Comment: Another comment on this. I

(See in situ)

Another comment on this. I

Another comment on this.

I don't see this is as a libertarian issue. Because when other people eat poison, it DOES affect others.

If the food is not labeled, and people who wouldn't buy the food if it were label end up buying it, it affects you. If you believe that GMOs are truly so bad for you, then when other people eat it, they get sick, they go to the hospital, and the drive EVERYONE's costs up.

We don't live in independent bubbles. And health and nutrition, and people eating healthy and nutritiously; that affects everyone. On that note, a libertarian could argue for labeling saying, "I want consumers to know that this food is potentially dangerous, so that they don't end up costing me in the long-run" that point, the discussion is removed from principles and becomes about the science behind GMOS, the loopholes in the law, etc.

Now the other question is, using the same logic as above, where does it stop? Because everything does affect others.

I could be against this ban. Because it is worth it to get the government out of my life. OK, eat these unhealthy foods, get sick, go to the hospital, and end up raising costs for everyone. Fine; it is better than having the government getting involved too much.

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


Specific cuts; defense spending: