"Except that you can lean on the button pad and enter it by mistake. Bye Bye world."
Or a short develops - in a button that's used underground or on a submarine.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
I not only would consider helping them, I would consider it an obligation. But part of that obligation is to actually help, not just a simpleminded "icky -> outlaw it".
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy [bleeding to death] by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
And your solution to this horrific situation is to tell the "Bad Samaritan" than they can either help for free, or they should just keep driving? You need to understand that your solution would almost certainly get people killed. So why not look at a reward system for people who do help, a better emergency response system,
I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years
I've been in similar situations. I've known several people who lived for years in broken-down vehicles, people with untreated mental illness, etc. The most important lesson I learned apart from "holy fuck is life unfair" was that you have to be careful how you help. Giving money to the homeless might feel right, but if they use it to drink themselves to death you haven't really done any good.
And just look at the situation - you get all the good feelings of helping the poor (yay me!), people you don't like bear all of the costs (evil corporations), and if things don't turn out well you're unlikely to have to face that fact (unemployment increased as a result? evil corp's fault). That's pretty much a perfect storm for knee-jerk legislation that might do more harm than good.
contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial
Right. Because the unemployed guy with a mortgage and family; he's on an equal footing when negotiating his wage with Walmart.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job? And even stranger, someone who can get a mortgage [i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
Let just be clear here. If I'm in a bad situation, and have found a way to improve it, you can stop me from improving my own life because some third person in a better position benefits even more, and you find that offensive?
So the question is, if a GMO does not provide better yields than a traditional crop, why do farmers purchase them?
Just in case this wasn't rhetorical, it's to reduce input costs. Take the Bt trait - if the corn/cotton makes its own pesticide, you don't have to buy it separately and drag several tons of diesel-powered equipment around in circles to spray it.
For the same reason as GMOs in the USA do: the farmers are being convinced that it is beneficial.
I see you've chosen "controlled by the Illuminati" - good luck with that.
it has been found that the yield of GMO crops is not better then that of classical crops
And why would it be better? The purpose of most GMOs is to lower input costs - fewer herbicides and pesticides, no need to till, etc.
That's like ignoring fuel efficiency when comparing cars - "Same top speed, so it's not any better!".
If it's science you want, here's some for you Precautionary principle [wikipedia.org].
That isn't science, it's a general policy position.
Then who selects for the 'right' crops?
People with the job title "Breeder".
Do you infest the field with the herbicide that you want your crop to be resistant to and hope for the best?
If you get crap yields, you might get hungry / broke pretty fast.
Monsanto owns the patent on this technique, but has promised not to use it.
Uh huh. Yer right. It isn't necessary to continue reading after that one.
What? You think they're secretly using it, and nobody noticed?
So the farmer uses more and nastier chemicals on ther plants, and you wind up eating more nasty chemicals.
Traits like the Roundup Ready one actually reduce the use of herbicides and let farmers use safer herbicides. I can go into more detail if you want.
Haven't you seen the studies of lab rats, etc who have been feed gmo corn? They look horrible.
Of course they do, they start with rats that have been bred to be susceptible to tumors - most of them will look horrible on any diet.
Who does the selection (that's the hard part)?
Breeders. That's an actual job title at many seed companies.
Who decides what is a better product - the shinier fruit or the ones are walking down the field?
Usually they pick a particular trait that they would like to develop, preferably one that's easy to test for. They measure plants in the field, measure their output, scan the resulting product with near-infrared spectroscopy or nuclear magnetic resonance scans to find composition, and even look at genetic markers. Then they ship the seed for the next generation to be planted somewhere warm to shorten the generation time. Monsanto and Syngenta have labs a short drive from where I live that do NIR, MR, and PCR/marker testing for breeders, and there are lots of small fields full of odd-looking plants around here.
If a company can replace a person with a machine [and save money], they will do it because it is best for their bottom line. If they can ship jobs overseas and save money they will do it.
Exactly! So when someone is forced to pay a higher wage it makes it more likely that they will take advantage of other options.
You can't take the janitor
You don't think it's possible to replace some janitors with "mop and wax" versions of Roomba, Teflon coatings, and by making employees empty their own trash?
or cashier and ship that job to China
You can buy automated "self checkout" systems from China. I'm pretty sure that if wages go up enough stores will turn into giant vending machines.
 There are, of course, many who make their wealth by rigging the system to keep competition out or via other mechanisms such as exclusive rights or privileges to government contracts, etc. Wealth obtained this way is illegitimate. It is not mutually beneficial, such as those exchanges that occur on the free market.
The government already sticks its nose into the personal business of every citizen...
Is your argument that because government does one thing that is wrong it's OK if it does other things that are wrong? Really?
Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll invite himself over for dinner. - Calvin Keegan