Quote :

"OH NOES!!! SOMEBODY ON THE INTERNET DOESN'T BELIEVE ME!!!!! WHAT EVER WILL I DO??? "

Apparently curse and cry about it:

Quote :

"Fuck you for suggesting that I'm not a libertarian."

Besides, you're the fool running around saying bullshit like this:

Quote :

"organic nature >>>> human liberty. "

As much as I love local foods, I am infinitely grateful that a bout of bad whether doesn't bring my food supply to a halt or double or triple the costs.

6/12/2009 8:12:04 PM

Quote :

"I am infinitely grateful that a bout of bad whether doesn't bring my food supply to a halt or double or triple the costs."

Because clearly, that's what we're trying to return to
Seriously, though. Enough with the bullshit. No one is advocating that we turn the clock back to hundreds of years ago. There will always be non-local food, duh. No one is advocating a system wherein a bout of bad whether would bring food supplies to a halt or double or triple the costs. Seriously. Enough with the partisan hack scare tactics. OMG ORGANIC HIPPIES WANT TO MAKE US WEAK AND VULNERABLE!!!


And I'll say it again, because it's the mother fucking universal truth:
organic nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 7:48 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2009 7:47:29 AM

So how do you propose to have a system where local disasters don't have significant effects on the local food supply without allowing people to consistently purchase and support non local food. You can claim that it won't happen that people can buy locally al the time in normal situations and just magically switch to imported food if something bad happens, but it doesn't work like that. Part of the reason you don't have such problems today is because there is already a network of food delivery in place and remote locations already produce more food than necessary to provide for non local populations. If there will always be non local food, how do you propose to stop the local Piggly Wiggly from only buying food imported from another state or location where the unit cost is cheaper? In other words, without artificially limiting the freedoms of people and without running the risk of significant failures in the food distribution system, how do you propose to force people to only by local?

Quote :

"And I'll say it again, because it's the mother fucking universal truth: organic nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty "

Thanks but no thanks, I'll gladly take my immunizations over measles any day. And the elimination of small pox and polio. Yeah, I much prefer the non-natural society without the childhood deaths from preventable diseases.

There is a significant difference between what is moral and what is legal and what is immoral and what is illegal, you seem to be confusing them.

6/13/2009 11:09:37 AM

Quote :

"So how do you propose to have a system...."

Because clearly I'm the one that needs to provide that proposition. This is only Willy Nilly's idea. No one else agrees with me. I have to have all the answers, or else I'm completely wrong about it.

Quote :

"without allowing people to consistently purchase and support non local food"

Um. I support freedom. I never said that people should be disallowed from purchasing and supporting non local food. It's amazing how often people assume that advocacy for some good equates to authoritarian measures to force that good.

Quote :

"...just magically switch to imported food if something bad happens, but it doesn't work like that."

I never said it did.

Quote :

" If there will always be non local food, how do you propose to stop the local Piggly Wiggly from only buying food imported from another state or location where the unit cost is cheaper? "

I don't. They simply respond to consumer demand. And consumers should demand at least some local food. If they don't, I lose. But I contend that people are good, and given the choice will generally do the right thing, if not eventually.

Quote :

"In other words, without artificially limiting the freedoms of people and without running the risk of significant failures in the food distribution system, how do you propose to force people to only by local?"

I don't. I don't advocate forcing people to do anything except abstaining from harming or unreasonably endangering others' persons, properties, liberties, or rights to the same. And I never said that everyone should only buy local -- I said that to as large a degree as possible (without sacrificing safety or security, duh,) all people should eat organic and locally-produced food.

Quote :

"Thanks but no thanks, I'll gladly take my immunizations over measles any day. And the elimination of small pox and polio. Yeah, I much prefer the non-natural society without the childhood deaths from preventable diseases."

Because clearly I'm talking about disease. Measles is organic -- SO IT'S TOTALLY OKAY!

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 11:58 AM. Reason : ]

6/13/2009 11:55:18 AM

Quote :

"Um. I support freedom. I never said that people should be disallowed from purchasing and supporting non local food. It's amazing how often people assume that advocacy for some good equates to authoritarian measures to force that good."

Because usually the line that follows from that is, "...and there ought to be a law!" Not to mention the rather venomous way you handle anyone who disagrees with you as to the merits or necessity of organics vs. say, technology, doesn't exactly give the impression of a deep-seated tolerance.

Just saying, you know.

6/13/2009 12:15:31 PM

Quote :

"Because usually the line that follows from that is, "...and there ought to be a law!"

Sadly, you're right.. that usually is the next line -- but I thought I'd already established that I'm a libertarian...

Quote :

"the rather venomous way you handle anyone who disagrees.... doesn't exactly give the impression of a deep-seated tolerance"

I suppose you're right. I am not the most effective advocate, to say the least. It's too bad, though. I really more people weren't so susceptible to ad hominem fallacies....

Quote :

"organics vs. say, technology"

Organic farming is a form of technology.

Just saying, you know.

6/13/2009 12:22:47 PM

Quote :

"Because clearly I'm the one that needs to provide that proposition. This is only Willy Nilly's idea. No one else agrees with me. I have to have all the answers, or else I'm completely wrong about it. "

I would expect someone who advocates a position to have at least a basic understanding of how that position would actually play out in reality. I'm sorry if expecting you to be able to defend the positions you take with more than just "undeniable truths" is asking too much of you.

Quote :

"It's amazing how often people assume that advocacy for some good equates to authoritarian measures to force that good. ... If they don't, I lose. But I contend that people are good, and given the choice will generally do the right thing, if not eventually. ... I don't advocate forcing people to do anything except abstaining from harming or unreasonably endangering others' persons, properties, liberties, or rights to the same."

Your history on such topics is lacking in the area of not advocating authoritarian solutions to current problems. To whit:

Quote :

"organic nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty"

Quote :

"environment >>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty Fuck you."

Quote :

"Saying that an individual co-owns a particular commons-land doesn't mean they can raise cattle on it -- commons is nature, and stays nature, until everyone "agrees" to sell it to a single owner, if ever. "

Quote :

"If he wiped out that species of snail, or unreasonabley harmed it's population, then he's harming everyone, and the government stepping in is not an act of authoritarianism -- it's simply justice. To serve and protect."

Quote :

" [quote] The government is merely upholding justice by defending everyone's property rights to that snail and its habitat."

and there are more examples, but those are the more recent ones that come to mind. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to assume that since to support the use of government force to "protect everyone's property" (in this instance property = animal) that you would equally support the use of government force to "protect everyone's property" where property is the land and animals used in the production of food.

Quote :

"Because clearly I'm talking about disease. Measles is organic -- SO IT'S TOTALLY OKAY! "

You never qualified, you said:

Quote :

"organic nature >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human liberty"

And in fact, in a previous thread, you indicated the only reason you didn't think the eradication of such diseases should be stopped by the government was because it is unclear if a virus is alive.

If you're going to spout unreasonable and insane positions without qualifying them, you should expect that people will assume you mean what you say.

6/13/2009 3:50:22 PM

Quote :

"I would expect someone who advocates a position to have at least a basic understanding of how that position would actually play out in reality. I'm sorry if expecting you to be able to defend the positions you take with more than just "undeniable truths" is asking too much of you."

Well, you're wrong to expect that. That what's wrong with the soap box. No one can talk about anything without being expected to be an authority on the subject, and to provide proof of everything. No room is left for simply talking about important debates. No conjecture, no positing.. nope. You have to be 100% correct and be able to prove it 100%. That's why the soap box sucks.

Quote :

"Your history on such topics is lacking in the area of not advocating authoritarian solutions to current problems. To whit"

None of those examples have anything to with me advocating authoritarianism. Government protecting property and individual rights is not authoritarianism.

Quote :

"You never qualified,"

You're right... I didn't, and I should have. (Yeah, that's a good idea. Ask me to be even more verbose... )

Quote :

"And in fact, in a previous thread, you indicated the only reason you didn't think the eradication of such diseases should be stopped by the government was because it is unclear if a virus is alive."

I think I was referring to total eradication -- not practical eradication or eradication from nature. But still... Protecting biodiversity is, to me, synonymous with protecting private property rights. Not authoritarian.

[Edited on June 13, 2009 at 4:18 PM. Reason : ]

6/13/2009 4:12:25 PM

Quote :

"Well, you're wrong to expect that. That what's wrong with the soap box. No one can talk about anything without being expected to be an authority on the subject, and to provide proof of everything. No room is left for simply talking about important debates. No conjecture, no positing.. nope. You have to be 100% correct and be able to prove it 100%. That's why the soap box sucks. "

I'm not asking for you to be an authority on the subject, just to be able to adequately and completely expound upon the ideas that you propose as "undeniable truths". It is not unreasonable for someone to ask you how you think and idea that you expound would be practically put into place. I'm not asking for a complete computer model, I'm asking for a general overview. I expect people who advocate ideas to be able to present a complete argument for those ideas. Hell even salisburyboy could present a internally complete overview of the bullshit he expounded.

Quote :

"Government protecting property and individual rights is not authoritarianism."

None of those were examples of you advocating the protection of property and individual rights in any form that would lead one to believe you wouldn't advocate similar solutions to protect farm lands and animals.

6/13/2009 4:40:21 PM

Galaxy Cinema will be getting this on July 17th, in case anybody's interested. It's probably going to be one of those movies that makes me seriously think about everything I'm doing for about a week, and then just say "fuck it" and get on with things.

6/18/2009 11:29:14 AM

Anybody see this? I caught it a couple days ago...right now I feel like I will go the way of the post above...I'd like to go shop at the farmer's market and stuff, but I've already found it a bit too inconvenient to not just grab whatever food I want and not worry about where it's from.

7/28/2009 10:01:17 AM

Quote :

"Well, you're wrong to expect that. That what's wrong with the soap box. No one can talk about anything without being expected to be an authority on the subject, and to provide proof of everything. No room is left for simply talking about important debates. No conjecture, no positing.. nope. You have to be 100% correct and be able to prove it 100%. That's why the soap box sucks."

And you're somehow better? Anyone who has an opinion that differs from yours is immediately labeled as an imbecile, moron, or is otherwise berated. Yeah, way to simply talk, buddy.

7/28/2009 10:31:37 AM

^ Yes I too found the actions of Smithfield to be appalling.

7/28/2009 10:41:48 AM

^so what did the movie mainly attack, factory farming, genetic what not?

7/28/2009 10:47:31 AM

There were a ton of issues in it, the biggest being:

Very few beef companies out there providing generic products targeted to fast food and being held to horrible standards.

Chicken companies basically turn their chicken farmers into indentured servants. Basically once you get started as a chicken farmer Perdue, Tyson, etc. requires you to constantly upgrade to their latest equipment, putting them into greater and greater debt.

Smithfield specifically ships in illegal immigrants from 100 miles away to work at their plant, then essentially gives their info away to police when they want to come and deport people.

Monsanto has developed a bean resistant to Roundup (their product) and patented the bean. They now essentially own 90% of all (soy?) bean crops, and will sue anyone who doesn't use it even if they know they can't win.

Also almost all the government watchdog agencies like the FDA and USDA are now run by former employees of places like Monsato, Tyson, etc...

There obviously was a lot more in there, but I don't have the Cliff Notes in front of me. If I think of anything more important I'll post it.

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 11:03 AM. Reason : a]

7/28/2009 10:55:28 AM

Hubs and I went to see it...I was pretty grossed out and appalled by Smithfield and I'll never eat a frozen hamburger patty again And then of course all of ^ (well put btw)

It's impact on me is something I was already wanting to make a change of in our lives, and that's becoming a more aware grocery shopper. My brother and SIL have slowly, but surely, made a huge lifestyle change on how and what they eat. Completely local, organic, and grow as much of their own veggies as they can. My s-i-l was diagnosed with PCOS, and her health has improved immensely since changing their diet. It's something I aspire to, but baby steps is the key. That would probably be pretty easy for us considering my husband is very aware of nutrition and what he eats (to a point that it can be annoying if you don't love him ). Just being with him alone has changed the way I eat, the movie is only further pushing me in the direction of eating better.

And the dude in Shenandoah Valley was pretty much the most badass of local organic farmers I've seen. Smart guy...and his pigs and cows looked SO happy! I didn't mind watching he and his workers kill and pluck the chickens whereas watching some of the factory scenes made my stomach turn

[Edited on July 28, 2009 at 11:05 AM. Reason : ]

7/28/2009 11:04:00 AM

^^,^ awesome and thanks, Ill prob go see this soon.

7/28/2009 11:13:56 AM

this kinda ties in. Some people built a large garden/farm on top of a warehouse in brooklyn

http://www.ediblebrooklyn.net/magazine/index.php/summer-2009/traceability.htm

7/28/2009 11:47:58 AM

I saw this movie. It has my recommendation.

7/29/2009 11:43:57 AM

^^ haha, I just posted asking about something similar in the lounge. Thanks for the link

7/29/2009 11:55:16 AM

Quote :

"Chicken companies basically turn their chicken farmers into indentured servants. Basically once you get started as a chicken farmer Perdue, Tyson, etc. requires you to constantly upgrade to their latest equipment, putting them into greater and greater debt."

Sounds like a good reason not to go into chicken farming. I'm pretty sure it should not matter to us consumers if a bunch of chicken farmers made poor financial decisions. I'm sure the chicken farmers in question are not crying about all their customers that are losing their homes to foreclosure.

Quote :

"Smithfield specifically ships in illegal immigrants from 100 miles away to work at their plant, then essentially gives their info away to police when they want to come and deport people."

An excellent reason to dramatically expand the channels of legal immigration. If all those workers were instead here legally, then Smithfield could not pull such shenanigans. If you instead chose to make it illegal to employ illegal immigrants, Smithfield would probably not treat its workers better, probably opting instead to hire enforcers to intimidate the workers into silence using violence means. That would not be an improvement.

Quote :

"Monsanto has developed a bean resistant to Roundup (their product) and patented the bean. They now essentially own 90% of all (soy?) bean crops, and will sue anyone who doesn't use it even if they know they can't win."

That is the problem of all patents, should we do away with all patents? I suspect doing so might be beneficial, but it is not obvious. And lawsuits are a particular problem here because we lack loser pays, which exists everywhere else.

Quote :

"Also almost all the government watchdog agencies like the FDA and USDA are now run by former employees of places like Monsato, Tyson, etc..."

Funny story. Regulatory capture is why these and almost all government agencies were created in the first place. Gabriel Kolko demonstrated that long ago. The only solution is to dissolve the government agencies, since there is no known way, except foreign occupation, for government agencies to not be captured by those they regulate.

7/29/2009 12:25:53 PM

Quote :

"I'm pretty sure it should not matter to us consumers if a bunch of chicken farmers made poor financial decisions. I'm sure the chicken farmers in question are not crying about all their customers that are losing their homes to foreclosure. "

Or maybe some people actually have solidarity with the producers and want them to get a fair shake. Ask most people and they are going to side with the farmer over some faceless integrator that is screwing said farmer.

Quote :

"An excellent reason to dramatically expand the channels of legal immigration."

Or Smithfield could hire legal workers from the area and operate within the law like most corporations.

Quote :

"That is the problem of all patents, should we do away with all patents?"

It has less to do with having a patent and more to do with patenting life. They have patented the gene sequence of the plant, which raises a lot of ethical questions. You cant even use seeds you picked from your own field for the next year (if you wanted to), instead you have to buy a new shipment from Monsanto every year.

7/29/2009 1:09:42 PM

Quote :

"Sounds like a good reason not to go into chicken farming. I'm pretty sure it should not matter to us consumers if a bunch of chicken farmers made poor financial decisions. I'm sure the chicken farmers in question are not crying about all their customers that are losing their homes to foreclosure."

Good point. I would definitely call into question the decision making of getting into chicken farmers knowing you are going to be building a mountain of debt. Hell, what the parent companies are doing isn't even illegal, so why should we care? But maybe some people do actually care (when purchasing their chickens) whether or not the parent company takes advantage of the farmer in debt by continuing to push them further into debt. This discussion doesn't always boil down to legality and who made a bad decision. The point here is whether you might feel it's worth an extra couple dollars to purchase from a company that doesn't treat people like this.

Quote :

"An excellent reason to dramatically expand the channels of legal immigration. If all those workers were instead here legally, then Smithfield could not pull such shenanigans. If you instead chose to make it illegal to employ illegal immigrants, Smithfield would probably not treat its workers better, probably opting instead to hire enforcers to intimidate the workers into silence using violence means. That would not be an improvement."

You are absolutely right! But just because the bigger issue here is immigration doesn't give Smithfield the right to hire these people illegally. There are laws about this kind of stuff. Just because you disagree with them doesn't mean you get a free pass to practice outside of them.

Quote :

"That is the problem of all patents, should we do away with all patents? I suspect doing so might be beneficial, but it is not obvious. And lawsuits are a particular problem here because we lack loser pays, which exists everywhere else."

Again, sure this is a patent question, but that doesn't mean we can't make a judgement on the practices of Monsanto even if they are operating within the law. Here's an example of what happens: Farmer Joe chooses not to use Monsanto's products, and uses his own non genetically altered beans or buys non genetically altered ones. After the harvest he saves his beans and plants them the next year. Now Monsanto is angry that he isn't buying from them, so they sue him, claiming that their genetically altered beans that they sold to Farmer Joe's neighbor blew onto Farmer Joe's property and he is now inadvertently using their beans and saving them. Monsanto knows they have no proof and knows they can't win. But after all is said and done Farmer Joe either settles out of court to use their beans or goes out of business, both outcomes because he can't afford the legal fees of constantly being sued by Monsanto.

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ,]

[Edited on July 29, 2009 at 2:06 PM. Reason : b]

7/29/2009 1:54:34 PM

A documentary on Monsanto from France

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6262083407501596844

its kinda - conspiracy theory - esque but it gets better near the end when they are actually talking to farmers both in the US and abroad

7/29/2009 6:11:51 PM

bump by request

11/27/2009 5:37:27 PM

is Willy Nilly trolling or retarded?

11/27/2009 11:57:28 PM

Probably both.

11/28/2009 12:20:25 AM

I just saw this the other day. Pretty good flick, though obviously a point of view documentary (not that anyone expected otherwise). I agree with the premise that massive changes have occurred in the food industry without any real public debate or even knowledge, and I agree that the control of the majority of the food supply by a relatively small number of heavily subsidized corporations whose relationship with the federal government is practically incestuous should be cause for alarm both for foodists and libertarians, but I don't think the stock solution of "more regulation, eat local, corporations are bad" is the answer.

For example, Monsanto is a clear boogieman here, but not without complete cause. However if the solution is more regulation and, as the movie points out, the regulatory offices are filled with former Corporate Ag employees I fail to see how this will accomplish anything. The massive subsidies which help make Mexican corn too expensive for US markets (think about that, corn raised by low wage Mexican farmers can't compete with US farmers) are touched on, but not in any significant detail.


All in all, the movie is worth a watch. Certainly holds some value as an educational film and will cause some people to question what eat and possibly change long-term consumer habits. Will it restore America to a pastoral wonderland of organic milk and only locally grown produce? No.

11/29/2009 10:23:35 PM