1. “To employ “compelling force” is, in my opinion, immoral. It is covetousness for control of other people’s property without compensation.”
Nonsequitur! (wondering what you’re smoking)
2. “Prop 37 will inflict its own kind of legal abuse that IMO is far worse, akin to forcing farmers to do the kind of documentation that is making medical care so expensive.”
More nonsense!
No record keeping needed; prop 37 places the mandate for control of downwind damage where it belongs.
Federal statutes are what have allowed this problen to prevail unchecked. WE need the feds to keep their noses out.
.
>> “As to the Monsanto lawsuits, as far as I know, patent law is a Federal jurisdiction that California law cannot remedy.” <<
.
This is really not a patent law problem; the adjacent land owners are taking no action that violates Monsanto’s patents; Monsanto’s garbage is invading and destroying adjacent land, and at some point all the arable land in the state will become useless under present conditions, much like what is happening in Canada with ‘Canola.’
Prop 37 has the perfect solution in correctly placing the responsibility with the person that induced the problem. This nips the false ‘patent’ issue in the bud.
I see. You find yourself aligned with scads of communist greenie anti-human front groups for globalist interests and fail to even question why. Then, when confronted by someone you supposedly have respected for a decade with both objections, alternatives, AND the warning that the VERY MONSANTO YOU DESPISE WILL BE THE BIGGEST BENEFICIARY OF THE LAW YOU ADVOCATE, you just toss it off as that person whose book you say you respected as a solution is insane or inconsistent but cannot cite as to why.
Then you expect me to respect your unsupported reasoning?
I think you don't like it when you're shown to be aligned with statist power freaks bent on population reduction by any means necessary, including mass starvation. Arbitrary powers in the hands of a bureaucracy are just dandy with you when you agree with them. Hence, you make no distinctions as to means as justified by your "noble" ends. Such has always been a completely bankrupt basis for choice: No one selects an end except as a means to something else. Even Aristotle knew that.
No record keeping needed; prop 37 places the mandate for control of downwind damage where it belongs.
The law itself doesn't require it, the grounds of suit will. Even the LAT article I cited above made that clear. Apparently you didn't read it.
The supplier must maintain PROOF there was absolutely NO GMO in the product, even if it was just a GMO method to used to produce a hybrid. Every farmer will have to keep detailed records that there was NO WAY their seed was ever bombed by Monsanto pollen...
Yes, Monsanto wins either way. Oh and I'll bet you thought of that one too.
This is really not a patent law problem; the adjacent land owners are taking no action that violates Monsanto’s patents;
Although I agree with you in terms of the facts, that is not how the suits are grounded, it is not how they are turning out, nor is it the basis upon which Monsanto is bullying these farmers. Hence, this is just an unsupported assertion on your part that is contradicted by the history of these cases. Monsanto forces these farmers to settle because of their deep pockets and the fact that the courts have refused to allow the farmers to act as a class.
WE need the feds to keep their noses out.
About which prop 37 accomplishes nothing.
Prop 37 has the perfect solution in correctly placing the responsibility with the person that induced the problem. This nips the false ‘patent’ issue in the bud.
It is a labeling requirement. To my knowledge, it doesn't indemnify anyone in a Federal case.
I have to tell you, in your conduct on this thread, with your misdirections, unsupported claims, false accusations, and character assassination (primarily against Aussibabe), you have blown virtually all respect I ever had for you. You are very lucky I didn't contact the moderators to have you put on suspension.
In my opinion, your position is more emotional than objective. Your principal thrust is against one bad actor in a very big market that includes some very good people doing good work toward bringing the earth to fullness (that ol' Genesis 1:28 thingy "umilu et haaretz"). You blame the technology for what Monsanto did with it. That's like blaming a gun for a murder. It is fundamentally nonsensical. The technology can do good and ill. You lump them together.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this with you because your flippant and lazy replies are unworthy of my time. By your behavior and refusal to read carefully what I've written for what it says, and instead merely deem it nonsensical (a basically dishonest thing to do), you have blown it with me unless you show indication of a repentance I don't expect to see any time soon.