Quote :

"That would be you securing your right to non-GM food. Your democratically instantiated right to non-GM food has trumped that company's moral right to self determination."

Your democratically instantiated right to not have me shit on your chest was trumped my moral right to self determination


p.s. companies are not people therefore do not have the right to self determination

Quote :

"I have not, I have damaged your property. Sue me. Not having your farm cross-pollinated and creating a superweed is a priveledge, not a right. Deal with it."

It's a violation of his property and self-determination, therefore it is a violation of his rights.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 1:21:28 PM

Personally, I think it is the governments role to regulate genetic mutation and any other type of genetic altering. Same thing with stem cell, if people knew that a higher authority is actually supervising this work then maybe the evironmental/pro-life zealots wont go bombing and sabotaging important research that may give rise to new theories and technology.

By the way, if someone had the intent to personally screw with people through food/chemicals/germs/whatever then whats stopping them? Shouldn't we be more worried about the mad lone scientist instead of the licensed laboratory scientist?

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 1:25:04 PM

Quote :

"Your democratically instantiated right to not have me shit on your chest was trumped my moral right to self determination"

Fuck. Sorry I ever said the word "right". You have punished me, now make "rational" arguments for a change.

DG's argument is that I might accidentally damage his property with my behavior, therefore my behavior should be outlawed. I do not believe the liklihood is sufficient to justify criminal intervention. Any instances of harm from cross-polination can be dealt with through lawsuits.

Quote :

"p.s. companies are not people therefore do not have the right to self determination"

Really? The owners of these companies would no doubt be impressed by your ability to completely forget they exist.

2/28/2006 1:42:47 PM

I propose a solution which provides for uniform standards for lazy/cheap producers and still provides for state rights. Federal regulations are a minimum for food standards and can be sold in any state. However, any food which meets the federal standards but not the state's standards must be labled "This product meets federal standards for food safety but does not meet the standards set forth by this state"

Problem solved.

2/28/2006 1:42:50 PM

^ deal.

2/28/2006 1:47:14 PM

Quote :

"Really? The owners of these companies would no doubt be impressed by your ability to completely forget they exist."

the owners are people, the company is not. If you cannot see that, then you are an idiot.

Quote :

"I propose a solution which provides for uniform standards for lazy/cheap producers and still provides for state rights. Federal regulations are a minimum for food standards and can be sold in any state. However, any food which meets the federal standards but not the state's standards must be labled "This product meets federal standards for food safety but does not meet the standards set forth by this state""

I've got a better idea. If it doesn't meet the state's standards, then it cannot be sold in that state.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 1:55 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2006 1:51:47 PM

Quote :

"the owners are people, the company is not. If you cannot see that, then you are an idiot."

"A Company" does not even exist, it is merely a legal construct, or a stand it, for the interests of its owners. If you cannot see that, then you are an idiot.

As such, whenever you hear "The Company has decided to lay everyone off." You should rephrase it in your head to say "Agents representing a bunch of people decided they should lay everyone off."

It really isn't that complicated. I never understand why so many have such difficulty with something so simple. A bunch of people hired someone else to dispose of their property for them. It doesn't change the fact that it is still their property, why do you believe they should lose all rights over it just because they have allowed an agent to manage it for them?

2/28/2006 3:39:10 PM

Quote :

""A Company" does not even exist, it is merely a legal construct, or a stand it, for the interests of its owners. If you cannot see that, then you are an idiot. As such, whenever you hear "The Company has decided to lay everyone off." You should rephrase it in your head to say "Agents representing a bunch of people decided they should lay everyone off." It really isn't that complicated. I never understand why so many have such difficulty with something so simple. A bunch of people hired someone else to dispose of their property for them. It doesn't change the fact that it is still their property, why do you believe they should lose all rights over it just because they have allowed an agent to manage it for them?"

exactly, a company doesn't exist. Therefore, a company cannot have self-determination. and by the nature of a company, indviduals lose all rights to property, because that property then becomes the company's.

2/28/2006 3:43:34 PM

Quote :

"exactly, a company doesn't exist. Therefore, a company cannot have self-determination. and by the nature of a company, indviduals lose all rights to property, because that property then becomes the company's."

You just contradicted yourself: how can the property belong to the company if, in fact, "a company doesn't exist"?

All property has an owner, it is the definition of property. When you create "A Company" you have merely created a legal framework under which people, in this case investors, will pool their property and cooperate. What is owned by "the company" is in reality owned by the owner's of the company, we just tell each other "this is company property" for simplification, it is easier than saying "this property belongs to John of North Carolina, Emily of Wisconsin, Jack of Florida, etc. etc. etc."

If you are getting hung up on the "limited liability" aspects of a corporation, try not to. That was a gift from the government, not a moral distinction. In all rational rights, an owner of GM stock should be just a liable as a silent partner in a Pizza Hut. It was no different from when the government gave liability exemption to Nuclear Powerplant owners.

2/28/2006 4:05:48 PM

Quote :

"You just contradicted yourself: how can the property belong to the company if, in fact, "a company doesn't exist"? All property has an owner, it is the definition of property. When you create "A Company" you have merely created a legal framework under which people, in this case investors, will pool their property and cooperate. What is owned by "the company" is in reality owned by the owner's of the company, we just tell each other "this is company property" for simplification, it is easier than saying "this property belongs to John of North Carolina, Emily of Wisconsin, Jack of Florida, etc. etc. etc." If you are getting hung up on the "limited liability" aspects of a corporation, try not to. That was a gift from the government, not a moral distinction. In all rational rights, an owner of GM stock should be just a liable as a silent partner in a Pizza Hut. It was no different from when the government gave liability exemption to Nuclear Powerplant owners."

A company isn't a tangible substance. It isn't a human. When a company violates the law it doesn't go to jail. Besides the point, a company is not a person. Plain and simple and should not be protected as a human is.

2/28/2006 4:33:00 PM

^ You just restated yourself.


[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 4:42 PM. Reason : [blanked]]

2/28/2006 4:38:50 PM

Quote :

"You just contradicted yourself: how can the property belong to the company if, in fact, "a company doesn't exist"?"

I meant in the sense that a company cannot be touched, felt, hugged, etc. It exists on paper only

2/28/2006 4:39:46 PM

As I have said, "A Company" does not exist, it is an imaginary figure, an abstraction for something very real: People cooperating to pool their property and create even more wealth.

So, when you say "A company should not be treated as human, nor given the rights of a human" you are really saying "People working together as a group should not be treated as human, nor given the rights of a human." Why do you feel this should be the case?

2/28/2006 4:43:05 PM

Quote :

"So, when you say "A company should not be treated as human, nor given the rights of a human" you are really saying "People working together as a group should not be treated as human, nor given the rights of a human." Why do you feel this should be the case? "

the people themselves should be treated as a person, but the thing they create should not. Simply because the thing they create is not a human.

2/28/2006 4:44:20 PM

Uh, the things they create are called "property". you know, factories, trucks, inventory. Of course this stuff should not be called a person, it is property, and belongs to the shareholders, and they and their agents should be able to dispose of it as they see fit.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 5:11 PM. Reason : fix]

2/28/2006 5:10:53 PM

so as a shareholder of apple computers and yellow roadway, which chair, computer, truck belong to me?

2/28/2006 7:41:44 PM

you own part of the leg of each chair yo.

get in there and take your shit back.







of course apple could just badge the 3 legged chairs with their logo and sell it for 100x what they paid for it.

2/28/2006 7:50:37 PM

Shaggy, when people buy Apple products, they aren't paying for the logo. Shit's quality yo.

2/28/2006 7:54:01 PM

ololololololololololololololololololololololololololo

thats a good one i'll remember it.

2/28/2006 7:55:16 PM

(good zings)

As for nutsmackr: is it your contention that whenever property rights are not clear and easy, none exist?

After a 30 year marriage during which both worked, which of the two owns the house?
I started a legal partnership with my cousin, we each invested about half the money and started a pizza hut. Which of us owns the cash-register? (for some reason the police came when I took the ovens home with me).

The answer to your question is that you own x% of everything those companies own. If you want to get your stuff out of those companies, I'm sure a fellow shareholder will relieve you of your shares, just as a partner in a firm can only get out by being bought out. The 1/3 partner in a law firm just can't start taking home funiture, he must find someone to buy his stake.

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 9:29 PM. Reason : stake!]

[Edited on February 28, 2006 at 9:30 PM. Reason : ovens!]

2/28/2006 9:23:50 PM

still no one has responded to me as to why these gm crops and whatnot are necessary, since there is enough food in the world to feed everyone more than they need RIGHT NOW. That being the case, why do we need gm crops in order to try and get more output? The problem of chronic hunger is one of DISTRIBUTION, not scarcity.

It's not going to be given to the hungry any more than the food we already have. Food aid is typically given to governments, and often those governments just put it on the market to be sold, thereby passing over the hungry, who still can't buy it.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 9:13 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 9:12:42 AM

http://www.plantphysiol.org/cgi/content/full/124/1/3

an interesting read on the topic in a peer-reviewed journal.

Quote :

"Production of genetically modified crops is not a complex technology and is clearly within the capabilities of national research institutes in many developing countries (e.g. Argentina, China, India, Mexico, Brazil, South Korea, and many others). Genetic modification of crops using recombinant DNA technology is also within reach of the institutes of the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), including Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) in Mexico, International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in The Philippines, and the International Institute For Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Nigeria. Furthermore, these institutes have already assumed responsibility for biotechnological research and a number of crop improvement projects are under way. These institutes see biotechnology as a tool and not as an end in itself. Crop improvement through biotechnology need not be equated with transgenic plants. For example, marker-assisted breeding is a powerful biotechnology that can find widespread application with the crops of the poor. Detailed linkage maps of these crops will be tremendously useful. As these CGIAR institutes focus on their needs, they will want and need to reach out to public institutions in developed countries. Will the scientists there respond, or will they be preoccupied with their own research agendas? Alliances such as the Cassava Biotechnology Network that bring together researchers from many countries are an effective way to create synergy toward a common goal."

Quote :

"The creation of an international clearinghouse or institute funded by the large multinationals (Am I a dreamer?) to foster such a partnership would be a significant development to bolster the confidence of scientists and the public that the agricultural biotechnology industry is serious about the transfer of technology. We don't need another institute that does research, but a high profile institute that fosters and mediates interactions between the public and the private sector: a group of people who make a real effort to solve the difficult problems that arise in these international collaborations. Such an institute could also be involved in placing lawyers from developing countries in intellectual property management environments where they can learn this important trade. Less-developed countries have very little expertise in this field and are at a serious disadvantage when they sit down at the bargaining table with the representatives of industry. Regaining the trust of the public will require more than "education campaigns." The public will support the multinationals if they are perceived to be truly concerned with helping to solve what looks to me like the greatest challenge of the 21st century: feeding 9 billion people with a sustainable agricultural production system."

i really don't think there is any easy solution to this problem: just improving distribution or just increasing the prevalence of GM foods will not be sufficient.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 10:05 AM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 10:02:34 AM

Quote :

"just improving distribution or just increasing the prevalence of GM foods will not be sufficient."

Ok, if there's enough food in the world to feed everyone, how will increasing distribution NOT be sufficient?

3/1/2006 10:35:55 AM

DG, you still have not explained how me growing GM crops is a sufficient hinderance upon your freedoms to justify governmental interference. Where are the farms being wrecked by GM contamination? Such things start lawsuits, they should be public. We have been growing GM crops for a decade now and eating them, the problems should have arisen already.

Quote :

"it is your right to do what you like with your land and your body. it is NOT your right to do something when it directly affects other people's freedoms, and that has been and will be the case with GM crops."

Exactly, and if you cannot demonstrate your freedoms being negatively impacted sufficient to justify intervention, then whether or not me growing GM crops will save the poor is irrelevant. Growing GM crops will make me richer, or at least I believe so, hence I am executing my perogative as you have stated to do what I like with my land and my body.

I will not conceid to a discussion of "Help on balance more than it hurts" until you demonstrate, with links to statistics, showing substantial hardship being inflicted upon neighboring businesses.

If you were asking your leading questions because you want laws to require labelling, I could care less. Just make it small and unobtrussive and I wont care much.

3/1/2006 11:09:51 AM

Quote :

"DG, you still have not explained how me growing GM crops is a sufficient hinderance upon your freedoms to justify governmental interference."

not my freedoms specifically, usually the freedoms of small farmers in developing countries.

According to this article GM crops under test in the UK have cross pollinated to weeds, giving them the same resistance to herbicide as the GM crops.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,,1535428,00.html

Quote :

"Percy Schmeiser never expected to become a cause célèbre in the battle over genetic engineering of the world’s food supply and the “right” of companies to patent life forms. He was your average farmer in Bruno, an agricultural community in the Canadian province (state) of Saskatchewan. In his 70’s, he’d been growing rape — the source plant for canola oil — for over 50 years, and his main concerns were keeping his farm going long enough to retire and make sure he had a legacy for his five children and 14 grandchildren. Then, sometime in the late 1990’s, a stray seed or bit of pollen from Monsanto’s trademarked and patented Roundup Ready canola drifted onto his land and cross-pollinated with one of Schmeiser’s own plants. Monsanto’s private investigator, a former Mountie from Saskatoon (the state capital of Saskatchewan), trespassed onto Schmeiser’s land (as well as the fields of other farmers in the area), stole some of his crop and had it tested to see if it contained Monsanto’s patented gene sequence. It did. Monsanto took Schmeiser to court in 1998, alleging that he’d stolen their seed and infringed on their patent. They quickly dropped the theft allegation, but on March 29 a Canadian federal judge issued a sweeping ruling that the mere presence of a canola plant with Monsanto’s gene on Schmeiser’s farm was enough to prove patent infringement. Schmeiser was forced to give up all the profits from his 1998 canola crop to Monsanto — about $105,000 — and may be forced to pay Monsanto’s court costs, about $200,000, as well."

http://la.indymedia.org/print.php?id=7638&comments=yes

Quote :

"Growing GM crops will make me richer, or at least I believe so, hence I am executing my perogative as you have stated to do what I like with my land and my body. "

well, as long as you don't care if it hurts anyone else, i guess that's your thing.

3/1/2006 11:38:54 AM

Quote :

"According to this article GM crops under test in the UK have cross pollinated to weeds, giving them the same resistance to herbicide as the GM crops."

Hmm, an actual case of harm from GM crop testing. I suspect the government/researcher should have paid closer attention in this instance.

Quote :

"well, as long as you don't care if it hurts anyone else, i guess that's your thing."

You have not demonstrated that my growing GM crops has harmed anyone. You have demonstrated that testing non-government approved crops might produce mutations in weeds, you have not even demonstrated that this has harmed anyone either. I suspect the weed has been driven extinct by now (being half wheat doesn't help a weed very much beyond that one immunity).

So, my statement stands, since my growing of GM crops has not harmed anyone you have no moral grounds upon which to bar me from doing so.

3/1/2006 12:00:09 PM

well, your logic is completely flawed here. I don't think anyone's ever imbibed a specific combination of 1/3 whiskey, 1/3 clorox, and 1/3 hydrochloric acid while taking an enima full of motor oil, but I can pretty well assume that it will kill him. I don't need to do research.

and before you get even more silly on me, you know that I'm not saying that growing gm crops is equally dangerous as that. What I'm saying is that if we don't KNOW, but there's a good chance that it COULD cause problems, much more extensive testing should be done before it's in our cornflakes.

I would say that the burden of proof is on those introducing the new product, not on those trying to prove they're dangerous.

Oh, btw, alot of my problems would be allayed if they started labeling GM foods, because I'm quite sure sales would plummet and they'd lose in the marketplace. Then smith's free hand could bitch-smack them.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:13 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2006 12:12:51 PM

Quote :

"and before you get even more silly on me, you know that I'm not saying that growing gm crops is equally dangerous as that. What I'm saying is that if we don't KNOW, but there's a good chance that it COULD cause problems, much more extensive testing should be done before it's in our cornflakes."

Well, it has been in our cornflakes for a decade now. I suspect if there were substantial ill-effects we would KNOW by now. As such, your burden of proof is given, whether or not you like how it was derived, it has been derived.

Quote :

"Oh, btw, alot of my problems would be allayed if they started labeling GM foods, because I'm quite sure sales would plummet and they'd lose in the marketplace. Then smith's free hand could bitch-smack them."

I disagree. Watch the penn and teller episode on this subject. The average person, for good or bad, trusts the FDA when it says this food is safe.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason : P&T]

3/1/2006 12:49:10 PM

Quote :

"I suspect"

and are you REALLY using pen and teller as a reference? I mean, their show is entertaining, but not only are they not a valid reference, they're CONSTANTLY using logical fallacies and only showing the bits that prove their points.

3/1/2006 12:57:18 PM

Oh Fuck. You did it to me again. Please note, there were two separate topics covered in my post. Only one mentioned Penn and Teller, and only because the question was a truely subjective "do people trust the FDA?"

Again, you have not demonstrated substantial harm from the vast quantity of GM foods produced and consumed every year. Hence, you have no moral ground to stand upon while calling for its banishment.

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 1:01 PM. Reason : substantial is more accurate]

3/1/2006 1:01:01 PM

Quote :

"Again, you have not demonstrated substantial harm from the vast quantity of GM foods produced and consumed every year. Hence, you have no moral ground to stand upon while calling for its banishment."

see, I'm not calling for its banishment. I'm calling for testing and finding out for sure if it's safe. This is the point of the fda and other groups. If it was about individual choice only, as I said before, I wouldn't care. However, since it can be demonstrated that gm crops can cross pollinate AND since we don't yet know the effect on humans, AND since those crops aren't even necessary, I see absolutely no reason for them to exist.

If it was, in real life, a question of grow gm crops or people starve, I'd probably say go for it. However, that's not at all the case, and you yourself said that your position (or metaphorically your position) was mainly based on the fact that they will "make you rich." That, to me, isn't an adequate reason to possibly cause environmental AND health problems.

3/1/2006 1:06:45 PM

Quote :

"Ok, if there's enough food in the world to feed everyone, how will increasing distribution NOT be sufficient?"

pragmatically, i don't think we can really expect for distribution to be improved to the point where that's possible and i believe that article points out cases where GM crops can, in fact, improve the quality of life of the hungry. shades of gray and everything: there's plenty of info out there that supports GM crops as a method if increasing yields in developing countries (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/299/5608/900.pdf).

i guess the ideal compromise would be if individual developing countries developed non-transgenic GM crops (this stuff is ridiculously easy to do and well within the capacity of any country with a couple million to spend). then there would be no reason to fear eating them and no giant multinational corporation profiting from them.

read up on the GRIM gene though. that really is pretty terrifying as it entails deliberately altering the genotype of wild-type populations.

3/1/2006 3:40:03 PM

Quote :

"However, since it can be demonstrated that gm crops can cross pollinate AND since we don't yet know the effect on humans,"

Uh, as I have said numerous times. We Already Know the effects! We have been growing and eating it for a decade now! At what point will you admit that, in fact, corn was just corn.

Again, you have not demonstrated substantial harm from the vast quantity of GM foods produced and consumed every year. Hence, you have no moral ground to stand upon while calling for [further regulation].

Since I am certain that you will not win the political battle, GM crops will continue to be used. How much time, in adition to the decade that has already passed, will you admit that the food was actually safe?

[Edited on March 1, 2006 at 4:50 PM. Reason : requote]

3/1/2006 4:49:05 PM

http://sustainablog.blogspot.com/2006/03/house-delays-vote-on-hr-4167.html

http://www.net.org/health/hr4167.vtml

The House is set to debate HR 4167 today but the vote on final passage has been postponed until next week. Opponents of the bill think this is because of the number of amendments that have been offered as a result of stepped-up public and press attention

http://www.net.org/health/AG%20Letter-FoodSafety-3-1-06.pdf
37 state attorneys general oppose the bill.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that HR 4167 will cost taxpayers more than $100 million, but notes that bill is so vaguely written that its costs and effects are difficult to predict:

Quote :

"The scope of the state and local regulations that would be affected by the legislation is ambiguous. For example, it is unclear whether certain provisions of the legislation would preempt only state and local requirements dealing with food labeling or whether the preemption would apply more broadly to other food safety requirements. Moreover, it is unclear whether a state or local requirement would be preempted in the absence of a specific federal requirement.""

3/3/2006 10:15:09 AM

Now that thinking is dangerous. We already have too many laws on the books. While I do not support this legislation (food safety regulation is a state issue), simply saying that "this bill eliminates 200 of the 1.4 billion laws on the books!" is not sufficient justification to be against it. Hell, it is sufficient justification to be in favor of it, at least until more information is made available. In this instance, it is replacing state law with federal law, and I just can't support that.

Naughty congress!

That said, this insult to federalism is paltry compared to the insults posed by federal labor regulations such as the minimum wage and union rights.

3/4/2006 12:48:19 AM