Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Yeah, RedKing, it's fine to not like some of Chavez's policies, but it's silly to say he even comes close to being a dictator. He's got clear and widespread democratic support, their elections are pretty high quality, and politically they seem to be on par with the US quality-wise.

They've got a lot of factors we don't have to deal with too, like the people trying launch violent coups. I'd argue they are doing better than we did under similar circumstances...

[SalmonGod]

I was bringing it up because originally Nadaka said that liberals and libertarians are very similar fundamentally, as shown by the fact that I and my father have really similar ideals but opposite executions.

This tends to be my relationship with libertarians as well.  I know some that are decently intelligent and informed, and can respectably debate their stances pretty far.  The most divisive factor between me and them is they seem to be more dogmatic about the execution than consequences.  For just one example among many, they think that government interference in the free market is what creates monopolies and extreme inequality.  I tend to concede that point and ask them what they think should be done about current levels of inequality that, regardless of where they came from, are now firmly entrenched and will probably just get worse if you dismantle the government.  The typical response I get is "FREE MARKET FREE MARKET FREE MARKET IS ALWAYS THE ANSWER!!!".  There are some important points that just seem to short circuit them, and it seems to put their rabid pursuit of ultimate free market purity on par with those extremist Christians who will do anything, no matter how horrible, to bring about the conditions for rapture.  It frustrates and scares me, because this kind of dogmatic libertarianism seems to be spreading very quickly, based on personal encounters.

[Helgoland]

It frustrates and scares me, because this kind of dogmatic libertarianism seems to be spreading very quickly, based on personal encounters.

It's a shame, yeah. I guess it's mostly because there's a widespread discontent with the inefficient government/administration, and the only semi-cool/rebellious person in the establishment happens to be Ron Paul.

I want FDR back - a magnificient bastard if ever there was one.

[penguinofhonor]

Connecticut thread. Keep it there, I don't really want to moderate it right now.

[SalmonGod]

5 Million Farmers Suing Monsanto

[10ebbor10]

Just FYI, these are the guys that developed Agent Orange. Quite glad to see that they finally get some resistance.

[Sheb]

Well, let me be the devil's advocate here, but those farmers knew that when they bought the seeds. No one put a gun to their head.

[10ebbor10]

Nah not really. They bought the seeds and are sued when they try replanting them. Often that was not in the original contract.

I mean, Monsanto when as far as sueing the farmers living close to GMO fields, because birds and rodents and natural pollination had spread the modified seeds to their fields.

[lorb]

While I have no love for Monsanto and would really like to see them lose this lawsuit, (which accordingly to this site they already did in brazil and now are appealing it) the broken system of patents and IP we have is also to blame for the crazy things that are going on here.

[Sheb]

Well, if it was not in the contract, then we got a problem.

But I'm spilt on the general issue: the only way to get private companies to invest in better germplasm is to have patents on them. Like patents for new drugs.

Also, re: the contamination, I mostly remember that canadian case, where it turned out the farmer sprayed one of his non-GMO field with Roundup so that all plants would die save the few % contaminated (I'm not sure if it was legit contamination, of GMO seeds from the previous year lef tover). He then collected the seed to sow them again. It's clearly a case of somebody wanting GMO seeds without paying for them, which is why he eventually lost in courts.

[10ebbor10]

Their have been many other contamination cases, where the farmers where not at fault.

Problem with Monsanto is that they have/ are actively manipulating politics to suit their goals. Many of their products have not been tested properly. Worse even, when a certain group of farmers started selling milk from cows that hadn't been treated(and noted this on the product) by their possibly carcinogenic hormone therapy, they installed a lobbying group to take it of the market.

(As for having lost already , AFAIK, they have also had problems in India)

Edit: Also, I'm not sure we want private compagnies investing this much into these topics. Especially healthcare and food sources are problematic, since "Corruption" is widespread. Corporate funded researches have been shown to have 75% positive results*, while that number is below 50% on governement/ independent researches.

*Product works, no side effects, stuff like that

[Sheb]

Source please?

[10ebbor10]

Look at the wikipedia page, sources enough.

Or Link

((Belgian Television))

[Sheb]

Come on, not that movie. It's one of the worst piece of propaganda I've seen. It's really, really terrible. In the french version, you could even hear that she mistranslated what those indian peasants said to make it anti-GMO.

Also, I looked on the wiki, and don't find anything reprehensible.

[ChairmanPoo]

To be fair, the pharma industry is the one that invests the largest % of its profits in R+D. They are not saints, but the model works. I'd rather have goverments being forced to invest large chunks of their GDP by law on R+D, but as it stands politicians are unlikely to agree to that because the first things they slash from funding are those which will produce results further than 4 years away.