No we are getting nowhere. What do you think the source of property rights are?

I would appreciate the opportunity to say that I agree with you.
I 'm against artificially propping up that which would not survive on it's own.

You're talking personal space. But, I'll play.
What do you do with their waste? where do park their car? Where do you plant their food? You need 700 sq.ft./person to grow food. That assumes you got good yield. That also didn't include the sq.ft. needed to grow meat - got to deal with animal waste as well.
Where do you put those factories to make their goods, like clothes? You didn't add in the road ways to get people around, without grid lock.
What is the real sq.ft. cost for a human.
Physical space is one thing. Not every location is habitable. Nor is everyplace capable of growing food. Potable water IS the absolute limiting factor. Get the highest potential yield you want/acre. It doesn't mean jack if you can't water it.
You may have a right to life, but you do not have a right to bring a life into the world you can not provide for.
I ask again, is that not the very statement the Gulch is about??

I'm sure that's another discussion all by itself.

Feed the Children" Do you not realize that by reaching out as they did was nothing more than a plot to in fact feed GMO food in order to test what the long term affects would be. They were not being humane. They made test subjects out of millions in order to test what the side effects would be from the use of the chemical surplus left over from warfare. Please. Before the development of chemical warfare we depended upon crop rotation and compost. Suddenly within a few short years we had fertilizer's that would boost harvest. The end result of that is now our soil is deficient in nutrients necessary for the healthy development of human life. So they sell us a vitamin and call it a day. "FEED THE CHILDREN" okay.

Governmental system's that sought the development of the GMO! Now you have it. It has never been about ones human desire to gain. A human desire to gain is and has always been of a benefit not harm. If one bought out all competition that would have only been allowed if the other party was willing to sell. That is not what this is about. If you control the world food supply, you can control the entire world. Not one nation, can stand against the one whom controls the very ability to feed the people. The arrogance of this that those very seed will in fact eventually totally fail. Or do they magically have an abundance of seed.
The harsh reality is that the wind is carrying the pollen from the GMO's which is affecting natural seeds. All will eventually fail.

You sure can. You can oppose them if they are harmful or even if they are not. That's totally up to you. You can complain and complain and complain all you want. I am not saying you are required to provide me anything. I was hoping you had a constructive idea behind your complaints that did not require human deaths. That’s all.

All right, so maybe we're getting somewhere. You do realize that Moses is famous as a lawgiver. So tell me: what is wrong with a Mosaic system of property law?

Lets just say I can't spare any more time for this. Its 2am and I gotta sleep ;^)

Again I repeat primitive - perhaps your ideas are in line with legal thinking at the time of Moses or earlier.

No you want to stop your seed from evolving. You want a law against reality. If you want your seeds to stay "pure", which is impossible, then it is your job not Monsanto's.

Your are confusing reality. I control my speakers. However, this does not mean that you have a right to complain about any noise I make. Cross pollination happens, if you plant anything you are going to be contaminating by your definition your neighbors plants. This is legal and moral nonsense. What is your harm? Cite facts not propaganda

No, I am not.

My concept is probably as old as civilization itself: if it drifts into my part of the sky, I have jurisdiction over it, especially if it lands. Nobody's talking about filing phony deeds to anything, so right away your analogy fails. Kindly repair your argument.

This issue is critical. You do realize, I trust, that we are rehearsing a jury deliberation.

Stick to the topic: its Monsanto's Roundup GMOs, not all GMOs. Already gave you the realistic answer. Life isn't fair and there aren't always easy answers. But you know this. Why do you think I am required or even inclined to provide you an answer? I can oppose Monsanto's GMOs if they are harmful even if there is no replacement for them at present.

I'll tell you why; because the situation is a real life example of the premises in Atlas Shrugged. If Monsanto is framed as the epitome of a looter, changing laws to only benefit them at the expense of everyone else, you understand Mauch and his lowlife cronies need to be put on a short leash. We've gone off into the science, which is educational and informative on a potentially dangerous threat to all, but the fact remains that the situation in the book or movie applies today in reality and that allowing it to continue is criminal. I would say the post is more than appropriate. It might even get some folks off their butts and do the right thing. Let's face it, their health is being affected too.

"Greed" is an often used word to admonish people for their natural behavior. I agree with you that it is not necessarily connected to money; it is a desire (natural, I would say) to acquire more of something. The problem becomes when that "something" is more than someone else thinks you (or I) should have. So it's called "greed."
Monsanto is protecting its investment by making a seed that cannot reproduce (after one time). Farmers that buy it know that. What is wrong with that approach? Now, I am aware of the strong-arm tactics that Monsanto uses and the lobbying efforts that are immoral and illegal, but the problem is in the fact that we have a government system that enables this to happen, not in the natural desire of any human to gain an advantage.

You concept of property rights is primitive. If I file a deed for your house or title to your car or transfer bits from your bank account to mine, have a stolen it?

Then you are confusing two issues and neither your nor the people who read what you are writing will be able to tell what you are talking about.

Ok then, let us change it and say Monsanto is covering up past mistakes, the government is participating for some unknown reason, and the medical professionals are ignoring it. It’s still too long a bridge to cross when the medical people are added in.

It is true that most doctors are busy with Obamacare, but Obamacare is not old enough to explain them having “missed this” totally over the last 20 years. Obamacare has also not stopped medical research or the writings of publications of medical journals.

I don't see how you can read my comments and conclude that I think "killing everyone" was Monsanto's original intent. I do think Monsanto has shown they can be unethical and I think it possible that they are trying to cover up serious unexpected negative effects of their GMO seeds and Roundup.
Doctors are too busy with patients and Obamacare to have time to investigate the side effects of long term exposure to fluoride.