Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JBTFD who wrote (2100)	10/1/2006 8:11:41 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

"And it can be forced to pay monetary damages ..." Has that happened?

To: JBTFD who wrote (2100)	10/1/2006 11:26:21 AM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

A municipality isn't a "soverign" entity. An arguement could be made for a state, though. I rather doubt that nations, which are the actual "soverign" entities, could be sued for wanting non-GMO crops. I also doubt that any rational nation would WANT to exclude GMO crops.

To: JBTFD who wrote (2100)	10/2/2006 5:12:44 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10087

While in many situation I support the idea of deciding more things at a local or state level, "no GMO crops" regulations at the local level are rather problematic. Particularly no GMO crop sales regulations, which would limited consumer freedom, and also break up the country in to a bunch of little markets with different regulations. No GMO crop production laws aren't quite as bad. This is in fact a loss of sovereignty. Local jurisdictions are under the state government, in a way that state governments are not under the federal government. States have specific powers and responsibility under the federal constitution. Local governments have grounding in the federal constitution, they might have rights under the state constitution, but most states don't give local governments the same level of independent authority, and also most state constitutions are far easier to modify than the federal constitution. The US was originally a confederation of states, then it became a federation but the states retained a degree of sovereignty. No state started from a confederation of local governments, and the state governments rarely if ever gave the local governments withing the states the same level of separate sovereignty. It is like a vise that they use to oppress the poor majority while the rich minority increase their wealth more and more. Organic crops are a luxury not the staples of the poor. Also I find it hard to consider not allowing such a ban to be oppression. Good or bad it really doesn't rise to a level that should deserve such a term. Also if such a level of control can be considered oppression than the ban on GMO crops can itself be considered oppression. (But again I think it isn't so bad as to deserve the term).