Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Should Labels Be Required on Products Because 'theageofnow' Lives in the Woods?

In a comment to my post, This Is Going to Drive Anti-GMOers Crazy, it appears that theageofnow believes that labels should be put on products because he lives in the woods.

He writes as part of his advocacy for food labels:
Yes forced, not all of us live in a big city with access to 100% organic
But is there any justification from a libertarian perspective to demand coercion (in this case labeling) simply because a person lives in a jurisdiction where a product isn't provided?

I am sure there are few symphony orchestras that pass by his log cabin or NBA basketball teams, should they be coerced to provide their product near him?

Life is about tradeoffs, if you want to be able to attend symphony orchestra performances, NBA basketball games or buy food that is clearly marked organic, you need to be near a population size that justifies providing such services. If you prefer the chirp of crickets, well then that is a lifestyle choice.

You can't have both your log cabin lifestyle and access to a subway at the same time.



  1. Required labeling is just a practical and immediate solution within the present regulatory structure. It won't solve the problem of availability of organic and non-gmo food in smaller markets but it would allow the identification of the common industrialized foods that have it.

    The principled solution of course would be to do away with the regulatory structure that works to prevent market penetration of smaller food companies, organic foods, straight from the farm foods, etc. If those who call for the practical immediate solution are to be chastised it should include talking about the difference between practical solutions that still allow the state to have power and real solutions which diminish state power and the advantages of the later. This would at least arm them with the long term solution for their government caused difficulties.

  2. Forcing labeling is not the issue. The government blocking or clouding labeling is the issue. The government has no business at all meddling in food. I really don't get your argument. It sounds like you are okay with the government publishing fraudulent information on food labels. The government has no business being involved with the labeling of food. The free market can and will do a much better job of it.

  3. You have it the other way around. Labeling is being prevented not required. In a free society labels would be the norm. Simply because a very large number of people are demanding it. You know..."consumer demand". We want the distinction, businesses would gladly give it to us so those who want to avoid GMO can. Unfortunately, this is not a free market and monsanto's army of lawyers have prevented anti-GMO labels. So we have to eat the price of organics or likely eat GMOs. I do wish there was a whole foods nearby, oh well.

    I guess you seem to think by demand I mean men with guns, which isn't the demand I am talking about. I mean the simple, "your competitor will get my business instead if you don't provide X,Y or Z". Add that to the independent food rating agencies that would exist in a free society. There would be clear labels in very short order - voluntarily.

  4. Yeah, I am an anti-GMO loon because my government doesn't allow labelling of GMO products thanks to the good people at Monsanto and US government pressure.

    Seriously you are so far from the core of the matter that it isn't even possible to communicate.