GMO labeling on the Ballot in Oregon

[Natural Citizen]

why you no liek free speech and free market?

Mercantilism is the antithesis of the free market. The practice we see with these companies blocking consumers from knowing what they consume removes any mechanism that consumers have to choose and participate in a genuine free market system where winners and losers are decided the old fashioned way.

Mercantilism protects industry from the free market. And I have no problem with free speech. The more the merrier, I say. Is what makes the infowar such a hoot, PRB.

I just got done explaining this in post #205. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702943

[donnay]

Mercantilism is the antithesis of the free market. The practice we see with these companies blocking consumers from knowing what they consume removes any mechanism that consumers have to choose and participate in a genuine free market system where winners and losers are decided the old fashioned way.

Mercantilism protects industry from the free market. And I have no problem with free speech. The more the merrier, I say. Is what makes the infowarsuch a hoot, PRB.

I just got done explaining this in post #205. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702943

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again".

Lot's of people only hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. It is truly frustrating.

[invisible]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again".

Lot's of people only hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. It is truly frustrating.

Don't worry, I've already covered it for you.

[Natural Citizen]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Natural Citizen again".

Lot's of people only hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. It is truly frustrating.

I look at it like this. And you may have experience with this. We often spend a lot of time (outside of a place like this) trying to teach people who actually don't know what they should be arguing for with regard to this thing. I don't agree with forced government things like labeling but that argument is too often given in defense of the free market but from folks who just don't know that they are actually defending the mercantilism of it all. Which, as we know, is not the free market, never was and never will be. It's becoming common practice to make a case against government intrusion by way of offering an argument that, really, is premised upon just that very thing. It's a tough one to conquer.

I'm not mad at PRB. Was just a prime example of the phenomenon.

[osan]

You bet it's already being done!! This godforsaken state I live in just pulled Red Raspberry leaf supplement off the shelf because the producers are now being mandated to add in the labeling that it has trace amounts of led (no more than what's in the dirt we grow our food in, mind you). And so now, the ONE ingredient that was controlling night sweats and hot flashes for me is off the shelf until all the labels are changed. But the bastards won't label GMO food!!!

Well for Christ's sake grow your own. Raspberries grow well and are easy. In fact, if you have a decent place for them, keeping growth at bay is the problem you stand to face. Just get a tub of raspberries from the store, toss a few into pots and you will have seedlings in a short while.

[Natural Citizen]

Still the same count and percentages given in post #205, then?

It looks like a little more ballots are coming back YES than NO compared to previous update but % remains the same for the time being.

Yes		741,488	49.85%
No		746,012	50.15%

Still over 11,000 contested ballots out there that people just aren't taking the time to remedy. I'd imagine enough to tip the scale but that is, of course, speculative. Lots and lots of contested ballots. I still consider it reasonable for one to wonder if the No On 92 folks may have had some people working in some of these critical counties and questioning the signatures on these ballots. It's certainly something to give more attention moving forward to future cycles in other states where these citizens initiatives will certainly be on the ballot. Interesting times...

[PRB]

Mercantilism is the antithesis of the free market. The practice we see with these companies blocking consumers from knowing what they consume removes any mechanism that consumers have to choose and participate in a genuine free market system where winners and losers are decided the old fashioned way.

Cool story bro.

How about some evidence

1. campaigning is mercantilism
2. campaigning is not free speech
3. campaigning is blocking anybody from knowing anything

Mercantilism protects industry from the free market. And I have no problem with free speech. The more the merrier, I say. Is what makes the infowar such a hoot, PRB.

I just got done explaining this in post #205. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702943

I am aware mercantilism protects people from competition, I am not convinced this is an example of it.

[Natural Citizen]

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Mercantilism is the antithesis of the free market. The practice we see with these companies blocking consumers from knowing what they consume removes any mechanism that consumers have to choose and participate in a genuine free market system where winners and losers are decided the old fashioned way.

Cool story bro.

How about some evidence

1. campaigning is mercantilism
2. campaigning is not free speech
3. campaigning is blocking anybody from knowing anything

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

Mercantilism protects industry from the free market. And I have no problem with free speech. The more the merrier, I say. Is what makes the infowar such a hoot, PRB.

I just got done explaining this in post #205. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5702943

I am aware mercantilism protects people from competition, I am not convinced this is an example of it.

I am going to, one time, give you the opportunity to reconsider what you're inviting from me here. One time. If you choose not to consider my offer and perhaps have neglected to read some of the many postings that I've shared in this thread as well as others with regard to the subject then I'd expect for you to finish the debate. That is to say that it wouldn't be very polite to invite and engage in something that we may not be prepared or willing to finish. Snarky one liners and meme speak do not equate to debate, btw. Not that I'm encouraging the notion that this is what is to be expect from you but I'd just like to mention this so that we have a fair understanding of one another prior to debating the matter.

So, again...one time. Is this a subject that you wish to expand upon and are prepared to finish? I'll admit, I'm a stickler for a good debate. Bro.

[PRB]

If one reflects on this lawsuit and others that will certainly follow as the people introduce more of these citizens initiatives, it begs the question of the rule of law. Is justice something that is to be purchased without deliberation?

The alternative is justice can't be purchased at all, which is socialism.

And what of the courts and so called unbiased judges who dispense it?

I'm not afraid of biased judges, I'm afraid of people who disagree with me.

We know much of the revolving door that exists within these companies, the courts and government bodies. The phenomenon that we see with regard to these companies and major block/share holders (yet to be known) who use patent law to undermine the ability of the people to grow and eat what they want in a way that stimulates control of the food supply in their corrporate socialist/mercantilist favor could be said to be a direct contradiction of the old endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gag. We like to think that America is a Republic but this is a phenomenon that only resides on paper it would seem.

Patented seeds do not prevent competition. And please stop spreading the conspiracy theory about Monsanto suing polluted farms.

But I digress. Is a debate for another day and I suppose that I ask it here given debate that we see in some recent postings from the evangelical community with regard to "life". At the moment it's important to focus on the subject here, which, of course, would be the peoples right to know what they consume. To participate in a genuine free market system where a mechanism for choice exists and freedom to choose establishes the winners and losers. Mercantilist infrastructure that we have at the moment in the way that was described here actually protects these industries from the free market. And spending $25 million from out of state to oppose a citizens initiative for a right to know and make an informed choice is demonstrative of this mercantilist model.

are you saying you'd never sue to halt a law?

[PRB]

So, again...one time. Is this a subject that you wish to expand upon and are prepared to finish? I'll admit, I'm a stickler for a good debate. Bro.

On at least one simply condition : answer my questions first.

[invisible]

I'm not afraid of biased judges, I'm afraid of people who disagree with me.

That's certainly an interesting admission, especially considering the various things on which you disagree with people here on RPF.

[Natural Citizen]

On at least one simply condition : answer my questions first.

Very well then. But I am going to go read some of the other threads, though. I didn't log on to fiddle with this.

In the meantime, I've set a table. PRB's debate with Natural Citizen

[Natural Citizen]

The alternative is justice can't be purchased at all, which is socialism.

No, the alternative would be to put my thoughts back into the form in which they were offered so that we may counter the substance in a way that is true to the scope in which they were shared. The first interruption into my posting, you seem to be already confused with regard to the scope of that which I'm trying to share with you.

So, I'll do that for you.

Originally Posted by Natural Citizen

If one reflects on this lawsuit and others that will certainly follow as the people introduce more of these citizens initiatives, it begs the question of the rule of law. Is justice something that is to be purchased without deliberation? And what of the courts and so called unbiased judges who dispense it? We know much of the revolving door that exists within these companies, the courts and government bodies. The phenomenon that we see with regard to these companies and major block/share holders (yet to be known) who use patent law to undermine the ability of the people to grow and eat what they want in a way that stimulates control of the food supply in their corrporate socialist/mercantilist favor could be said to be a direct contradiction of the old endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gag. We like to think that America is a Republic but this is a phenomenon that only resides on paper it would seem.

But I digress. Is a debate for another day and I suppose that I ask it here given debate that we see in some recent postings from the evangelical community with regard to "life". At the moment it's important to focus on the subject here, which, of course, would be the peoples right to know what they consume. To participate in a genuine free market system where a mechanism for choice exists and freedom to choose establishes the winners and losers. Mercantilist infrastructure that we have at the moment in the way that was described here actually protects these industries from the free market. And spending $25 million from out of state to oppose a citizens initiative for a right to know and make an informed choice is demonstrative of this mercantilist model.

There. Now it's all back together again the way that it was meant to be shared. The substance of it is much different than that which you seem to be making it through random interruption and misinterpretation.

Please don't separate it. I'd appreciate it if you would read those thoughts again and respond in whole. Per your comments during interruption of my thought, I don't think you quite understand what I was saying there. An example would be that no place in there did I say that Monsanto is suing polluted farms. And I think it's rather disingenuous for you to compliment this misinterpretation with things like " please stop spreading the conspiracy theory about..."

As well, "Patented seeds do not prevent competition" is completely irrelevant to what I said. I'll assume that you simply don't understand what I was saying there and are responding in a way that conforms to a different debate that you may understand and would rather have. Please read it again and respond in whole. Good advice would be to place my thoughts in which you seem to disagree or lack an understanding into context with those previous responses from other posters for which it was itself premised upon.I was very clear in saying that "I suppose that I ask it here given debate that we see in some recent postings from the evangelical community with regard to "life".

Thanks.

I'll give you a pass on this and won't assume that these are the questions in whichyou were seeking answers conforming to our pre-requisite. I've made a note of those questions and placed them on the table over in the other thread.

[osan]

Cool story bro.

How about some evidence

1. campaigning is mercantilism
2. campaigning is not free speech
3. campaigning is blocking anybody from knowing anything



I am aware mercantilism protects people from competition, I am not convinced this is an example of it.

The discussion is not of "campaigning" in the general sense, but of a very particular application of the practice. Surely this must be obvious. Here, lobbyists campaign for or against very specific laws to protect their interests in ways that discourage competition both directly by stunting or compelling other business entities, or indirectly by repressing the consumers' ability to judge the desirability of products on the shelves.


"Free market" does not mean "free for all" where people, hiding behind the nonsense of the "corporate veil", are free to do whatever their morbidly distorted senses of competition dictate.

If we are going to have the evil of governMENT, primarily because we are too lazy, greedy, willfully ignorant, and timid to govern ourselves, then let us at least make the best of it. While perfection may not be attainable, we can do a damned sight better than what we now have. If we accept the premise that there is but one purpose of governMENT, which is the guaranty and protection of human rights, and we murderously certain that those placed into positions of public trust were held feet to the fires of Hell itself, 98% of the problems we experience today would be gone within five years.

Pursuant to that, corporations would lose all status, save as legal conventions by which a potentially ever changing group of owners of a set of assets set to some organized operational purpose. A "corporation" would become nothing more than a contractual specification to which the parties to ownership would agree and share in their respective contractual rights and responsibilities. That's it. Form one. Don't form one. No matter to anyone, including the temporal agents of governance. You will not, however, enjoy any special treatment and most definitely will not rest immune from the consequences of your actions, regardless of magnitude.

But that is not what we have. Therefore, if one is going to take advantage of the wholly nonsensical and I daresay criminal provisions of the relevant statutes, then by all means should corporations be compelled to label their food products in some gory detail in order that the consumer will be able to at least partly protect himself where governMENT steadfastly fails to do so, and indeed has a complicit hand in enabling the corporation in question to damage the consumer.

Were it otherwise, the consumer would be able to go directly after the parties responsible and those parties could potentially face the noose.

[Natural Citizen]

The discussion is not of "campaigning"

I don't think that PRB actually understood the scope of the posting that he/she took issue with there. And that's okay, I suppose. If that's actually what it is. I wonder sometimes because it seems like we want to hang onto our arguments regardless of irrelevance to the case being made. Is one thing to kind of clumsily bring ourselves up to speed with anothers points and to the extent that an understanding to agree or disagree may occur but it's quite another to remain content to run amok in a way that may serve more to make those points disappear from context all together. You know? It makes us want to kick ourselves as opposed to maybe asking ourselves what we can do better to work around the conundrum. Could be that the idea of a citizens initiative itself is confusing for some of us. I don't know.

[PRB]

The discussion is not of "campaigning" in the general sense, but of a very particular application of the practice. Surely this must be obvious.

No, it's not obvious to me.

Here, lobbyists campaign for or against very specific laws to protect their interests in ways that discourage competition both directly by stunting or compelling other business entities, or indirectly by repressing the consumers' ability to judge the desirability of products on the shelves.

Lobbyists are but people, what is with you people who think corporations and rich are not people and somehow they need to be held to a different standard of justice?

"Free market" does not mean "free for all" where people, hiding behind the nonsense of the "corporate veil", are free to do whatever their morbidly distorted senses of competition dictate.

Actually, that's exactly what it means. What do YOU think it means?

If we are going to have the evil of governMENT, primarily because we are too lazy, greedy, willfully ignorant, and timid to govern ourselves, then let us at least make the best of it. While perfection may not be attainable, we can do a damned sight better than what we now have. If we accept the premise that there is but one purpose of governMENT, which is the guaranty and protection of human rights, and we murderously certain that those placed into positions of public trust were held feet to the fires of Hell itself, 98% of the problems we experience today would be gone within five years.

By make the best of it, you mean use government to stop government?

Pursuant to that, corporations would lose all status, save as legal conventions by which a potentially ever changing group of owners of a set of assets set to some organized operational purpose. A "corporation" would become nothing more than a contractual specification to which the parties to ownership would agree and share in their respective contractual rights and responsibilities. That's it. Form one. Don't form one.

How exactly is that not already the case?

[PRB]

Were it otherwise, the consumer would be able to go directly after the parties responsible and those parties could potentially face the noose.

It seems as though this is your real issue. You're mad at corporations because they can't be hanged the same way people can, if they could, you'd be fine with what they do, is that right?

[libertarianinternational]

I'd rather they were just banned. My brother actually developed Hepatitis B after eating GMOs.

[invisible]

My brother actually developed Hepatitis B after eating GMOs.

Do tell. How did he conclusively document or prove that GMO food was the actual cause? That's a pretty hefty statement, and if he has conclusive proof, that would sure make for one hell of a lawsuit, as well as a good series of articles in the scientific and medical publications.

[Natural Citizen]

I'd rather they were just banned.

Maui just passed a citizens initiative to ban GMOs until they could be proven save for human consumption. These citizens votes not the law will be considered now because Monsanto and some others sued them and now a judge has blocked their newly voted law because it interferes with the profits of these companies. Maui is the home turf of these companies to experiment with these products because of Hawaii's year round weather. People would do well to better understand the TPP because this is exactly the model and not only are gmos being experimented here in America, soo too is the TPP itself. The sovereignty of these American citizens just got thrown out the window by a judge in favor of a corporations lawsuit that came because laws and the will of the people countradict a multi-national corporation's profit.

Maui County voters approved a temporary ban on GMO crop cultivation in a 50 to 48 percent vote. The state has become a battleground between biotech firms and food activists – it was the country’s first ever ballot initiative against global agricultural companies like Monsanto and Dow, which spent $8 million trying to defeat the measure.

Monsanto sues Hawaii county over GMO ban

Judge blocks Maui County from implementing GMO law

HONOLULU • A federal judge said Friday that Maui County may not implement a new law banning the cultivation of genetically modified organisms until he considers arguments in a lawsuit against the measure.

Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. and a unit of Dow Chemical Co. sued the county last week to stop the law.

They argue that the law would harm the economy and their businesses.

So there you have it. A judge is considering whether the successful citizens initiative which succeeded and was passed by a majority vote and it's subsequent law is as important as the multi-national corporation's profits. In America.

What was that about the old endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gag? Seems like we've repatriated that old line. Or someone or some thing has.

[Natural Citizen]

Wow! That's amazingly close to my projection! (post #128) Looks like I'm going to be even more accurate than I thought.

Looks like you hit the percentages right on the head, invisible. That's pretty good. I wouldn't imagine many more ballots will be added. Maybe some oddballs there and about. We ended up with over 11,000 contested ballots that are still out there and weren't ever remedied and I suppose that you recall my thought on those. Is unfortunate because I think they would have tipped the scale.

But you nailed it, though. Percentages likely won't officially change. $25 million buys a lot, I suppose.

Perhaps another day or another place.

Yes Votes		741,607	49.85%
No Votes		746,099	50.15%

[donnay]

Flashback:

Judge Sides With Monsanto: Ridicules Farmers’ Right to Grow Food Without Fear, Contamination and Economic Harm
http://www.nationofchange.org/judge-...economic-harm-

[Natural Citizen]

Flashback:

Judge Sides With Monsanto: Ridicules Farmers’ Right to Grow Food Without Fear, Contamination and Economic Harm
http://www.nationofchange.org/judge-...economic-harm-

Did you see this?

TPP in America: Judge blocks County from implementing law that would harm corporate profit

As you can see, I'm a little heated. Reconsidering my activist efforts and alliances.

[angelatc]

I'd rather they were just banned. My brother actually developed Hepatitis B after eating GMOs.

No he didn't, but I am soooo going to copy and paste this comment in the pro-science group I frequent because it's the funniest thing I've read all week.

[angelatc]

why you no liek free speech and free market?

It always ignores that fact these these ballot initiatives are being driven by the organic lobbying organizations, who stand to lose their entire livelihoods if people figure out that there's no advantage to eating their over-priced designer foods.

"Oh noes! We haz to stop making food more nutritious for less money, 'cos then nobody will buy ourz! Quick - let's ban the competitions products...tell people lies, and scare them with stories we can't back up!"

[Natural Citizen]

I am soooo going to copy and paste this comment in the pro-science group.

Heh. You crack me up, woman.

[osan]

It seems as though this is your real issue. You're mad at corporations because they can't be hanged the same way people can, if they could, you'd be fine with what they do, is that right?

Troll?

Brain lesions?

I don't know and I don't care.

Trying to hold a rational conversation with you is like trying to herd cats, only herding cats makes more sense and is more profitable. You make no rational sense whatsoever. You draw the most wildly nonsequitur inferences such that I cannot imagine what you are thinking... or whether.

I will have to refrain from further wasting my time.

Have a nice day.

[Natural Citizen]

Troll?


I will have to refrain from further wasting my time.

Have a nice day.

Very good, osan. Show the way to go....

Some folks represent the depth of the movement well. So let them.

[invisible]

No he didn't, but I am soooo going to copy and paste this comment in the pro-science group I frequent because it's the funniest thing I've read all week.

It's a pretty hefty claim. I'd wait to see the actual proof before spreading it around as science. If it's actual scientific proof, he's got quite a scoop for the medical and scientific journals, as well as quite a lawsuit.

[invisible]

Looks like you hit the percentages right on the head, invisible. That's pretty good. I wouldn't imagine many more ballots will be added. Maybe some oddballs there and about. We ended up with over 11,000 contested ballots that are still out there and weren't ever remedied and I suppose that you recall my thought on those. Is unfortunate because I think they would have tipped the scale.

But you nailed it, though. Percentages likely won't officially change. $25 million buys a lot, I suppose.

Perhaps another day or another place.

Yes Votes		741,607	49.85%
No Votes		746,099	50.15%

Sadly, I wish I hadn't been right on this. But it's certainly interesting that my projection was spot-on accurate.