Clearly we both have superior taste in media, Mamaemma.

Loved that show. Have all ten seasons on DVD.

2 great episodes, Freedom. I think you read and watch everything I like!

Recommend you see Stargate SG-1 episode "2010" and its sequel episode "2001". (Yes, the dates are intentionally not chronological.) Season 4 Ep 16 and Season 5 Ep 10.

If the local government contracts with the water company, they would negotiate the deal with them - via your locally elected representatives - which you have influence over. You would not negotiate with them directly. And that is often the way it is now. Pretty much all towns/cities, counties, states all have their own set of laws - so if you relocate - you have to decide if you are willing to abide by all the combined sets of laws in the area where you move.

In an entirely free market - there are no government regulations involved - other than courts that settle trade disputed between parties. People have to assume responsibility for themselves and their choices. If you aren't fairly certain of a transaction - don't do it. People who invest want it easy and to invest without proper research yet want protected for not doing it.

Based on you logic there is then no such thing as individual freedom as societies wants will always win. That's a shame. If you can't see this I think this exchange is a lost cause. Freedom so long as it is at everyone else's whims is not freedom.

As you said - enough has been said. Last post on this issue.

Sorry but your concept of freedom within a market is not practical in the real world. If someone is moving for work, they are not going to give up their career plans because they can't negotiate a contract with their new water company. Even in an entirely free market there has to be some enforceable standards or else it would not function properly. I'm not arguing for all the cumbersome regulations you found for food, but in the area of toxins (or potential toxins, or allergens) there has to be some rules to prevent fraud.

Another example would be the ideal of a completely free and unregulated financial market. It could only function properly if there are ENFORCEABLE RULES about financial reporting, otherwise nobody could trust any reporting or even compare two companies to invest in. Free insider trading activity would be an excellent indicator for private investors, but ONLY if there are rules about its open reporting to prevent fraud. Clarity for financial toxins is not much different to food/water toxins.

Anyway, I think we have probably covered this subject thoroughly enough for now. I've enjoyed this exchange. Have a good week.

Let me say that I don't think GMO's are necessarily safe. Some I'm sure are, some may or my not be. It's not like they are engineered the same way. That's a separate issue for now, but I am in favor or knowing as I myself would probably avoid them.

The issue is that we should be striving for the ideal. The idea that any labeling requirements were ever introduced should have been an affront to the freedoms business have - but were stripped away. In my mind, unconstitutionally on top of Objectively. Where is the Fed Gov ever granted such authority other than the out of context "provide for the general welfare" statement? But the fact remains, the Fed Gov and state have done it anyway. So again in turn - if the producers want to try to get laws passed that put the previous laws in check then so be it. It should have never came to that as the previous laws should not have been passed - but as they were - what other option do the producers have other than fighting fire with fire?

If consumers are not willing to take their own lives in their own hands - that does not create an obligation on the producers to become responsible for it. The DARK act is not stopping companies from labeling - it leaves it as a voluntary decision - which is what it should be. It's just restricting the gov from forcing more restrictions on them.

Articles I've read have also indicated that in other countries where labeling has been mandated to show GMO status, it has not changed to consumers buying habits - in general. Obvious some, like us, would care and pay attention, but most are not. So for a net no change we are going to force them to do it - causing the prices to go up, for them to spend extra money and time to do it, or making it harder for new companies to enter the market due to startup costs - for effectively no difference? Even if you think it is worth it in the cost - it is not worth eroding all of our basic rights by creating situations where we say it is ok for the government to violate them when they think it's justified. They are basic individual rights in which the primary purpose of the government is to protect - not violate at their whim.

The water example is another example of people not taking their own lives into their own hands. These water quality issues have surfaced from people having their water tested. Considering that the water supplies they are talking about are generally run by the local government, thus truly public entities, they should follow regulations and reporting requirements we the people tell them they must do - as they are established by the people. But those same requirements then do not flow down to private businesses - as a matter of law. Now, if the community subcontracted a private company to supply their water, they can negotiate in their contracts to require regular water quality testing and reporting. If the company wants to do it - great, if they don't, then they don't have to accept the contract or the customer. But the contract would set the terms or the agreement - not law.

Every inch we give in the erosion of our freedom will result in another foot taken. It is an ever moving line towards socialism and communism by active forces trying to get us there. It's like Obama's advisor Cass Sunstein - nudge them into the final place we want them - one little step at a time.

The DARK act is not banning the release of the information - it is restricting the Fed Gov and states/local govs from creating laws requiring additional labeling. It only forces the issue that the decision to label is voluntary.

Right now you are probably right that they will not label. For people that are concerned about it, they will not buy the products that are labeled as being GMO and the producers may loose some sales. But as other countries have shown, it is not affecting sales to any noticeable level - even with the labeling. Until the people get concerned about it enough to start affecting the producers sales, it will make food buying choices difficult for people like us to do. But again, that doesn't give us a right to force them to label. We move to a rural area about 10 years ago in part for the purpose of being able to grow our own garden and produce more of our own food. We chose a small house that needed a lot of repairs - but that we could afford. We chose a lifestyle that does not impose a burden on society to pay for our poor financial choices and to give us the ability to know what we are eating verses the crap from the store that is filled with ingredients you can't pronounce. We still buy some of that stuff out of convenience, but we try to be selective based on the labeling. But I have not right to demand the labeling. If they stopped labeling, we would probably just buckle down a little harder and grow all of our own food and simply eliminate the issue.

And just to note too - I am not a large scale producer of foods. I am arguing from the philosophical and constitutional perspective. However, I will say that we do sell some of our extra food at local farmers markets. If labeling requirements come into play - I will not. We have considered selling jams, jellies, preserves, picked items, etc... But they all have so much regulatory BS involved we have decided not to because it is simply too time consuming, difficult, and expensive for the sales we have. It simply isn't worth it. We have very healthy, non-GMO, produce - it's a shame we cannot sell it - due entirely to the same kind of regulations you are in favor of. Then end result is products in the stores full of ingredients you can't pronounce because only larger companies can afford to do it. And some of those unpronounceable ingredients are even required by other regulations. It is healthier? Probably not - but gov has required it. When I make it at home for ourselves - it is not required and our products are healthier for it. We just can't sell them to anyone else.

Trying to eliminate all mandates is great in an idealistic sense, just looking at it as an objectivist. But thats not quite the same creating a new law which prohibits label clarity laws at a more local level. Ignoring the details of whether GMOs are safe or not, the fact is they are banned in many countries around the world today. So I'm only saying that while the safe-or-toxic debate continues (which might be many years), we should not pass a law resulting in more people not knowing the contents of their food. With the Act, the "GMO-free" label would inevitably become a smaller and more expensive niche market. That is its intent.

Another similar hypothetical situation with the use of force... today you can obtain an analysis of your public water supply from the local water company by law (by force), showing levels of toxins are (hopefully) safe. The equivalent of the DARK Act in that situation would be a federal law on the basis that "all public water is safe enough on average, therefore we will ban publishing any local water analysis reports". It would not be acceptable, even though requiring the reports is "use of force", it is that legal requirement for open reporting which keeps the water companies honest.

You have an odd perspective here. You are saying the right things in the first part. Pressure companies by your purchasing choices. That's great! Boycott the product and company if they don't meet your terms of the deal (more detailed labeling). That's also great. The point where you then loose me is when those companies who are currently being forced to label - are trying to limit their labeling requirement - which comes closer to eliminating mandated forced labeling, and you don't like it. That is contradictory to you first set of points. If the ideal is that they are not forced, then anything they can do to degrade the labeling requirements is a step in the right direction to operate their businesses freely. Ideally they could get these laws completely thrown out - and then allow the consumer/business market forces to work it out between companies who are voluntarily willing to label verses those who don't or don't give the level of detail the customer wants.

I understand your perspective to be that you want to make the choice between labeling and more detailed labeling and you don't like it that they are trying to hinder the efforts to require more detailed labeling. But if you truly believe your first points - that is illogical - as they are currently forced - which you say you don't agree with. Remove the requirements or lower them as close to zero as possible and let the customers tell the growers what they want and then choose the growers that do it - voluntarily.

"infringed upon by you forcing my business"
Again you make a lengthy comment about customer forcing a business to do something, after I have several times stated that the free choice of customers is the only proper way to put pressure on the producer business. By making choices which increase demand for products with more GMO clarity on labels. How do you interpret that as "forcing" the business? The act of boycotting a product which does not meet my standards is the only tool I have for making demands on a producer. That is NOT FORCE, that is voluntary (dis)association.

"how do you propose to implement a regulation"
Who suggested that? I am arguing AGAINST this federal law, against the use of force (by monsanto et al, thru their lobbyists) to reduce the GMO clarity of labels.

Do you honestly think the industry is spending all that money to pass the DARK Act to benefit the consumer? Of course not, all industry sponsored legislation is for the benefit of the industry, not the consumer.

I think I feel equally frustrated by you who cannot seem to see my point and your logic flaw. The business is an extension on the owner(s). How can you possibly separate them? If I, the one owner of my business, have my true right to freedom infringed upon by you forcing my business to give you information that I don't want to give you, how is that not infringing on my person rights via my business? Forcing my business forces me. There is no separation. The business cannot do anything on its own - thus any regulation on the business is a regulation on its owner(s)s. You want to pretend that they are not inextricably connected - but they are. I am not trying to assign rights to the business - I am trying to get you to understand that any regulation/demand on the business is equally a regulation/demand on the owner(s) thereof. And as such you cannot do things to a business that would be an infringement on personal rights as it follows down to the owner(s) as well - you cannot demand of one without demanding of the other.

I asked you before and you didn't answer - how do you propose to implement a regulation/demand on my business is without it becoming a regulation/demand on me as it's owner? If you apply a rule to the business that forces it to do anything - it forces the owner - there is no way around that. I also have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and that includes opening a business without having to be forced to jump through all these kinds of hoops because you think demanding it of my business does not in turn demand it of me.

And I equally parsed your words - your NEED to know about the ingredient list or if it is GMO IS a WANT to know these things - it is NOT a right. If you can't get that information - you buy something else, choose another source, etc... You don't force others to inform you.

I don't like smoking. But I will argue to no end that a business should be allowed to allow smoking in his establishment. I NEED/WANT to break air without smoke in it. I don't then get to demand that they don't allow smoking so I can use their establishment. I go somewhere else, or stay home, of order on line, etc... It doesn't give me a right to infringe on their choice to run their business that way. You are being too close minded to the rights of the business owners.

Maybe Rand's example will help. If the economy was falling to pieces and people were literally starving to death and dying and someone came knocking at your door asking for food. You have food. But you also have yourself and kids that you know will have to survive and will risk your lives to give this stranger your food. You are not obligated by their need or want to give them your food. You don't sacrifice yourself to others. If the situation were different and you had excess and were in not danger of starving as you have some sustainable source of food, you might give it to them - preferably in trade for something. But giving up your most basic right to life is not trumped by their need for food.

You do not get to demand of my business, which in turn demands of me, to sacrifice my freedom or resources to you. Irrespective of your need. Take responsibility for yourself and do not demand of others.

You are covering the same ground again.
You are still making the mistake of assigning "rights" to business entities. Rights only apply to individuals (consumers and business owners equally). ANY rights you assign to an artificial entity like a business, can only infringe rights of some group of individuals. Thats why you keep getting contradictions in your logic.
Rights mean protection from force, summarized nicely in the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Think about how you could possible apply those three things to a business (separate from its owners). It is impossible.

You are also picking on specific words out of context, like "information flow needed". I picked the word "needed" very carefully, as it applies to my preceding sentence, not to the consumer. Yet you somehow imply that it means a want constitutes a right, after we have already established it does not. I can't keep countering with the basics over and over again, if you want to continue trolling like that.

Are you saying that the DARK act is forcing businesses not to label? Will the DARK act force consumers to buy the products? What will DARK act do that forces anyone to do anything? If it is loosening existing forced requirements on the businesses that require particular labeling - or introduces restrictions on the government stopping them from introducing other laws requiring the businesses to add additional labeling, then how are they doing anything other than fighting to remove existing force by the government upon them?

Not giving information to the customer is not force. Using the government to make the producer label is force. I think you are mixing up the two. I keep pointing out one, is a want, the other is forcible coercion by the government.

Not that I am doing so, but if we use your logic that rights are to protect the weak - isn't Monsanto weak compared to the federal government/state government/even county level government? If you are speaking of one customer compared to Monsanto, then to customer is the weaker - but, to get legislation passed generally you need broad support - which in our country means millions. Is Monsanto more powerful than millions of customers? I think not. Everyone's rights to freedom should be enforced by the government, not breached by it. I do not support cronyism just as much as I don't support masses of people using government to restrict the rights of business owners.

"The information flow needed for those choices will be hindered by the Act (federal force)." One, the word "needed" in this case can be replaced by "wanted". The want does not constitute a right. This infringes on someone else's right to freedom - which includes them not to have to provide the information you want. The only federal force applied here is on the businesses to label their products. You are not forced to not get the information - you are being stopped from forcing them. You can ask them. You can buy another product that is labeled. You can research them to see if others have "talked" - like previous employees, etc... You just might have to work harder to get it. And maybe even can't find it. Again, buy from another source or grow it. You just don't get the right to demand of others. This is an inherent basic premise of freedom and Objectivism - no one owes you anything. You have no right to demand anything of anyone else that creates some obligation on their part - that is slavery. Using the government to impose it doesn't change that - it just keeps your hands clean of the dirty work of forcing them to comply.

We all seem to agree that free market forces are the best situation for consumers. The freedom of choice puts producers under pressure to provide consumers with what they want.

Monsanto et al have sponsored the DARK Act (to the tune of $100m) because it benefits the food supply chain, NOT the consumer. The consumer can only put pressure on producers by choosing clear labels, or choosing brands or stores with non-GMO policy, etc. The information flow needed for those choices will be hindered by the Act (federal force). It seems like that would be a natural thing for objectivists and libertarians to oppose.

I am getting these arguments from the study of Objectivism and from the basic premise of freedom. You do not have the "right" to infringe on my freedom to run my life and my business the way I decide to because you "want" information. Your "want" is not justification to force me to spend my money, my time, cause extra hardship in my business in getting labeling equipment, finding suppliers for the labeling equipment, buying the labels, buying the ink, hiring employee(s) to manage the printing and affixing of these labels, etc... This impedes people from even going into a business. How often do your here about regulatory issues stifling business? This is one of those things.

Rights have nothing to do with protecting any class from people any other class of people. Freedom is a basic right. Freedom is not about protecting the weak any more than protecting the powerful. It is an equal protection that all people have. And as a fundamental right, no one has the right to take it away from someone else (baring prison time for crimes).

You are failing to see the basic premise here. You are concerned that the DARK act will reduce the stringent requirements imposed on businesses. My premise, and that of Objectivism, is that the freedom of the business owner to make the decision as to whether or not he wants produce any kind of label is paramount - and the government has no business imposing any labeling requirements. If the goal is to have no mandated labeling requirements - then any change in legislation that reduces the stringent requirements to a lesser lever is better. The requirement existing in the first place is the bigger issue.

You have the choice to buy products from companies that label their products if that is what you wish to do. But again, you have no right that creates an obligation on others. You got that correct. How do you argue the premise of freedom, when in the same sentence you are arguing to coerce others into doing as you wish via the gun pointed at them by an overly intrusive and overly powerful government? This is hypocritical. As Blarman stated, it is in the interest of the businesses to provide products and service that are wanted by their customers - my suspicion is that if people want to know about GMO and ingredient lists, etc... that companies will do so, as those who don't will loose market share by not being competitive in the products they offer. Thus, yes, let the markets prevail.

Monsanto has not rights "over" anyone else. They simply have the right to run their business they way they see fit. You also have no rights "over" Monsanto to tell them how to run their business. You have wants of Monsanto - nothing more. Or, at least you shouldn't.

Currently our government has taken too much power and is forcing businesses to operate in ways that are against their wishes. The government opened those doors a century ago, and have keep moving the line further and further. You are simply focused on the line and where it is moving to next - and not focusing on the fact the line should not exist in the first place.

Rights are not about protecting the weak from the powerful. Rights are about coercion. Rights are about one's freedom to act without being forced to by another party. Anytime you have a conflict over rights, it is because one party is attempting to coerce another.

Customers have the right to request information from businesses regarding potential purchases. Businesses may choose to either give or withhold that information as they choose to value the potential purchase - and its value in trade. In most cases, it is in the interest of the business to work with consumers and provide basic information so as to raise the perceived trade value for the customer. But their are costs involved with the dissemination of information, including competitive advantage over one's rivals and the sheer costs, which must also be taken into consideration. Businesses in the end are all about profit. They have to judge where along the line of profits they fall in conjunction with the costs of information dissemination.

I'm not sure where you are getting all these arguments from. I think you will find nobody on this forum who thinks if "they want something that this equates to a right".
Right, I say again, is about protecting the weaker party from the powerful party. Making the free choice about which food has less toxins requires label clarity. When businesses use legislation (DARK Act) to make label requirements less clear for agri-chem toxins (GMOs having higher toxin levels), tell me who's rights are being harmed? You obviously have the basic idea that rights should not create an obligation in others. But the market should decide, because producers want to win more sales. The Fed gov should not be preventing label clarity to support business like monsanto. Even THEY do not claim it is because monsanto has "rights" over their customers, the Fed gov are just addicted to the money stream.

You have heard that glyphosate breaks down after 3 weeks? I've read that it remains viable in the soil for over 20 years. Maybe one of us is correct, but who really cares about the mechanism. What matters is the result in the food. Most wine contains traces of glyphosate, even organic wine from vines grown on land converted from non-organic (strong indication of long term viability). In the UK (2013), 63% of bread analysed contained traces of at least one agri-chemical, the most frequently detected was glyphosate. So you see, any explanation of how glyphosate cannot possibly pass from the plant into the grain, to me is simply irrelevant.

Quite simply - customers have no rights in demanding anything from any business. Enumerate this "right". Too many assume because they want something that this equates to a right. You do not have the right to force me to give you information, money, etc... just because you want it. If I don't give it to you, you are free to not utilize my business, it's products/services, etc... That is your choice. No one is forcing you to buy from me. You in turn cannot demand anything from me. Why should I not be allowed to demand that you be responsible for your own choices and data acquisition? If you cannot glen the data you want - then don't buy the product. If you can't glen that data from any supplier, then don't buy the product at all. You have no right to the product. You have a want and a choice. You can enter into a trade where both parties agree to the terms - you do not have a right to demand that the other party meets your terms. You only have the right to go to court when the agreed upon terms on the trade have not been honored. If you can't get what you want, the way you want it - produce it yourself. In terms of food - grow it yourself. Get someone else to grow it for you if you can't or don't want to do it yourself. Again, let the market drive the decisions of the producers and consumers. If all the producers decide not to label, I'd bet you anything you will have producers that will in turn label their products to gain the customer base that wants that data. If their sales in turn go through the roof, other producers will follow suit -but at their discretion and choice - not because you demand it and sick the government on them to force them to do your bidding.

What you are describing is the freedom to start and run a business the way you want, and the freedom of customer choice. Thats the way it should be. People voluntarily not buying GMO products is how producers are put under pressure to give customers what they want, or to choose not to and be less successful. That is simple market forces at work. In that respect your position is the same as probably everyone on this forum.

However, the DARK Act will go a long way to removing or reducing that ability of customers to put pressure on producers by making informed voluntary choices around GMOs. It will therefore erode customer's rights.

Rights only ever protect the weaker party from the powerful party... person protected from government, person protected from other force (crime, fraud), state gov protected from Fed gov, etc. It makes no logical or semantic sense to assign "rights" to a business to protect it from its customer's choices.

Can you post a link to a study?

Just a clarification, but starches are carbohydrates, not fats. The body may metabolize extra carbohydrates and store them as fats.

The real differentiation in fats comes in mono-unsaturated or poly-unsaturated fats, referring to how many empty places on the fat chain a molecule can bond to in order to break down the molecule. Poly-unsaturated fats are more "healthy" because they have multiple positions at which the fat may be broken down instead of just one. Olive oil is pure fat, but its health benefits have been known for millenia. Avocados are another great source of "good" fats.

The problem is that you have to show that the glyphosate is residual in the grain itself, and studies simply don't show any such thing. Glyphosate works by stimulating a plant to mature faster than it would normally so that any seeds it produces are infertile. Resistant plants ignore the effects and produce seeds on a normal schedule. That's all. The glyphosate doesn't pass from the parent into the seed.

"Glyphosate does not break down rapidly, and can remain in the soil for some time."

Three weeks. After that it breaks down. In the lifecycle of harvest, three weeks is nothing.

I am saying that a business is an extension of its creator and you cannot use the business as an end run in effectively removing the creators rights. Just because I start a business does not mean I have to forget my conscience when deciding how it should run. It is my business - not yours, not the communities, not the collective's - mine. If I want to create a club for men, that's my prerogative. If I decide it should be for men born as a genetic man, that's my prerogative. If I want to create a business to cater to pregnant women, that is my prerogative. If I want to be open only during the midnight shift and serve alcohol and let people smoke in my establishment - that is my prerogative. If you as a customer don't like how I chose to run my business - don't frequent it or seek it's products or services. That is your choice, as much as it is my choice on how I want my business to run.

When you invest blood, sweat, tears, money, time, take time away from your family, risk you home or life savings, etc... into opening a business to do whatever it is you want to do, you might feel a little differently when someone comes along and tells you that you don't get to decide how to run that business because it has no rights. Total absolute nonsensical bull!

This is like all the young women who say love and peace and no guns and can't hurt anyone - but then has a baby. In most cases, that flower child nonsense goes out the window when it comes to protecting their baby and family.

Much the same with a business. For someone who hasn't went through the process, it's easy to set back and tell people that it's a collective entity and screw the owners idea on how it should run. When you risk everything and bust you back to do everything it takes to make it successful - that mentality goes away very quickly.

My businesses are an extension of me. I do EVERYTHING in my businesses and I'll be damned is someone is going to come and tell me I have to do or not do whatever they think, because somehow that separate entity has no rights. When you want my business to do something - that means I have to do something. Or, I have to tell my employee(s) to do something against my moral code. A public entity like a government office has to do that - as they are an entity of, by, and for the people. A private business is not. Period!

I appreciate your responses. I really do understand Rand's/Objectivism's views on this. Sometimes I just need a little nudge or some thinking time to let it sink in when it comes to every day practical issues. I think I live 95% Objectivist by my own standards - but decades of habit in action and thought sometimes get in the way. But, you are right. That's the market. Like you said, companies may no have to do the labeling, but many probably would to gain an advantage in dealing with customers that want that information. We get used to the idea that labeling is there, and that is it a standard design (order of ingredients, etc...) but just because we're used to it doesn't mean it must be. People are hard to change once they get used to something. That's why you have Obama wanting to shove any possible form of government Healthcare on the nation. Once it's there and people get used to it, then it's easier to move the line further in the direction where they want it. The discussion then moves away from whether it should exist, but how to improve it.

Thanks for your thoughtful responses and direction ;)