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
DNAprotection

DNAprotection

Well-Known Member
poll question:
in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants, 'any' plants (in effort to meet your own needs in order to 'live') your self evident inherent human right? at least as important as 'religion' for example?
yes
no
i dont know

*please note that the poll question is not asking if iyo the corpsgov has the authority or jurisdiction to impose on such a right if u feel u have such a right, the question is asked of u personally and about u personally (setting the corpsgov aside for the purposes of this particular personal question for a moment)
so please make your answer to the poll question a separate decision from the intended discussion of the thread going to constitutional questions and authorities etc...
thanks :)

aside from the borrowed definition of the word 'live', here are some of my personal thoughts on possible standards for determining a human right...?
something that can be viewed as self evident in relation to every individual humans existence...
in other words things we all have in common that we cannot 'live' without...as in...

  • live[SUP] 1[/SUP] (l
    ibreve.gif
    v)    v. lived, liv·ing, lives
    v.intr.1. To be alive; exist.
    2. To continue to be alive: lived through a bad accident.
    3. To support oneself; subsist: living on rice and fish; lives on a small inheritance.
    4. To reside; dwell: lives on a farm.
    5. To conduct one's life in a particular manner: lived frugally.
    6. To pursue a positive, satisfying existence; enjoy life




access to a direct source of necessities, in other words everything comes from the land (including us) and what comes from the land keeps us 'alive' so we can 'live' etc...
so it seems to add up that somehow we must have an inherent human right to access the land and all that can come from that relationship in terms of providing for our own needs...of course though such rights can only reach as far' and or as long as it doesn't begin to abridge or erode someone else's rights...









 
Yes. In my view, the war on drugs is an unconstitutional over reach of the federal government. Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with me.
 
desert dude said:
Yes. In my view, the war on drugs is an unconstitutional over reach of the federal government. Unfortunately, SCOTUS disagrees with me.
Click to expand...

my thought is that 'we' have yet to come forward to ask the question in just the right way...in other words from a fundamental human rights basis much as the poll question posses...
 
In my view, my view does not count. Only the Will, of well organized voting blocks, makes any difference.
 
I've yet to hear one rational argument to the contrary.
I believe it's all about control and being a government cash cow.
 
We need our own growers creed
Growers Creed said:
This is my grow. There are many
like it, but this one is mine. It is my
life. I must master it as I must
master my life. Without me my grow is
useless. Without my grow, I am
useless.
Click to expand...
 
DNAprotection said:
poll question:
in your 'personal' view, is possessing seeds and growing plants, 'any' plants (in effort to meet your own needs in order to 'live') your self evident inherent human right? at least as important as 'religion' for example?
yes
no
i dont know

*please note that the poll question is not asking if iyo the corpsgov has the authority or jurisdiction to impose on such a right if u feel u have such a right, the question is asked of u personally and about u personally (setting the corpsgov aside for the purposes of this particular personal question for a moment)
so please make your answer to the poll question a separate decision from the intended discussion of the thread going to constitutional questions and authorities etc...
thanks :)

aside from the borrowed definition of the word 'live', here are some of my personal thoughts on possible standards for determining a human right...?
something that can be viewed as self evident in relation to every individual humans existence...
in other words things we all have in common that we cannot 'live' without...as in...

  • live[SUP] 1[/SUP](l
    ibreve.gif
    v)    v. lived, liv·ing, lives
    v.intr.1. To be alive; exist.
    2. To continue to be alive: lived through a bad accident.
    3. To support oneself; subsist: living on rice and fish; lives on a small inheritance.
    4. To reside; dwell: lives on a farm.
    5. To conduct one's life in a particular manner: lived frugally.
    6. To pursue a positive, satisfying existence; enjoy life


access to a direct source of necessities, in other words everything comes from the land (including us) and what comes from the land keeps us 'alive' so we can 'live' etc...
so it seems to add up that somehow we must have an inherent human right to access the land and all that can come from that relationship in terms of providing for our own needs...of course though such rights can only reach as far' and or as long as it doesn't begin to abridge or erode someone else's rights...
Click to expand...

Does this "inherent right to own and plant" also extend to genetically modified seeds? :-)
 
desert dude said:
Does this "inherent right to own and plant" also extend to genetically modified seeds? :-)
Click to expand...

ha :) i was hoping someone would go there and i was actually guessing it would be u dd (i mean that in a good way and as a compliment<3)
ok so wouldnt that 'recognized' (if it was) inherent right then cause some conflict with the patent laws in this area?
in other words how would the corps protect patents on genetic sequencing in the form of seed if u have an inherent right to grow whatever seed etc...???
 
DNAprotection said:
ha :) i was hoping someone would go there and i was actually guessing it would be u dd (i mean that in a good way and as a compliment<3)
ok so wouldnt that 'recognized' (if it was) inherent right then cause some conflict with the patent laws in this area?
in other words how would the corps protect patents on genetic sequencing in the form of seed if u have an inherent right to grow whatever seed etc...???
Click to expand...

You would have to buy the GM seeds unless you did the genetic modifications yourself, or the GM seeds were public domain (patent expired). Just as you have the right to possess a Chevrolet Corvette, but you have to pay for it. I see no conflict at all. The evil Monsanto corporation has successfully defended its patent rights in multiple court cases, and I expect it will continue to do so.
 
Yes, what gives anyone the right to tell you otherwise? If they can tell me I can't grow a plant, I can tell them to fuck off.
 
GOD HERE said:
Yes, what gives anyone the right to tell you otherwise? If they can tell me I can't grow a plant, I can tell them to fuck off.
Click to expand...

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 on 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.
 
desert dude said:
You would have to buy the GM seeds unless you did the genetic modifications yourself, or the GM seeds were public domain (patent expired). Just as you have the right to possess a Chevrolet Corvette, but you have to pay for it. I see no conflict at all. The evil Monsanto corporation has successfully defended its patent rights in multiple court cases, and I expect it will continue to do so.
Click to expand...

ok but not quite the same as growing a plant maybe?
i mean would u agree that the difference being an 'object' like a car is not a 'living' organism like a plant?
 
DNAprotection said:
ok but not quite the same as growing a plant maybe?
i mean would u agree that the difference being an 'object' like a car is not a 'living' organism like a plant?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top