in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants your right?

is possessing seeds and growing 'any' plants your self evident inherent human right?

  • yes

    Votes: 57 90.5%

  • no

    Votes: 4 6.3%

  • i dont know

    Votes: 2 3.2%
  • Total voters
    63
desert dude said:
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is different. Just as Fillburn (or was it Wickard) thought he had the right to plant 22 acres of wheat as feed for his cattle the heavy hand of the state descended upon him and smote him of the forehead.

When the state becomes your nanny, you are forced to accept arbitrary and ridiculous rules whose purpose it is to pick your pocket.
Click to expand...

the thing is though dd is that people always leave out that farmer dude was in a gov contract (fed subsidy program) which hinged on him growing according to gov regs etc and such had a direct effect on the outcome of that case...?
 
desert dude said:
I agree with the sentiment but the reality is different. Just as Fillburn (or was it Wickard) thought he had the right to plant 22 acres of wheat as feed for his cattle the heavy hand of the state descended upon him and smote him of the forehead.

When the state becomes your nanny, you are forced to accept arbitrary and ridiculous rules whose purpose it is to pick your pocket.
Click to expand...

Those are social values from the religious right because right wingers have no problem with a nanny state, as long as it represents their values. To blame it on the "state" and inadvertently "the left", you avoid placing blame where it belongs.
 
Of course it is. It's a plant. Should we ban trees from growing in our backyard?

Fuck the police.
 
GOD HERE said:
Those are social values from the religious right because right wingers have no problem with a nanny state, as long as it represents their values. To blame it on the "state" and inadvertently "the left", you avoid placing blame where it belongs.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about the left. Wickard V Fillburn was decided by the FDR supreme court in furtherance of FDR's social engineering. You cannot claim that decision was a product of the religious right without being a laughing stock.

I agree that both the left and the right are aligned to pick the pockets of the peons via nanny-state laws. The only solution I see to the problem is a MUCH smaller government.
 
desert dude said:
I certainly agree that plants and cars are different. I do not agree that one has the right to steal the property of another, whether that property is a car or a patented life form. If you want to plant round-up ready corn then you need to pay the people who spent hundreds of millions dollars creating that life form. You are free to plant heirloom corn and keep the seeds for next year's crop if you desire.
Click to expand...

well at least we agree that plants and cars r different and we also agree on not stealing the 'property' of others...
but of course 'property' is the operative word...
to me its kinda like saying we could collect genes from different humans and then maybe toss in some specialty genes from a hawk for better eyes and so forth and then patent such etc...though at present such is not legal with human genes but i think u know what i mean...
 
DNAprotection said:
well at least we agree that plants and cars r different and we also agree on not stealing the 'property' of others...
but of course 'property' is the operative word...
to me its kinda like saying we could collect genes from different humans and then maybe toss in some specialty genes from a hawk for better eyes and so forth and then patent such etc...though at present such is not legal with human genes but i think u know what i mean...
Click to expand...

Why would a company invest $500,000,000 to develop a crop that could be stolen after one generation?

I don't understand your comment about the "government contract", so I won't comment on it.
 
I think some people will be very shocked at boys with wolf jaws and hawk eyes...but they are coming. In the future they will be soldiers or the opposite, Street Punks.

The 9th Amendment, again.

You really need to read more William Gibson and other future shock authors.

It is already way to late to worry about GMO humans. It is already being done. I myself have be GMed, recently.
 
desert dude said:
Why would a company invest $500,000,000 to develop a crop that could be stolen after one generation?

I don't understand your comment about the "government contract", so I won't comment on it.
Click to expand...

sorry bro its been a long time since i looked at that case but wasnt the party in question contracted into a gov farm subsidy program or am i mistaken on that?
 
Doer said:
I think some people will be very shocked at boys with wolf jaws and hawk eyes...but they are coming. In the future they will be soldiers or the opposite, Street Punks.

The 9th Amendment, again.

You really need to read more William Gibson and other future shock authors.

It is already way to late to worry about GMO humans. It is already being done. I myself have be GMed, recently.
Click to expand...

GE or not, once u make a baby (any life form) it must be respected imo...thats why i think for now genetic engineering should be at least wearing a condom ;)
 
DNAprotection said:
sorry bro its been a long time since i looked at that case but wasnt the party in question contracted into a gov farm subsidy program or am i mistaken on that?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what specific case you are talking about.

The most recent case is Bowman V Monsanto. SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of Monsanto. Bowman was stealing Monsanto's patented intellectual property. If you read the facts of the case it is clear that Bowman was indeed stealing Monsanto's IP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
 
desert dude said:
Why would a company invest $500,000,000 to develop a crop that could be stolen after one generation?

I don't understand your comment about the "government contract", so I won't comment on it.
Click to expand...

4got to respond to the first bit...imo because of the nature of the 'product' (in that it is 'life' and not a car etc) and that all their so called 'intellectual property' originates from the 'living commons' at the very least, then i think they should feel grateful to even get one generations worth of profits...if i were in charge they wouldnt even be making round up etc let alone round up ready seeds lol etc...so like i said imo they should feel grateful with one gen or look for another game...
 
desert dude said:
I am not sure what specific case you are talking about.

The most recent case is Bowman V Monsanto. SCOTUS ruled unanimously in favor of Monsanto. Bowman was stealing Monsanto's patented intellectual property. If you read the facts of the case it is clear that Bowman was indeed stealing Monsanto's IP.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/business/monsanto-victorious-in-genetic-seed-case.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

yikes no lol sorry bro im still back on the wheat case you brought up, Wickard V Fillburn, wasnt a gov farm subsidy program also at issue?
 
DNAprotection said:
4got to respond to the first bit...imo because of the nature of the 'product' (in that it is 'life' and not a car etc) and that all their so called 'intellectual property' originates from the 'living commons' at the very least, then i think they should feel grateful to even get one generations worth of profits...if i were in charge they wouldnt even be making round up etc let alone round up ready seeds lol etc...so like i said imo they should feel grateful with one gen or look for another game...
Click to expand...

Your approach would destroy the modern agricultural system. It would be an effective population control measure, I will give you that.
 
DNAprotection said:
yikes no lol sorry bro im still back on the wheat case you brought up, Wickard V Fillburn, wasnt a gov farm subsidy program also at issue?
Click to expand...

Wickard V Fillburn is the decision that transmuted the commerce clause into a blanket authority for the federal government to intervene in intra-state commerce. Wickard is the very key stone of the war on drugs. That's what happens when government grows.
 
desert dude said:
Wickard V Fillburn is the decision that transmuted the commerce clause into a blanket authority for the federal government to intervene in intra-state commerce. Wickard is the very key stone of the war on drugs. That's what happens when government grows.
Click to expand...

It took FDR years to shape the court to get a decision like this. This case changed the landscape in the US forever. SC judges appointed recently have openly said there is no limiting factor of what government can do by the constitution.
 
ginwilly said:
It took FDR years to shape the court to get a decision like this. This case changed the landscape in the US forever. SC judges appointed recently have openly said there is no limiting factor of what government can do by the constitution.
Click to expand...

Yep.

Wickard effectively amended the constitution without all that bothersome democratic process. It's a "living document"!
 
desert dude said:
Wickard V Fillburn is the decision that transmuted the commerce clause into a blanket authority for the federal government to intervene in intra-state commerce. Wickard is the very key stone of the war on drugs. That's what happens when government grows.
Click to expand...

dude im fully aware of its effect, i was stating that its been years (at least 10) since i read it and was remembering a gov subsidy program at issue somewhere in that case (which would make a definite impact on the ruling) but i might be remembering wrong...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

G
Here is Practical Explanation about Next Life, Purpose of Human Life, philosophical/religious facts, theories etc.
Replies
1
Views
860
CaptainCAVEMAN
CaptainCAVEMAN
C
Greetings, OneLove, and Peace from a lost soul....
Replies
2
Views
845
BarnBuster
BarnBuster
Charles U Farley
Heaven, Hell, and the Devil aren't real, but God is?
10 11 12
Replies
237
Views
28K
StonedGardener
StonedGardener
Jimdamick
  • Poll Poll
Should the US shed blood for Ukraine
81 82 83
Replies
2K
Views
116K
Budzbuddha
Budzbuddha
hanimmal
Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson SCOTUS hearings.
10 11 12
Replies
237
Views
17K
canndo
canndo
Back
Top