, actually you dont have a

no, actually you dont have a "right" to know what youre eating.

if people want to try to sell, and buyers want to buy, food without any ingreedient lists on them, whats the problem? If YOU personally want to know what youre eating then YOU dont have to buy this unlabeled food.

Or you in favor of mandated ingreedient lists and nutrition data labels also?! Even among consentual transactions, neither party of which makes it a condition of their potential trade?

Jesus fuck the liberty movement has no hope when even our own people are so willing to throw liberty under the bus at the slightest boogy man.

Cult of Ron Paul

These aren't "our own people". I think we just need to admit that our movement is smaller than we hoped. There are tons of people here because they were caught in the cult of Ron Paul, not because they understand the free market. It's unfortunate, but I think many of these folks would still be under the spell of Obama if the cooler, hipper, Ron Paul thing hadn't come around.
I know that for many of us, Hayek, Rothbard, and even Friedman led us to Ron Paul, so we came in with the understanding of free market capitalism. However, many others started with Ron, which you would hope would lead them to Rothbard, Hayek, etc. Instead, they just latched on to the campaign aspect of the movement and didn't really take the time to learn about the concepts.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

I actually ranted about this

I actually ranted about this on FB the other day...

How a lot of RP people are really only here because they are "against monsanto" "against big govt connected banks" etc. And obviously Ron Paul is the political candidate most closly associated with these positions.

However imagine if there were a hardcore socialist canddiate (not how Fox News slanders Obama, but a guy whose platfoerm was really like Bob Avakian or someone)... And imagine that he also was against monsanto, goldman, etc. basically imagine an "Occupy Wall St" type candidate.

I get the impreszsion that a lot of current RP people would be virtually indifferent between these two views:
1) against monsanto, goldman, etc due to a principiled libertarian stance on property rights, non aggression
2) against monsanto, goldman, etc due to a complete rejection of private property and private contract

The only reason they ended up as #1 is becasue there was no really popular guy advocating #2.

And then to make matters worse, even though the reason they are attracted to RP has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with their even understanding or agreeing with his principiled defense of indivual soverignty, they claim to be "libertarian".

Uh... No you're not a libertarian. You just happen to agree with one famous libertarian on some of his conclusions. You don't actually even UNDERASTAND his libertarianism on an ideological level.


...so why is my post down three votes, and your's is up three votes? I guess I worded it poorly?

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

whenever you start expecting

whenever you start expecting consistency or rationality from people, just google "H L Mencken quotes" and start reading a bunch of random ones.

that'll cure ya!


And aside from the lefty-collectivist cultists you point to, there are also plenty of righty-collectivist cultists around who rationalize, justify and make excuses to advance the fallacy that compromise, lies and other chicanery is not only necessary, but a good thing when practiced by 'certain' republicans.

Those who actually hold to fundamental and unwavering liberty principles, are scant few.

And so it goes...

Please, free markets are a

Please, free markets are a lot more complicated that you're making it. For every socialist that "likes Ron Paul" here there are two anarchists that read a couple articles on Mises.org and therefore conflate everything as a black and white good-vs-evil oversimplification. What we are actually debating is WHAT IS FRAUD. That's it. The words communist or socialist are totally irrelevant.

Ventura 2012

Says the "Ventura 2012" guy.

Ventura is one of those socialists who likes Ron Paul. Are you sure you aren't?
In any case, free markets are only complex if you think that the collective needs to understand what the "best solution" is. If you understand what capital is, and you understand private property rights, then the free market becomes pretty darn simple.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Right on cue...someone is

Right on cue...someone is going to decide what is fraud, either a judge, a legislator, or a referendum. The only question is, what is it?

Ventura 2012

Right on cue...someone is

Right on cue...someone is going to decide what is fraud, either a judge, a legislator, or a referendum. The only question is, what is it?

Ventura 2012


topic keeps being brought up and i understand why some libertarians would question this like this video does.

But in a libertarian society people are protected against fraud by the federal government. I can't sell you nutmeg when it's really salt - that's called fraud. So with GMO's the companies have gone through the rigorous process of patenting a living thing (they patent their seeds). In order to get a patent you must prove that the product is substantially different from other products with a similar function....meaning they aren't the same. So that would mean a GMO apple is not the same thing as an apple - otherwise you wouldn't be able to patent it. So it's fraudulent to claim they are the same and label it as such - this is where the federal government steps in....cases of fraud - which this is.

Another example of why the federal government should step in - property rights. Governments are supposed to protect property rights. GMO genes are a pollution that are cross pollinating with local farmers crops who want their food to be organic or GMO free (sometimes from miles away). Like Ron Paul says- the federal government has a responsibility when it comes to matters such as this - you can't go dump chemical waste in someone's yard because of property rights.

But to some extent there are already companies doing what this video suggests. If people really want to avoid GMO foods they can right now - but i look at the fight has a fraud and property rights issue - so IMO this video is very wrong.

"I can't sell you nutmeg when

"I can't sell you nutmeg when it's really salt"

So, do we need legislation that specifically goes after salt labeled as nutmeg? Of course not. It's fraud. Take it to court. If GMO corn is outside of the public expectation of what corn is, take it to court.


We don't need legislation for nutmeg labeled as salt - but that's because the public is fully aware that these two products are substantially different. You could take the case to the courts and win pretty easily by arguing fraud.

But with the GMO issue you won't win in court because the government considers GMO foods to be substantially equivalent in order to bypass more rigorous safety studies - at the same time the corps are claiming it is substantially different and obtaining patents from the government. Gotta go one way or the other- can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either it's substantially different and then you could go to court and fight the labeling battle and win - or it's substantially the same and you don't get a patent and everyone in the world can save and sell GMO seeds year after year without repurchasing from Monsanto.

And as far as i'm aware there are no laws on the books prohibiting GMO foods from cross pollinating with other farmers crops in an area (the pollution and property rights factor)- that too is a losing battle. It's amazing though as local farmers are getting sued by Monsanto for having GMO crops on their land that they don't want there because of cross pollination from GMO farms in the area.

When it really comes down to it it is the government that is fraudulent here - they're allowing this to continue because the bio-food industry lines their pocketbooks - so once again government is the problem.


Thank you John, very well put.


Labeling is superficial

If GMO foods represent an increasing perversion and corruption of our food supply, these these strains are indeed working their way through the food chain we have to ask ourselves whether private property rights are superior to human life.

And we have to ask what are the limits of private property. Can I own the air? I can certainly pollute it. Can I buy endless amounts of land and turn it into a toxic waste dump? That happens to pollute your water?

Do I have a right to purchase and own genetic strains that have been under careful production by humans for tens of thousands of years and change them to benefit me and disadvantage you?

Libertarianism historically holds we have remedy in the courts but the world keeps becoming more polluted.

Do unborn generations have any rights vis-a-vis nature? Do they have a right to non toxic soil, drinkable water, the songs of birds in the morning? Do they have a right to see a wild deer or a flower?

Or does capitalism mean we get to deprive anyone of anything we wish?

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.

someone downvoted you--

I upvoted you--

you make good points--

you make them better than I did. I don't think government intervention will help; the government does everything either poorly on purpose or . . . is just highly ineffective/corrupt, so I don't trust the government's involvement.

But I see gmo as a warfare--

and I think that libertarians are naive to think that free enterprise can work--

how does free enterprise clean up air and water?

There are some basic, inalienable rights that are being threatened here--

the right to healthy food is something that has been a problem longer than most people realize, but it just got worse--

and no government or company can change that; greedy, evil people would rather destroy other human beings . . .

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

I don't believe most

I don't believe most libertarians are calling this "free enterprise", and that's what leaves so many divided on the issue. Labeling might have reigned in a little of the GMO monopoly, but it is just a weird issue that was MEANT to divide activists against each other. There are so many other issues surrounding genetic engineering that are way more important... ending subsidies, reigning in seed patents and litigation practices etc.

Revealed: Monsanto GM corn caused tumors in rats


"By golly, if this happens to me, I'll report it to the Better Business Bureau!"


Then stop feeding your rat monsanto corn. Furthermore, stop buying monsanto corn and feeding it to your family. Nobody is forcing you to purchase this product.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).


How would one know not to buy it if it is not disclosed what it is?

I support GMO labeling as I believe it is fraudulent to try to pass off GMO food as non-GMO.

Some here may be anarchists and not believe in government at all, but many do believe there is a rightful place for the government to police against force and fraud. Someone is not a "communist" or "socialist" because they believe this.


Freedom - Peace - Prosperity

You are correct

The supplies are intermingled. Not even the Whole Foods people can source non-GMO with any reliability.

There is nothing strange about having a bar of soap in your right pocket, it's just what's happening.


one problem i run into with our "ideas" and our path is this one

i would back labeling,,,, as it's what the people want,,, and we should be able to make laws that benefit society,,if it doesn't infringe
i can't see labeling and basic information as hurting another
truth isn't bad

also,,,, that mantra,,, people have the courts and basic fraud laws

BS!!!!! you tell me a single investor could sue jpmorgan successfully for fraud,,,, gonna be hard as they drag feet bankrupting the person,,,, or how would you get internal emails that would expose they screwed you or knew they were ripping you off,,,not gonna happen

if you really think joe blow can take on corporations with basic fraud laws i have a bridge to sell you

maybe that's my bigger problem,,, corporations and or companies that are to big

mass sales means screw the customer because we can skip quality, good service etc as we decimate the small guys

i see the good in local small businesses where your unhappiness can affect the bottom line in a way to effect change
if i complain to the local pizza guy (owner) or tell 10 people i may get satisfaction and effect change,,, domino's could care less

i guess it's again the purity test,,,all or nothing
i agree most of the time,,, except in this situation,,, call me on my hypocrisy

Knowledge is power

I've thought a lot about this issue simply becuase I have a food allergy that isn't one of the ones required to be put on labels. Luckily its only a mild allergy, so I can find out what specific foods are a problem by trying them.

But it seems that a company selling me a product should be required to disclose what it is that they are selling, as well as what processes they use to produce it. To not do so seems like fraud.

It seems that a free person should have access to knowledge of what is going into his or her body. Its part of telling people that they are responsible for their own choices, good or bad. If I DON'T KNOW what I am eating how can you expect me to take responsibility for my life.

I personally am of the opinion that the government should get out of checking whether or not food is up to THEIR standards, and instead just make sure that food is up the the standards that the producer CLAIMS it lives up to.

It should be extremely easy for a person to find out exactly what the food producer SAYS is in the food, and how its made. Anything less than that is legalizing lying and deceit, which is not good for liberty.

The concept of liberty is not that everyone is allowed to do whatever they please and sell whatever they please. The concept of liberty is that you are allowed to do whatever you please ... until it could harm someone else. And, how can you avoid potentially harming someone else better than to disclose what it is you are selling them, and let them accept responsibility for themselves.

If there were no state

If there were no state subsidies for farming slavery to Monsanto and no fascist litigation incentives, then there would be no need to even think about labeling. No one should even be arguing about this. The problem is: too many people against this monopoly have bought into a line that was intended to divide them against someone else within the same movement. The Organic Consumers Association is a Merck and Rockefeller funded organization which originally popularized the odd 'gmo labeling' craze. We could have organized a much better organization to free farmers from Monsanto and companies of the like than this. An end to subsidies or reigning in of litigation or intellectual 'property' would have galvanized everyone, instead of dividing activists against each other on ideological grounds.