Anti-RealID, GMO & rBGH labeling, and Constitutional Tender FILED

[GunnyFreedom]

I have three bills available for co-sponsorship now:

H445 to prevent the implementation of the Federal RealID in NC

H446 to require foodstuffs containing GMO material or rBGH dairy be labled

And the big controversial Act that landed me on Cavuto (which upon reading is not actually so controversial):

H448 NC Constitutional Tender Act

Spread the word!

Thanks much!

[GunnyFreedom]

bump

[low preference guy]

H446 to require foodstuffs containing GMO material or rBGH dairy be labled

I guess the states have the authority to do this and could be laboratories of innovation, but why not let customers decide? If somebody wants a label, he should organize a boycott and not buy from those who don't label their products.

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess the states have the authority to do this and could be laboratories of innovation, but why not let customers decide? If somebody wants a label, he should organize a boycott and not buy from those who don't label their products.

Because every time the people or companies choose to do this, Monsanto sues them for $50 Mn and wins, or gets them life in prison for jaywalking, or something.

[GunnyFreedom]

Seriously, this is the same objection I got on this last time. People need to take a look at what Monsanto does when a competing product chooses to lable their goods "GMO-Free." If the principals of that company even survive, they end up in jail or a coma or living in a cardboard box under a bridge in Brooklyn.

Do you really believe that there is no market for "GMO-Free" and "rBGH-Free" products? If there is a market, and there is no marketing of such products, then what is behind this failure of the free market to deliver the desired goods? The reality is that voluntary labeling and association failed because of Monsanto's international monopoly power.

There are very few things that justify government intervention, but this sort of thing is why we form governments in the first place - to stand aginst these raw abuses of power such as Monsanto is famous for.

It's within the Constitutional authority of the State, and I believe it's the right thing to do. The private sector doesn't work here, because you can't boycott Monsanto. Go ahead and try, and good luck with that. I fully recognize that Monsanto's current position is BECAUSE of government malfesance, but we live in the world in which we live, and not the one that we want to. We can't make any progress if we live in a fantasy world.

What happened to all the GMO and rBGH activists we had on here? Monsanto is like the biggest and worse abuser of international corporatist power the world has ever known. Untold tens of thousands of suicides worldwide are left in the wake wherever Monsanto goes. What's an isolated individual going to do against that?

At least this way, people will be able to pick foods that don't have bombarded foreign DNA insinuated into their protien chains...

[low preference guy]

Let me preface my post by saying that you are a great representative and I post this just as food for thought. I'm in no way, shape, or form asking you to change any of your actions.


Because every time the people or companies choose to do this, Monsanto sues them for $50 Mn and wins, or gets them life in prison for jaywalking, or something.

Don't get me wrong, I hate Monsanto. I was negatively affected by them personally.

But from my personal opinion, the right question to ask is: Why do they win? Are there stupid laws in the books? Should those be repealed? When one creates a law to fix a stupid law, instead of repealing the stupid law, one usually creates problems. Two wrongs don't make a right.

This sounds to me like the typical "there ought too be a law" reaction of statists when they are confronted with a problem. That whole mentality should be uprooted. That can be only be accomplished if the proponents of liberty are consistent and unabashed in their advocacy for voluntary solutions.

Lastly, I'm not an anarchist. But I think people should be able to trade any product as long as their trade is voluntary, even if a third person doesn't like the label.


At least this way, people will be able to pick foods that don't have bombarded foreign DNA insinuated into their protien chains...

One could also say that with Obamacare, at least people won't be denied care for having preexisting conditions.


There are very few things that justify government intervention, but this sort of thing is why we form governments in the first place - to stand aginst these raw abuses of power such as Monsanto is famous for.

I thought governments existed to protect individual rights. No rights are violated when someone sells something without a label.

[Polskash]

There are very few things that justify government intervention, but this sort of thing is why we form governments in the first place - to stand aginst these raw abuses of power such as Monsanto is famous for.


This is terribly flawed logic. The reason Monsanto even has this amount of power is due to government coercion in the first place. Therefore, justifying more government coercion because of past coercion is merely perpetuating the same cycle of interventionism that got us screwed in the first place.

Instead of dicking around with this nonsense, introduce a bill to nullify any involvement by the FDA in NC's affairs.

Edit: N/m, you already understand how we got here in the first place. This still does not, however, justify more government intervention.

[ChaosControl]

Awesome bills, hope they pass. Keep up the good work. :D

[AGRP]

Private messages not working? :/

[osan]

n/m:);)

[matt0611]

Awesome, really excited about the constitutional tender!

[Fox McCloud]

I definitely disagree with the labeling requirement--that needs to be up to private labeling agencies to decide (and more importantly, consumers).

[Feeding the Abscess]

I definitely disagree with the labeling requirement--that needs to be up to private labeling agencies to decide (and more importantly, consumers).

Tried and failed, Monsanto sues the living hell out of companies who do this. If a free market is our desire, and an international government chartered monopoly is distorting the market, is it not the role of government to correct past mistakes? Since stripping Monsanto of its charter is both unattainable and not available for a state rep, advancing a bill that would provide legal cover for companies to put anti-GMO and rBGH labels on their product if they choose is a fair compromise.

[low preference guy]

Tried and failed, Monsanto sues the living hell out of companies who do this. If a free market is our desire, and an international government chartered monopoly is distorting the market, is it not the role of government to correct past mistakes? Since stripping Monsanto of its charter is both unattainable and not available for a state rep, advancing a bill that would provide legal cover for companies to put anti-GMO and rBGH labels on their product if they choose is a fair compromise.

So Mr. "Rand Paul isn't pure enough for me" Feeding the Abscess wants to solve a problem caused by the government with more government attacks on individual rights. What. a. joke.

[Working Poor]

But from my personal opinion, the right question to ask is: Why do they win?

the same reason pot and hemp are illegal.

[GunnyFreedom]

So Mr. "Rand Paul isn't pure enough for me" Feeding the Abscess wants to solve a problem caused by the government with more government attacks on individual rights. What. a. joke.

You'd rather make people eat poison against their knowledge and will?

[low preference guy]

You'd rather make people eat poison against their knowledge and will?

It's not against their will. If they put something in their body and nobody forces them, it is not against their will.

[Feeding the Abscess]

So Mr. "Rand Paul isn't pure enough for me" Feeding the Abscess wants to solve a problem caused by the government with more government attacks on individual rights. What. a. joke.

Never said he wasn't pure enough, I simply dislike his tone when it comes to foreign policy/other policy areas. As I've said numerous times before, I'm a Randbot everywhere else but here.

Additionally, Monsanto attacks individual rights by their actions. Is it not the government's place to protect property rights? Monsanto distorts the market by attacking competitors - to suggest that acting to counter that is a government attack on individual rights is misguided.

[low preference guy]

Additionally, Monsanto attacks individual rights by their actions. Is it not the government's place to protect property rights?

The legislation doesn't attack just Monsanto. If your neighbor wants to sell you something without a label, she will be prosecuted. What crime did she commit?

[Feeding the Abscess]

What's your solution? Doing nothing isn't ideal, and drafting legislation against one specific entity certainly isn't any better.

[GunnyFreedom]

It's not against their will. If they put something in their body and nobody forces them, it is not against their will.

Yeah, you haven't been following the Monsanto story have you?

1) people want GMO and rBGH free food.

2) companies respond to that need as a free market ought, by labeling their products "GMO-free"

3a) Monsanto dumps billions into a bogus lawsuit that bankrupts the other company despite the fact they do not lose.

or

3b) The leadership of the other company dies under mysterious circumstances.

4) after a few bites at the apple, companies stop labeling their products "GMO-free" because they don't want to be dead or homeless with millions of dollars in debt

All the free market solutions have been tried, and they failed because Monsanto is an aberration that does not belong in a free market.

It's either fight them or roll over and die.

I bet half the dairy you eat/drink has pus in it and you'll never know it because Monsanto destroys any company that labels their products "rBGH Free" and the US Federal Government lets them get away with it.

So, how am I supposed to serve my constituents who want to avoid GMO food?

[GunnyFreedom]

The legislation doesn't attack just Monsanto. If your neighbor wants to sell you something without a label, she will be prosecuted. What crime did she commit?

My neighbor bombards her tomato seeds with gold-particles coated with DNA material? really?

[low preference guy]

My neighbor bombards her tomato seeds with gold-particles coated with DNA material? really?

This is my last post of the thread. I don't want to get into an argument with one of best reps in the country. But let me quote somebody who talked about a very important problem.


ALL law is backed by a gun, and not just 'theoretically' but factually. And, you will even get shot for jaywalking if you get ticketed, refuse to pay, get a bench warrant to appear, refuse to appear, the police come to your house, you refuse to surrender and when they come after you and you resist, you WILL be shot.

[...]

The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate ON THE PLANET. More than 1 out of every 100 adults in the US is behind bars. The United States has the highest per capita corrections rate ON THE PLANET. Nearly 1 out of every 31 adults in the US is owned by the Department of Corrections.


How do you solve the problem in bold? The "there ought to be a law" mentality needs to be uprooted. That can be only be accomplished if the proponents of liberty are consistent and unabashed in their advocacy for voluntary solutions. This law sets a horrible precedent both as a law in itself, and regarding what people do to solve their problems.

The people who started the FDA could've used your same arguments to justify it. The companies are too powerful and the little guy can't fight them. This law just perpetuates that approach to solving problems.

Plus, there is the slippery slope problem. My neighbor might not use the products you mention, but hey, if we made legislation for ingredient A, why not make legislation for ingredient B?

I'm out.

[AGRP]

May I suggest to respond to messages instead of ignoring them in the future?

I completely understand if you can't do it, but to simply ignore people is inconsiderate.

[GunnyFreedom]

This is my last post of the thread. I don't want to get into an argument with one of best reps in the country. But let me quote somebody who talked about a very important problem.



How do you solve the problem in bold? The "there ought too be a law" mentality needs to be uprooted. That can be only be accomplished if the proponents of liberty are consistent and unabashed in their advocacy for voluntary solutions. This law sets a horrible precedent both as a law in itself, and regarding what people do to solve their problems.

The people who started the FDA could've used the same arguments. The companies are too powerful and the little guy can't fight them. This law just perpetuates that approach to solving problems.

I'm out.

Yeah, sorry, I don't see very many individuals with the resources to do genetic modifiction on foodstuff, so I really don't understand where this effects individuals in any way, shape or form. Besides, if someone knowingly gives me a tomato with arsenic in it and doesn't bother to tell me, that's a real crime. I consider GMO food to at least be as bad as arsenic. If people choose to eat arsenic, that's their right, but they should at least do so with full knowledge and not have it hidden from them.

The US does have the highest per-capita incarceration rate on the planet, which stems from non-violent (innocent, to my mind) people behind bars, and ACTUAL criminals (like Monsanto) running free.

I'm a Constitutionalist, not a Liberartian, I've said that a thousand times. Some things REALLY ARE crimes, and that includes using deceit and fraud and global monopoly powers and immunity to make us eat poison against our will.

Right now, the ONLY way I can avoid GMO food is to not eat, or grow my own heirloom food in my back yard. I don't think giving me a choice between eating poison or fasting until dead is 'liberty,' and the whole reason governments exist is to protect the rights of people - specifically in the US form of governments (ie State Republics), to protect the rights of the individual.

I believe that the right to avoid poison (if you so desire) is natural and fundamental.

[low preference guy]

Yeah, sorry, I don't see very many individuals with the resources to do genetic modifiction on foodstuff, so I really don't understand where this effects individuals in any way, shape or form.

I'm just reposting my edit. The answer to your question is:


My neighbor might not use the products you mention, but hey, if we made legislation for ingredient A, why not make legislation for ingredient B?.

My post you are quoting explains why I think that's a dangerous slippery slope.


I believe that the right to avoid poison (if you so desire) is natural and fundamental.

Again, virtually the same argument can be used to create the FDA.

[GunnyFreedom]

I'm just reposting my edit. The answer to your question is:

My neighbor might not use the products you mention, but hey, if we made legislation for ingredient A, why not make legislation for ingredient B?

For the same reason you arrest someone for putting arsenic in someone else's food without their knowledge but don't arrest them for putting sugar in their food without their knowledge. If someone is secretly poisoning me, I have no problems with them going to jail. And GMO is not an ingredient, it is recombinant DNA technology that purposefully creates mutant strains of food with little or no understanding of the product.

All I'm saying is "you can't poison people in secret anymore - if you want to poison them, and they want to buy your poison fine - you have to at least tell them that you are putting this poison into their food."

I would prefer to protect companies from malicious frivolous lawsuits and assassinations when they voluntarily choose to label their own products 'GMO-Free" but I never was able to come up with language to do that.

[low preference guy]

For the same reason you arrest someone for putting arsenic in someone else's food without their knowledge but don't arrest them for putting sugar in their food without their knowledge. If someone is secretly poisoning me, I have no problems with them going to jail. And GMO is not an ingredient, it is recombinant DNA technology that purposefully creates mutant strains of food with little or no understanding of the product.

All I'm saying is "you can't poison people in secret anymore - if you want to poison them, and they want to buy your poison fine - you have to at least tell them that you are putting this poison into their food."

I would prefer to protect companies from malicious frivolous lawsuits and assassinations when they voluntarily choose to label their own products 'GMO-Free" but I never was able to come up with language to do that.

Well, this was fun. Anyway, I hope debating here helps you to hone your arguments, especially those for sound money.

[Seraphim]

Perhaps something along the lines of:

Any company has the inherent right to label their products as they see fit as long as there are no known lies or deceit in an attempt to persuade potential consumers.

The same way a company can say SUGAR FREE or ASPARTAME FREE in an attempt to persuade consumers to purchase their products, a company must have the right to advertise GMO FREE. GMO's are a product. A company explicitly telling their customers they do not use GMO's is trying to persuade to a market place that they are better.

I applaud your efforts Gunny. Rather than trying to go after Monsato, which keeps failing and makes us out to be "nutty conspiracy theorists"...perhaps a fight to protect Monsato's competition and competition to it's products is line.


For the same reason you arrest someone for putting arsenic in someone else's food without their knowledge but don't arrest them for putting sugar in their food without their knowledge. If someone is secretly poisoning me, I have no problems with them going to jail. And GMO is not an ingredient, it is recombinant DNA technology that purposefully creates mutant strains of food with little or no understanding of the product.

All I'm saying is "you can't poison people in secret anymore - if you want to poison them, and they want to buy your poison fine - you have to at least tell them that you are putting this poison into their food."

I would prefer to protect companies from malicious frivolous lawsuits and assassinations when they voluntarily choose to label their own products 'GMO-Free" but I never was able to come up with language to do that.

[GunnyFreedom]

May I suggest to respond to messages instead of ignoring them in the future?

I completely understand if you can't do it, but to simply ignore people is inconsiderate.

Sorry, I have gotten no PMs

[puppetmaster]

monsanto is a piece of #### company

[profg]

I have three bills available for co-sponsorship now:

H445 to prevent the implementation of the Federal RealID in NC

H446 to require foodstuffs containing GMO material or rBGH dairy be labled

And the big controversial Act that landed me on Cavuto (which upon reading is not actually so controversial):

H448 NC Constitutional Tender Act

Spread the word!

Thanks much!

Rep. Bradley, THANK YOU for introducing your Constitutional Hard Tender Act. This is the kind of thing that's happening in States across the country, and that we need to keep pushing hard on, before it's too late. May God bless your efforts.

Dr. Bill Greene
Author, Constitutional Tender Act (GA)
http://www.ConstitutionalTender.com/