I guess it’s what side of fence you are on. Both legit uses of the federal govt as stated by the Constitution. I know, you dont believe in it. That’s , but you can’t fly to anarchistville and not be subject o the law both good and bad.

1) A “patent” is something granted by a government. In a truly “free” market, in which there was a separation of economy and state, there would be no such thing as patents. I’m not saying that this is a desirable aim, but there can be no patents without some sort of artificial entity backing them up, utlimately, with force. Patents are a legal construct.

2) Speaking of legal constructs and government, corporations exist only by the sanction of law and government. In a truly “free” market, there would be no state-chartered corporations. Again, I’m not saying this is a desirable aim, but libertarians who claim that patents and corporations are always legitimate, no matter what, because they’re “private” or wrong. Such an opinion is ultimately statist because it believes blindly in the wisdom of government to properly grant patents and corporate charters.

Second, the author of this article is truly an imbecile. “Few libertarians would defend the choice of an industry to discard toxic chemicals into a river.” Oh, really? Maybe because to pollute MY river is to trespass. “Few libertarians would defend the choice to take a fat dump on someone else’s lawn” too, because we believe in property rights. Unless the “industry” owns the entire river, it is not their’s to pollute.

Investors Business Daily ran the ultimate no-brainer op ed piece in the most recent weekend edition: “Media needs education in economics.” This is true, of course, but regardless of their economic education (or lack thereof), the LP has an image problem. The media perceives libertarians as hard-right conservatives, and why shouldn’t they? The LP embraces people like Boortz. The Advocates For Self-Government has a profile on MICHELLE MALKIN. Liberty Magazine ran a positive profile of Ann Coulter a few years ago.

I think there’s a very large population that would support a left-libertarian platform. As a self-described “green libertarian” I think a powerful coalition could be formed between market-friendly liberals, small businesspeople, environmentalists and left-libertarians to try to break up the corrupt corporate-government collusion that is sacrificing our planet to the endless pursuit of power and money. Even among the left, there is an understanding that massive government programs aren’t the answer, and that decentralization of both corporate and governmental authority is the proper course of action. A deeper understanding of exactly what is truly important in life is what is necessary here. I think we can agree that the endless pursuit of profit at the expense of everything else is not the answer.

I agree completely. Unfortunately as it works today, when Monsanto’s GM crops contaminate your crops, YOU’RE liable for theft. It’s an outrage.

Tim, I think you make an excellent point by saying that the LP is single minded in their attack of government. On the LP website, if you click on “Issues&Positions” and then on “Environment” the only thing of substance written is that government is responsible for most pollution. It’s as if the environment will suddenly be prestine again if the government only got out of the way. Unfortunately, that is not true. I don’t trust big business any more than government to protect the environment.

This inter breeding between government and favored corps., attacked as corruption, is the natural political growing space for us. Anti government as a single issue can only take you so far. The LP is a single issue party. We dont have to be one.

Suppose I wish to “experiment” with fire on my property. As soon as the smoke interferes with the enjoyment of your property or the fire actually spreads to your property, I would be violating your property rights and should be held strictly liable.

I would suggest that companies like Monsanto would not exist but for government “incentives” and limits on liability. It would appear that their intentions are to
create a monopoly on food crops with government complicity.

But 90% of libertarians would support it becuase it’s “private”. :(

the lp has in some cases very simplistic thinking for rather complex issues.

This is a similar argument that I have had with gun control advocates. Since I am against gun control, I am asked if it should be legal for me to build a nuclear weapon in my garage. My opinion is that when an individual or group is creating something that could put innocent people or the environment at extreme risk, as in the case of building a nuclear weapon or developing GMOs which could threaten the world’s food supply & biodiversity, then this is a case where the government can legitimately step in and put a stop to.

I must ask you this: What right does a corporation have to alter the genetic makeup of the world through bio engineering? I am not denying there may be some benefits to GMOs but IMO I think the risks greatly outweigh the gains.

Fortunately, one of the requirements for organic food to be labeled as such is that it cannot contain GMOs and it must be pesticide free. Although most organic produce is more expensive than conventional produce, I think our health is worth the extra price. In addition, when you buy organic produce you are not supporting evil companies such as Monsanto, which do not care about the welfare of the planet but are only concerned with lining their pockets.

This is a good question. If it could be proven that you have developed a completely contained system that in no way could genetically contaminate anything outside your closed system, then as a libertarian I would be hesitant to outlaw something like that. But as it has been pointed by Tom in the post above and elsewhere, Monsanto’s genetically altered plants have contaminated the crops of farmers who have no intention of using Monsanto’s products.

Being a corporate welfare queen is bad enough. But Monsanto is threatening the world’s biodiversity by creating plants that will spread and destroy native species. (cont’d)

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s “Roundup-Ready” genemod, which makes rapeseed (canola) pesticide resistant, is now showing up in the wild relatives of the plant — imposing additional costs on farmers for which Monsanto denies liability, while those same farmers will end up in court if their own crops display the same genemod and they haven’t forked over to Monsanto for it.

Monsanto is pretty much the Saddam Hussein of American agribusiness.

Property rights get somewhat difficult to parse at the level where we’re talking about which bee moved what pollen from whose field. Monsanto is spending a lot of lobbying and litigation money, and calling in a lot of government favors, to ensure that the parsing works in its favor, every time, no matter what.

Should it be illegal for me to develop genetically modified seeds in my garage? As libertarians, should we call for legislation to outlaw GM foods, at least until further study is done? Who will do these studies? And would you send police weilding guns to my garage to force me to stop studying GM seeds, or selling them?

I’m sure Monsanto does some pretty evil stuff — they’re one of the largest corporate welfare queens out there. But some of what they do could lead to revolutions in farming. Should we outlaw innovation?

I agree. Many large corporations have the government in their back pockets and create artificial protections for themselves. I think it’s abhorrent that corporations are treated as separate “individuals” and that corporate officers are shielded from liability. In the documentary “The Corporation”, the corporation is described as exhibiting all the characteristics of a psychopath in their endless pursuit of profit without regard to anything else. It’s good to see that not all corporations are like this, with the notable example of Whole Foods, run by a fellow vegan libertarian.

What has really alienated me from the LP and Reason is their attitude that corporations are somehow “beneficial” just because they’re not directly holding a gun to anyone’s head forcing them to buy anyone’s products. (con’t)

I’m too fucking tired. My chemo drugs are working me over big time. Maybe tomorrow.

I’m a little confused here – being FORCED to do something against your will, no matter how noble it would be to do on your own, is slavery; simply treating someone without expecting immediate payment or voluntarily donating to a charity that helps people pay for medical care, etc. is just being a decent person. Maybe I just need some sleep, but it sounds like you are saying that libertarians often call the latter slavery, which I don’t hear too often. I don’t see it as callous to say that the former is slavery since the issue is coercion, not what you should voluntarily do as an individual.

That being said, I agree with you 100% that “What we have is a rigged market…” and I wish more libertarians would get it. I think a lot of it is knee-jerk reactions to lefties who say corps. can only do evil and we need gov. to save us.

I actually think that Johnston does get it. The way he wrote his article was almost like (at least in my perception) he was becoming more enlightened with each paragraph he wrote.

I did read the interview at Sunni’s place, and think I wrote about it somewhere, too. I’d recommend that to others, too.