Libertarianism

[Quantum Windbag]

There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.

Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.

 

[FA_Q2]

As an Independent I am not about to defend the Dems. They were utterly spineless when it came to Iraq. That was unforgivable.

My apologies for giving you the wrong impression regarding Libertarians and war. I didn't mention war at all in that quote about the Irish, I only mentioned a willingness to die fighting for something they didn't understand. This is based upon the thread where they claim to hold the principle of individual rights as sacrosanct but don't do so when the rubber meets the road. If you believe in a principle you must be willing to stand for it even when it means upholding something you might personally abhor. e.g. You might personally be pro-life but in principle you still uphold the right for others to obtain an abortion.

Libertarians don't seem to have the courage of their convictions in my opinion even though they claim that they do.

You have now repeated that claim here even though it is baseless.

It has already been explained to you about the abortion issue, because you disagree with libertarian ideals does not mean that they do not hold to them. Aside from that, it is the sole issue that you have brought up against libertarian thought and not following convictions.

Essentially, your claim that libertarians ‘don't do so when the rubber meets the road’ is completely based in bias. You have not presented anything here to show that. If you have another example, then please share it but the abortion issue is not a good example of that.

Au contraire, it is the perfect example. But since you asked how about the example of universal background checks for all gun purchasers? As a Libertarian you are in favor of personal responsibility and accountability. How are you going to ensure that every single gun owner complies with that principle? If you allow just anyone to buy a gun without a background check you are enabling drug dealers, criminals and the mentally unstable to obtain lethal weapons. A real Libertarian should follow Reagan's advice of "trust, but verify". In other words you want everyone to be responsible and accountable but you know that the only way to make it happen is to apply universal background checks.

So why aren't all Libertarians 100% in support of background checks?

Because that is against libertarian values. Interesting how, in one breath, government interfering with the control over your body is against libertarian views (in your mind) and then in the next breath government interfering in the free exchange of your belongings is also against libertarian though (again, in your mind).

You must realize that your entire paragraph is nonsense. Background checks are a form of government intrusion into the free exchange of goods and a direct infringement on your right to bear arms/self-defense. There is no other way to see that. You can argue that infringement is a valid and prudent. You can argue that infringement protects others rights to safety and that those rights outweigh the infringement on your right to bear arms. All those are debatable points. However, it is NOT debatable that it is an infringement unless you are hopelessly mangling the definition of words.

By the way, the government does not ‘ensure’ that you comply with personal responsibility. That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively. Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them. I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian. Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.

 

[PaulS1950]

There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.

Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.

Easy money? what the ... are you talking about? There is very little "easy money" for a working stiff and we are all concerned for our safety. Not everyone agrees what should apply but when someone gets seriously injured or killed in the workplace I care. when there is are overhead cranes that have never been inspected or calibrated that is a concern. when people are hit by flying debris when a bearing explodes in a press I am concerned. When a 30 ton vehicle drops because wooden blocking is rotted from the inside and I am underneath it I am concerned.

I was concerned enough to buy some metal and build stands that could individually take that much weight and were still lighter and took less space to store than the rotten wood blocks that had to be stored outside in the rain. Unions are made up of the people who work for a living. The workers are the union and they have very limited power in the workplace beyond enforcing the legal contract they have with the employer. Nobody that I know wants to work in unsafe conditions. The union can't make those changes - all they can do is recommend the business follows the requirements set up by the state. Failing that we took the matter to the state and let them handle it.
You should try working on heavy equipment before you call it "easy money".

 

[numan]

Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.

Easy money? what the ... are you talking about? There is very little "easy money" for a working stiff and we are all concerned for our safety....
when there are overhead cranes that have never been inspected or calibrated that is a concern. when people are hit by flying debris when a bearing explodes in a press, I am concerned. When a 30 ton vehicle drops because wooden blocking is rotted from the inside, and I am underneath it, I am concerned....

You should try working on heavy equipment before you call it "easy money".

Perhaps some people prefer the easy phrases to the work of actually thinking.

.

 

[Circe]

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess.

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle."

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.

 

[Circe]

By the way, the government does not ‘ensure’ that you comply with personal responsibility. That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively. Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them. I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian. Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.

There is a terrible problem about madmen and terrorists getting guns and killing many people. Does libertarianism require that there is no way to put any roadblocks in their paths to blowing up and shooting lots of people? If not, then there is nothing to be done but tolerate a lot of carnage until another form of government (NOT libertarianism) is chosen by the people, because catching these people is not working: they nearly all suicide anyway. So there is no way to defend the public against madmen and criminals and terrorists getting guns and explosives like ammonium nitrate? I remember when I could buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year. One year (after Timothy McVeigh) I went into the feed store to get fertilizer and they said I had to have a government number!

I was indignant, but there are a lot of fertilizer bombs made even with these controls; how many would there be without controls? What do libertarians think about this problem of public safety, with crazies and evils getting free access to whatever they want for mass killings?

 

[Foxfyre]

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess.

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle."

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

 

[thanatos144]

By the way, the government does not ‘ensure’ that you comply with personal responsibility. That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively. Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them. I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian. Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.

There is a terrible problem about madmen and terrorists getting guns and killing many people. Does libertarianism require that there is no way to put any roadblocks in their paths to blowing up and shooting lots of people? If not, then there is nothing to be done but tolerate a lot of carnage until another form of government (NOT libertarianism) is chosen by the people, because catching these people is not working: they nearly all suicide anyway. So there is no way to defend the public against madmen and criminals and terrorists getting guns and explosives like ammonium nitrate? I remember when I could buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year. One year (after Timothy McVeigh) I went into the feed store to get fertilizer and they said I had to have a government number!

I was indignant, but there are a lot of fertilizer bombs made even with these controls; how many would there be without controls? What do libertarians think about this problem of public safety, with crazies and evils getting free access to whatever they want for mass killings?

What laws stop those things now?

 

[Dragonlady]

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess. But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

Monsanto is producing GMO seeds that kill bees, that don't reproduce, and that can't grow without Monsanto fertilizers. And these seeds are cross pollinating with unmodified seeds, passing these traits along.

There are good and solid reasons why Monsanto seeds are banned in many countries in the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are always going to be employers that do not follow the rules. I know because I worked for one, in a union shop, that completely disregarded the safety rules that our state has. I worked with the safety committee, the union, and the managers (the owner was an alcoholic and was never...available) for a period of over three years to correct the safety concerns. The answer I always got back was, "we've done it this way for twenty years and we aren't going to change it now." For every issue I found I also found an inexpensive repair that would solve the issue - I am not a complainer - I tend to solve problems. After three years of getting nowhere and three near fatal incidents I call the Labor and Industries and filed a request for an audit based on the issues that I had been listing for three years. The audit identified a lot more issues that were ordered corrected than I had asked for but the issues I had raised we solved with my recommended fixes. The company fixed the issues and paid no fine. I was provided with every sh!t job for the next year and when work slowed I was the one that didn't work. I got a better paying job as quickly as I started looking for one in another union shop that actually cared about the working conditions and their employees.
You don't need a big government to solve issues - all you need is someone who has the desire to do something to make things better. Most people would rather just complain.

Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.

Easy money? what the ... are you talking about? There is very little "easy money" for a working stiff and we are all concerned for our safety. Not everyone agrees what should apply but when someone gets seriously injured or killed in the workplace I care. when there is are overhead cranes that have never been inspected or calibrated that is a concern. when people are hit by flying debris when a bearing explodes in a press I am concerned. When a 30 ton vehicle drops because wooden blocking is rotted from the inside and I am underneath it I am concerned.

I was concerned enough to buy some metal and build stands that could individually take that much weight and were still lighter and took less space to store than the rotten wood blocks that had to be stored outside in the rain. Unions are made up of the people who work for a living. The workers are the union and they have very limited power in the workplace beyond enforcing the legal contract they have with the employer. Nobody that I know wants to work in unsafe conditions. The union can't make those changes - all they can do is recommend the business follows the requirements set up by the state. Failing that we took the matter to the state and let them handle it.
You should try working on heavy equipment before you call it "easy money".

I said union, not worker. The unions collected dues, yet did nothing about the safety issues, and even allowed the employer to retaliate against you after you pointed them out.

 

[numan]

'
A serious problem is that, in our greed driven society, products are rushed onto the market before we know clearly what all the ramifications and consequences of the product are.

As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the Path of Wisdom.
---J.R.R. Tolkien, Council of Elrond

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
---Paul Ehrlich

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Imagine that, a union preferring the easy money to making noise about safety issues.

Easy money? what the ... are you talking about? There is very little "easy money" for a working stiff and we are all concerned for our safety....
when there are overhead cranes that have never been inspected or calibrated that is a concern. when people are hit by flying debris when a bearing explodes in a press, I am concerned. When a 30 ton vehicle drops because wooden blocking is rotted from the inside, and I am underneath it, I am concerned....

You should try working on heavy equipment before you call it "easy money".

Perhaps the Windbag prefers the easy phrases to the work of actually thinking.

.

Perhaps you have should go back and read his post, and then explain to me how my response is inappropriate.

 

[Circe]

Monsanto is producing GMO seeds that kill bees, that don't reproduce, and that can't grow without Monsanto fertilizers. And these seeds are cross pollinating with unmodified seeds, passing these traits along.

There are good and solid reasons why Monsanto seeds are banned in many countries in the world.

As a beekeeper, I have never heard that and I don't believe it.

Beekeepers have a lot of problems these days, but Monsanto isn't one of them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So no, I have no faith that public opinion and the market will stop this corporation from destroying food supplies for their own profit.

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess.

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle."

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

 

[Circe]

As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.

Or not.

A phrase like that reminds me of all the "it's not if, it's WHEN!!" assertions people make about this, that, and the other.

As a rule, whenever people make future predictions like that, it's safe to assume that at least will never happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess. But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

Monsanto is producing GMO seeds that kill bees, that don't reproduce, and that can't grow without Monsanto fertilizers. And these seeds are cross pollinating with unmodified seeds, passing these traits along.

There are good and solid reasons why Monsanto seeds are banned in many countries in the world.

They are not, you are listening to idiots that have no evidence to back their positions up and have no idea what they are talking about. There are absolutely no reputable scientists that think that Monsanto's products are a danger to anyone or anything but starvation and world hunger.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

'
A serious problem is that, in our greed driven society, products are rushed onto the market before we know clearly what all the ramifications and consequences of the product are.

As our technological powers grow, along with the increasing interference in natural processes which have histories of millions of years, there will inevitably occur disasters of unimaginable scope.

He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the Path of Wisdom.
---J.R.R. Tolkien, Council of Elrond

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts.
---Paul Ehrlich

.

What are you fantasizing about now? It takes years to bring new products that represent a chance to save lives to the market, yet dangerous ones somehow get instant approval? Can you give us some examples?

 

[Circe]

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess.

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle."

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

It seems to me that a libertarian government should not take action against whatever is going on unless there is demonstrable, definite harm shown. People having wild-eyed prejudices against something because they are Druids or astrologers --- that should be left to the free market to sort out, certainly not to government interference.

That helps with the weird ideas brigade -- if they don't like something, let them buy something else -- but it doesn't help with the issue of what to do about fertilizer bombs and guns easily available to the crazy people.

 

[Circe]

By the way, the government does not ‘ensure’ that you comply with personal responsibility. That is, in fact, NOT personal responsibility. What the government does is apply the force of law to those that fail that responsibility.

In both of these items, you have failed to look at libertarianism objectively. Instead, you have taken position that YOU hold and tried to force libertarian philosophy to adhere to them. I am somewhat confused as to why you would do such a thing considering that you are not a libertarian. Some of what you believe is simply not going to be compatible with this worldview. This particular post is a clear example of that as in it you are forcing universal background checks around a philosophy that soundly rejects that type of governmental control.

There is a terrible problem about madmen and terrorists getting guns and killing many people. Does libertarianism require that there is no way to put any roadblocks in their paths to blowing up and shooting lots of people? If not, then there is nothing to be done but tolerate a lot of carnage until another form of government (NOT libertarianism) is chosen by the people, because catching these people is not working: they nearly all suicide anyway. So there is no way to defend the public against madmen and criminals and terrorists getting guns and explosives like ammonium nitrate? I remember when I could buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer every year. One year (after Timothy McVeigh) I went into the feed store to get fertilizer and they said I had to have a government number!

I was indignant, but there are a lot of fertilizer bombs made even with these controls; how many would there be without controls? What do libertarians think about this problem of public safety, with crazies and evils getting free access to whatever they want for mass killings?

What laws stop those things now?

You do have a point there. I have some hopes that having to have a "government number" to buy ANY ammonium nitrate cuts down on the number of rental truck bombs. But I admit I don't know that.

As for the current laws stopping crazies and terrorists from getting guns, well, they don't. We see that.

It is a problem. It may be that non-governmental societal solutions will have to help out. Kids have started telling on other kids when they hear about plots to shoot up schools. I read about a kid who made a WAAAAAAAAAY over the top joke or sarcastic comment on Facebook about shooting up an elementary school and eating the hearts of kindergarten kids ----- it seemed obvious to me he was "joking" in very bad taste, but a gazumpteen people reported him to Facebook and to the police and he is now charged and facing trial!!! They took him straight out of his bedroom to jail. Okay, I can see that sort of societal action could calm some of this madness down, if we're lucky. Maybe.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wait..........Monsanto is a company that breeds seed FOR food supplies, it doesn't destroy anything.

That's a good libertarian issue. What if one company (Monsanto) is developing a product that lots of people want very much, highly productive corn, for instance, and other people with no evidence at all want to persuade people that it's poison, just because..........well, just because they are Luddites, I guess.

I am for government regulation and laws against outright criminal exploitation and harm of the public, like running a food processing plant full of salmonella and rats --- we see that sometimes here!! And when there is a big illness outbreak, the government shuts the company down and there is an investigation, not least into how the inspectors didn't notice all that earlier. I just took some livestock to an auction last week and there was a sign up that this auction site would not accept "nonambulatory cattle."

Well, duh.

But what if people are just nuts, and there is no evidence that X or Y is harmful? Genetically modified food, or "global warming" silliness, or excessive protection of an endangered lizard somewhere ---

It seems to me that a libertarian government would want to establish that there actually IS harm going on. Some small group having a fit of the heebie-jeebies wouldn't trigger government action. There is too much of that now. No smoking in bars, all that.

There is a fine line here.

In my libertarian world, it is okay to have laws the require truth in advertising so that the public can be informed. Monsanto should be required to label its product as organic only if it truly is, to label its product as GMO or whatever. But government should never have the power to tell Monsanto how it must conduct its business or what products it must produce.

But even in advertising, there is a gray area. It is okay for a company to advertise its product as BEST when it isn't. But it is not okay to advertise that it will cure cancer when it won't.

Laws against deliberate deception that could be injurious to people can be effectively enacted without removing all personal responsibility of buyer beware.

Define organic.

Are crops that have been bred for centuries to be easier to grow and to produce more food per acre organic? If so, why aren't crops that are another step in evolution less organic? Should organic be used to define only crops that grow wild without human intervention or care? Should I invite a farmer that actually understand the issues to drop by and educate you to prove that you really don't know enough to even think about discussing the issues?

So where did that hostility come from? I thought the issue was libertarianism and its point of view. Forgive me and I'll move on if I have misunderstood the topic.

To me organic means free of pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers that people don't want included in their foods. And if somebody is going to advertise something as organic, they should not deceive the public that it was produced other than organically. Personally I don't insist on organic in my food, but I do insist that it be free of salmonella or other poisons, and that it be properly handled and honestly labeled so that I know what I am buying.

GMOs are sufficiently controversial that I have no problem with them required to be labeled as such or even being banned where people don't want them or where they have been doing harm. I don't know whether they should be banned outright or whether the millions who have been fed because of new innovations outweighs any downside to these products.

The point I intended to make, before QW branded me an ignorant fool unworthy of discussion in this thread, was that true libertarians do not have problems with laws against cheating or misleading or pushing products in a way to deceive. I do not mind laws that require those producing products to provide an honest label so I know what I am buying.

I have a huge problem in government presuming to tell me that I have to buy 93% lean beef instead of 80% lean beef or the size of orange soda I can buy and such as that.