6 ms·

Funny how the anti-Monsanto position is always caricatured as a liberal anti-GMO person. I think it is just as likely to be a libertarian person who finds thei

Funny how the anti-Monsanto position is always caricatured as a liberal anti-GMO person. I think it is just as likely to be a libertarian person who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds to be ethically distasteful.

travisp 13y ago
>who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds This is mostly a myth. All of the lawsuits have been about people who have intentionally used Monsanto breeds (mostly just one court case about one farmer in particular). The rest of their lawsuits, which are a relatively small number, have been against people who broke their contracts with Monsanto, not people who have experienced accidental cross pollination. There are no cases of Monsanto going after farmers for inadvertent contamination and the company has even explicitly stated that it will not sue farmers for it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff
enoch_r 13y ago
Citation needed for the "frequently accidentally" bit--I've found that this is essentially an urban legend. Dig a bit deeper and things probably weren't so "accidental." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Origin_of_the_patented_seed_in_Schmeiser.27s_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...
rayiner 13y ago
The way Monsanto's Round Up works is that the genetic modification is actually resistance to a particular potent pesticide. Just having your crops cross-pollinated isn't enough to help you, or to get Monsanto on your case. They sue farmers who also try to take advantage of the situation by using the special pesticide, which would kill non-cross pollinated plants. Also, while its hard to pin down libertarianism, there is a lot of conflation between libertarianism and anarchism online. There is nothing un-libertarian about what Monsanto does. Classic libertarians believe in property rights and contractual rights. Monsanto's legal actions largely rely on a web of contracts. There is nothing about classic libertarianism that is inconsistent with patents as property rights. Indeed, patents are a basically libertarian response to the neoclassical economic problem of free riding. The libertarian preference for addressing market failures is the creation of property rights. In this context, its more consistent with classical libertarianism for Monsanto to get property rights in its Round Up Ready seeds, and thus make the money that bankrolls their billions of dollars in annual research, than for say the government to spend that money to do basic research.
- sampo 13y ago
  > pesticide Herbicide, not pesticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
- lawnchair_larry 13y ago
  That's really only "libertarianism" in the American tea party sense, and fairly unique to the US. It's not that it is conflated with anarchism online, it's that Americans have conflated it with laissez-faire capitalism offline. The reason it seems different online is because you're seeing what the majority of the world understands it to be. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-an... "Chomsky: Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes." Powerful patents being used to dominate individuals, whether through infringement suits or through depriving them access to the market is about as far from libertarianism as you can get. This becomes more intuitive when you observe that the individual farmer has been put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. He does not, in fact, have his economic liberty.
  - nickff 13y ago
    Are you certain that Chomsky is the best source for information about libertarianism? Could he pass the ideological Turing test?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Chomsky isn't saying that the U.S. has an atypical definition libertarianism, but that libertarianism is not a popular ideology outside the U.S. There is not some other set of beliefs the rest of the world recognizes as "true libertarianism." Laissez-faire capitalism combined with a strong emphasis on individuality and property rights is what characterizes libertarianism. Its the beliefs of the neoclassical economic liberals minus the social contract thinking many of them also had. Your characterization of the farmers plight isn't accurate. They are not in a "damned if they don't" position. The roundup ready plants behave like ordinary plants if you don't use roundup. They had no reason to either enter into contracts with Monsanto or to use Monsanto's property by applying roundup, other than to gain the benefit of Monsanto's invention. Once they do those things, libertarianism says that Monsanto can dictate whatever terms it wants, and furthermore that one of the few legitimate purposes of even a limited government is providing courts for the enforcement of contractual and property rights.
michaeldhopkins 13y ago
No comment on Monsanto in particular, but it's frequently, but not exclusively, lobbying and regulatory capture that libertarians dislike about large corporations. This tends to especially be true when about a company that sells something that affects basic life (eating.)
randomdata 13y ago
Given that the remaining patents that Monsanto holds on the trait I believe you are referring to expire this year in the USA, and already expired three years ago in Canada, isn't it a bit late to be getting worked up about the theoretical potential of being sued over something that they have never tried suing anyone for before? Using roundup on a field that was "accidentally" cross-pollinated with the patented trait has been a big no-no, but who does that anyway? The cases that have gone to court were pretty clear-cut patent violations, not simple accidents.
jessaustin 13y ago
More info on Monsanto: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16985-life-in-the-rural-police-state-of-monsanto http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16985-life-in-the-rural-p... EDIT: The truth hurts, bitches.

travisp 13y ago

>who finds their legal pursuit of farmers who have (frequently accidentally) had their crops cross pollinate with Monsanto patented breeds This is mostly a myth. All of the lawsuits have been about people who have intentionally used Monsanto breeds (mostly just one court case about one farmer in particular). The rest of their lawsuits, which are a relatively small number, have been against people who broke their contracts with Monsanto, not people who have experienced accidental cross pollination. There are no cases of Monsanto going after farmers for inadvertent contamination and the company has even explicitly stated that it will not sue farmers for it. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto#As_plaintiff

enoch_r 13y ago

Citation needed for the "frequently accidentally" bit--I've found that this is essentially an urban legend. Dig a bit deeper and things probably weren't so "accidental." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser#Origin_of_the_patented_seed_in_Schmeiser.27s_fields http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeis...

rayiner 13y ago

The way Monsanto's Round Up works is that the genetic modification is actually resistance to a particular potent pesticide. Just having your crops cross-pollinated isn't enough to help you, or to get Monsanto on your case. They sue farmers who also try to take advantage of the situation by using the special pesticide, which would kill non-cross pollinated plants. Also, while its hard to pin down libertarianism, there is a lot of conflation between libertarianism and anarchism online. There is nothing un-libertarian about what Monsanto does. Classic libertarians believe in property rights and contractual rights. Monsanto's legal actions largely rely on a web of contracts. There is nothing about classic libertarianism that is inconsistent with patents as property rights. Indeed, patents are a basically libertarian response to the neoclassical economic problem of free riding. The libertarian preference for addressing market failures is the creation of property rights. In this context, its more consistent with classical libertarianism for Monsanto to get property rights in its Round Up Ready seeds, and thus make the money that bankrolls their billions of dollars in annual research, than for say the government to spend that money to do basic research.

sampo 13y ago
> pesticide Herbicide, not pesticide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
lawnchair_larry 13y ago
That's really only "libertarianism" in the American tea party sense, and fairly unique to the US. It's not that it is conflated with anarchism online, it's that Americans have conflated it with laissez-faire capitalism offline. The reason it seems different online is because you're seeing what the majority of the world understands it to be. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-anarchism-i-believe-and-whats-wrong-libertarians http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/noam-chomsky-kind-an... "Chomsky: Well what’s called libertarian in the United States, which is a special U. S. phenomenon, it doesn’t really exist anywhere else — a little bit in England — permits a very high level of authority and domination but in the hands of private power: so private power should be unleashed to do whatever it likes." Powerful patents being used to dominate individuals, whether through infringement suits or through depriving them access to the market is about as far from libertarianism as you can get. This becomes more intuitive when you observe that the individual farmer has been put in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario. He does not, in fact, have his economic liberty.
- nickff 13y ago
  Are you certain that Chomsky is the best source for information about libertarianism? Could he pass the ideological Turing test?[1] [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_Turing_Test
- rayiner 13y ago
  Chomsky isn't saying that the U.S. has an atypical definition libertarianism, but that libertarianism is not a popular ideology outside the U.S. There is not some other set of beliefs the rest of the world recognizes as "true libertarianism." Laissez-faire capitalism combined with a strong emphasis on individuality and property rights is what characterizes libertarianism. Its the beliefs of the neoclassical economic liberals minus the social contract thinking many of them also had. Your characterization of the farmers plight isn't accurate. They are not in a "damned if they don't" position. The roundup ready plants behave like ordinary plants if you don't use roundup. They had no reason to either enter into contracts with Monsanto or to use Monsanto's property by applying roundup, other than to gain the benefit of Monsanto's invention. Once they do those things, libertarianism says that Monsanto can dictate whatever terms it wants, and furthermore that one of the few legitimate purposes of even a limited government is providing courts for the enforcement of contractual and property rights.

michaeldhopkins 13y ago

No comment on Monsanto in particular, but it's frequently, but not exclusively, lobbying and regulatory capture that libertarians dislike about large corporations. This tends to especially be true when about a company that sells something that affects basic life (eating.)

randomdata 13y ago

Given that the remaining patents that Monsanto holds on the trait I believe you are referring to expire this year in the USA, and already expired three years ago in Canada, isn't it a bit late to be getting worked up about the theoretical potential of being sued over something that they have never tried suing anyone for before? Using roundup on a field that was "accidentally" cross-pollinated with the patented trait has been a big no-no, but who does that anyway? The cases that have gone to court were pretty clear-cut patent violations, not simple accidents.

jessaustin 13y ago

More info on Monsanto: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16985-life-in-the-rural-police-state-of-monsanto http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16985-life-in-the-rural-p... EDIT: The truth hurts, bitches.