Re: Re: money and health

January 9, 2004

What amazes me in all of this is that so many people have followed the

establishment like a bunch of sheep. You would think that they could see

that their own health does not improve on such a worthless diet, and they

should be able to see that their friend's and neighbor's health does not

improve either.

Part of it is the idea that " doctor is GOD! " Every word uttered by Doc is

gospel and not to be questioned. And the medical industry has done all it

can to further this idea. Doctors who recommend truly healthy diets are

liable to lose their license when the almighty discovers that they are not

toeing the line. It matters not that the patients of these doctors actually

get well.

My husband and I go to a health clinic that uses a combination of allopathic

and alternative medicine. When I asked him if they had problems with the FDA

my doctor told me that they have to walk a very fine line to stay in

business. The FDA is on them every minute to try to find the slightest

excuse for putting them out of business.

The big money is in keeping people sick. Keeping them on drugs they don't

need. And performing unnecessary surgery.

Judith Alta

-----Original Message-----

What baffles me is not that people lie, but how long these lies

about nutrition have persisted.

My wife is a personal trainer. She was told by the head personal

trainer that he believes, like her, the food pyramid is crap, but

she still has to teach it because that is what the government

recommends and that will protect them from liability.

I am sure the trans fat high carb diet would have been over before

it started if the people who benefit from it were not able to make

it the LAW. Lies come and go, such is human nature, but once

something becomes a law it's gonna be around for a loooonnnnnngggg

time. a free non-violent society is the most NATURAL form of

society. destroy the ring, none should have its power.

January 9, 2004

The major reason the news media has not publicized the fallacy of the lipid

hypothesis is that advertising dollars swing a huge stick.

Should a magazine or TV station, etc. go against their advertiser's wishes

they stand to lose a huge chunk of money.

Judith Alta

January 9, 2004

>Doctors who recommend truly healthy diets are

>liable to lose their license when the almighty discovers that they are not

>toeing the line. It matters not that the patients of these doctors actually

>get well.

This is changing, though. My doc basically is very open to ideas,

and says more and more the patients have done more of the

research. My officemate floored me when she said her

doctor recommended high doses of Vit B for muscle pain ...

this is a conservative doc.

I have doctors in my circle ... I do really feel for them. Usually

they are very intelligent, and caught in a long tradition and

between a lot of legalities and expectations. And they

are often dealing with very silly people who will NOT follow

dietary advice ... if in fact they knew what to recommend. Usually

they recommend a protocol after there is some hard evidence

that it works, but they can't take risks for fear of lawsuits.

-- Heidi

January 10, 2004

Responses to Judith, Heidi, , and

________

In a message dated 1/9/04 10:32:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jaltak@... writes:

> The major reason the news media has not publicized the fallacy of the lipid

> hypothesis is that advertising dollars swing a huge stick.

> Should a magazine or TV station, etc. go against their advertiser's wishes

> they stand to lose a huge chunk of money.

I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, but there are

plenty of the opposite. Recently, a favorite and widely popular fitness

magazine I read wrote an editorial denouncing one of the products that is

regularly

advertised in their magazine as worthless. The manufacturer actually

continued to run advertisements for that very product in the magazine, until the

mag

got angry letters requesting they not allow the advertisements *because* it

was a bad product, and they acquiesced.

The lipid hypothesis might be a boon for some industries, but it's

devastating to others-- such as the beef and pork industry, who represent

advertising

dollars. For some reason, most of the folks in the beef industry don't stick up

for their own industry, and buy into the lipid hypothesis crap. *They* don't

have any advertising dollars to lure, so clearly there is something else

going on.

Chris

_____

Heidi wrote:

>When exactly in history did a free non-violent society

>EXIST I would ask?

I think the two constants in human society have been

-- ingenuity

-- envy

and much of history is the struggle between these two forces.

That said, I think much of US history is a good example of the reign of the

former over the latter, and perhaps one of the best examples of a free and

non-violent society. There was plenty of violence, but the government was set

up

based on the ideal that humans should interact by voluntary exchange rather

than violent expropriation. Of course that ideal has disappeared.

Chris

______

wrote:

>But it isn't the law at all. Again, though it doesn't really touch on food

>at all (and the authors would probably take the wrong view anyway) I highly

>recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. Yes, government is abused quite

>often, but it's far from the only tool in the liars' toolbox.

,

It isn't the law that forces people to eat like this, but without the foolish

idea that the government has business telling people what to eat, there would

have been no success. Something would have been somewhat fishy had the dairy

industry been openly telling people to avoid butter fat

(so they could skim it and sell it), and if one industry advertised the

horrible health effects of beef, there would be nothing stopping the beef

industry

to stick up for its own product.

It's the cloak of " public interest " that allowed a disguise of objectivity to

lend itself to the lipid hypothesis.

People believe that profit leads to self-interest and that non-profit leads

to the interest of an undefined " public. " The general belief is that

government science is unbiased, and for-profit science is propaganda of the

corresponding industry. Therefore, people abandon skepticism when the

government backs

the science.

It is also obviously advantageous to be able to stage a false conflict

between government and industry, to carry out a much more profound effect on the

consciousness of the public than industry versus industry, in which there is no

noble hero fighting the power of profit.

Chris

_______

wrote:

>Depending on how you define " the whole idea of public interest " , maybe, but

>even if you abolished government completely, there'd still be perceptions

>of public interests, and people would still use and abuse those

>perceptions. It's a fundamental component of human nature.

I'm not currently of the opinion that government should be abolished, but if

the means of forcing an exchange, rather than participating in a voluntary

exchange, are abolished (perhaps this is " government " or simply part of

government, and perhaps it requires the retainment of certain aspects of

" government " ),

and it is considered immoral or at least to violate either laws or customs to

pursue said public interest, then from whence can the abuse come?

If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on it, then

each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur when

beneficial to both parties.

Chris

_______

>Should a magazine or TV station, etc. go against their advertiser's wishes

>they stand to lose a huge chunk of money.

>Another excellent book on the cholesterol hype and the lipid hypothesis is

> " The Cholesterol Myths " by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov of Sweden. He very carefully

>details all the studies that " prove " lowering cholesterol will prevent or

>cure coronary heart disease.

Judith,

I've read Uffe's book, and in every instance I recall him recounting a

campaign to lower heart disease, it was pushed with government and according to

the

ideal of " public interest. " When industries or small producers were left to

fend for themselves, people bought the products they liked and were brought up

eating, and ate healthy diets.

Chris

______

wrote:

>Gov't has a legal monopoly on force.

>It is a point most folks fail to appreciate or even understand. I

>have posted an article below that I think helps clarify the issue.

,

Fantastic article!

Unfortunately, his thesis is fundamentally flawed, in that he left out one

important distinction between the private sector:

The man in the private sector cares for no one but

himself. He is a cowboy at heart, and subscribes to the basest of human

instincts, and pursues nothing but his own achievement, building grand temples

to

his intelligence, competence and ingenuity. In doing so, he is a threat to

the public interest, by making himself better than those less competent.

Competence is a myth; every man has no intelligence, no ideas, of his own, but

is a

product of his environment. Therefore, how can man lay a claim on the product

of his own effort, when in truth it was his environment who produced it and

his environment to whom it belongs?

Government, on the other hand, has no self-interest. It pursues the interest

of the public. It aspires to the highest of human values: the interest of no

man but the whole. It leaves the base values of the profiteer in the dust,

and demolishes the myths of competence, intelligence, and ingenuity. It

reveals man to be the simple product of impulses he is, and pursues the higher

values of justice, equality, incompetence, stupidity, and envy.

Chris

_____

January 10, 2004

Chris-

>I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, but there are

>plenty of the opposite.

Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any trend, instances

where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal, but that

hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely universal, that

there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't corrupted.

>without the foolish

>idea that the government has business telling people what to eat, there would

>have been no success.

you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Doctors

organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations corrupted

medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These actions --

and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be avoided by

removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition. I'm sorry,

but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of

incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to force a lie

down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and what they

read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big Pharma

have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their businesses; why

would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for their needs?

>If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on it, then

>each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur when

>beneficial to both parties.

I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for starters,

it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually beneficial to

them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and cannot

exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to their own

real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat sugar

knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing they're

harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government from the

equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and removing

government would magically change human nature either.

-

January 10, 2004

Just curious. Do you actually know someone who works for the government?

There are millions of people working for the goverment in many capacities.

They all have their own sets of beliefs, values and motivations. To paint

such a large group with such a broad brush is bizarre. There is no more

" group think " among government employees than there is in any other group.

Irene

At 01:19 PM 1/10/04, you wrote:

>Dear & ,

>Sorry for jumping in here, but about government, their motivation is

>to keep their jobs. I don't think government is for the people. It

>is supposed to be, but it's not. It's a group like any other and has

>group-think, group values, group agreements, etc. Their motivation

>in the end is money and maybe prestige.

>

>If doing what industry wants buys them votes or helps them keep their

>jobs or gives them more prestige or fame (and they don't think

>outside the box of the group) and their drive to obtain money or

>prestige is greater than their morals, they will go along no matter

>what is good or bad for the public.

>

>In the US the guy who was most instrumental in approving of aspertame

>worked for the government, but a short while later he became an exec

>at nutrasweet. Something is wrong with that picture eh?

>

>Here in Canada the government allows representatives from industry to

>pass judgement on consumer's issues as part of a board or committee.

>So are they for the public good? No. Not when you have vested

>interests from drug cos., Coca Cola, Monsanto, who form these

>boards. It is the government that allows this to happen. It is the

>government that taxes the little guy more than corporations. Where

>is the public good done by government?

>

>I could go on and on but I won't. I didn't follow your whole thread

>but wanted to say this about government. Thanks.

>

>Bee

>

>--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

>wrote:

> > Chris-

> >

> > >I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, but

>there are

> > >plenty of the opposite.

> >

> > Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any trend,

>instances

> > where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal,

>but that

> > hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely universal,

>that

> > there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't

>corrupted.

> >

> > >without the foolish

> > >idea that the government has business telling people what to eat,

>there would

> > >have been no success.

> >

> > you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Doctors

> > organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations

>corrupted

> > medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These

>actions --

> > and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be avoided by

> > removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition. I'm

>sorry,

> > but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of

> > incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to force

>a lie

> > down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and what

>they

> > read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big

>Pharma

> > have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their

>businesses; why

> > would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for their

>needs?

> >

> > >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on

>it, then

> > >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur

>when

> > >beneficial to both parties.

> >

> > I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for

>starters,

> > it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually

>beneficial to

> > them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and

>cannot

> > exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to their

>own

> > real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat

>sugar

> > knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing

>they're

> > harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government

>from the

> > equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and

>removing

> > government would magically change human nature either.

> >

> > -

>

January 10, 2004

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> Just curious. Do you actually know someone who works for the

government?

> There are millions of people working for the goverment in many

capacities.

> They all have their own sets of beliefs, values and motivations. To

paint

> such a large group with such a broad brush is bizarre. There is no

more

> " group think " among government employees than there is in any other

group.

Perhaps this is true, but what she said was that there is no less (I'd

quote it if you hadn't top-posted). The point is that the uniquely

virtuous qualities of the state which supposedly justify the enormous

power vested in it simply do not exist.

January 10, 2004

You're absolutely right. There isn't a " group think " specific to

government employees ... but as with many other things/places, there is a

limit to what they're allowed to espouse publicly. I have seen

government employees " demoted " and ostracized because they had the NERVE

*gasp* to point out a better way to do something, and wouldn't back down

when they were told that their solutions didn't coincide with what the

bigwigs wanted to do - even when it was obvious that the bigwigs were

totally off-base.

Politics. *sigh*

Having worked for years on all sides of the fence (government, small

companies, large companies), I see where public statements (even if it's

just a comment made to the guy in the next cubicle) can bite someone in the

butt if it doesn't conform exactly with the " group " , however that may be

defined. So, many people simply decide that it's easier and simpler to

just keep one's mouth shut.

At 01:55 PM 1/10/04 -0800, Irene wrote:

>Just curious. Do you actually know someone who works for the government?

>There are millions of people working for the goverment in many capacities.

>They all have their own sets of beliefs, values and motivations. To paint

>such a large group with such a broad brush is bizarre. There is no more

> " group think " among government employees than there is in any other group.

>Irene

MFJ

Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment.

January 10, 2004

Sorry, if I jumped in out of turn.

I have been very busy and have not been able to keep up with posts for some

time now. I have a major backlog.

Irene

At 01:57 PM 1/10/04, you wrote:

>Dear Irene,

>I have known many people who worked for the government and I have

>worked for the government. I am not usually so general in painting

>the broad brush but in this case I was following this thread which

>lumped government into one basket.

>

>I agree with you Irene. Government is made up of many many groups

>which all have their own set of beliefs, values, etc. and there " is "

>no more " group think " in government than in any other group.

>

>The best,

>Bee

>

> > >Dear & ,

> > >Sorry for jumping in here, but about government, their motivation

>is

> > >to keep their jobs. I don't think government is for the people.

>It

> > >is supposed to be, but it's not. It's a group like any other and

>has

> > >group-think, group values, group agreements, etc. Their motivation

> > >in the end is money and maybe prestige.

> > >

> > >If doing what industry wants buys them votes or helps them keep

>their

> > >jobs or gives them more prestige or fame (and they don't think

> > >outside the box of the group) and their drive to obtain money or

> > >prestige is greater than their morals, they will go along no matter

> > >what is good or bad for the public.

> > >

> > >In the US the guy who was most instrumental in approving of

>aspertame

> > >worked for the government, but a short while later he became an

>exec

> > >at nutrasweet. Something is wrong with that picture eh?

> > >

> > >Here in Canada the government allows representatives from industry

>to

> > >pass judgement on consumer's issues as part of a board or

>committee.

> > >So are they for the public good? No. Not when you have vested

> > >interests from drug cos., Coca Cola, Monsanto, who form these

> > >boards. It is the government that allows this to happen. It is

>the

> > >government that taxes the little guy more than corporations. Where

> > >is the public good done by government?

> > >

> > >I could go on and on but I won't. I didn't follow your whole

>thread

> > >but wanted to say this about government. Thanks.

> > >

> > >Bee

> > >

> > >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

> > >wrote:

> > > > Chris-

> > > >

> > > > >I know there have been instances documented that suggest this,

>but

> > >there are

> > > > >plenty of the opposite.

> > > >

> > > > Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any

>trend,

> > >instances

> > > > where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal,

> > >but that

> > > > hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely

>universal,

> > >that

> > > > there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't

> > >corrupted.

> > > >

> > > > >without the foolish

> > > > >idea that the government has business telling people what to

>eat,

> > >there would

> > > > >have been no success.

> > > >

> > > > you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong.

>Doctors

> > > > organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations

> > >corrupted

> > > > medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These

> > >actions --

> > > > and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be

>avoided by

> > > > removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition.

>I'm

> > >sorry,

> > > > but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of

> > > > incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to

>force

> > >a lie

> > > > down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and

>what

> > >they

> > > > read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big

> > >Pharma

> > > > have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their

> > >businesses; why

> > > > would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for

>their

> > >needs?

> > > >

> > > > >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of

>acting on

> > >it, then

> > > > >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only

>occur

> > >when

> > > > >beneficial to both parties.

> > > >

> > > > I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for

> > >starters,

> > > > it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually

> > >beneficial to

> > > > them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and

> > >cannot

> > > > exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to

>their

> > >own

> > > > real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat

> > >sugar

> > > > knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing

> > >they're

> > > > harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government

> > >from the

> > > > equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and

> > >removing

> > > > government would magically change human nature either.

> > > >

> > > > -

> > >

January 10, 2004

In a message dated 1/10/04 3:26:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >without the foolish

> >idea that the government has business telling people what to eat, there

> would

> >have been no success.

>

> you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Doctors

> organized to assure their own fees were paid.

That makes me " dead wrong " ? What use is the AMA, what power does it have, if

the state doesn't give it a monopoly on licensure?

Megacorporations corrupted

> medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits.

Megacorporations enhance their profits by giving shows that get good ratings.

That's why Phil Donahue or get tv shows, or why Rage Against

the Machine can make millions on a corporate record label or why you can find

Anarchy magazine at big corporate chainfood health food stores if you live in

the right area (i.e. an area that has a demand for it).

I haven't put much thought into alternative organizations for television, but

certainly one thing that keeps radio conglomerated is the FCC's rules for

minimum ranges. Of course, the conglomeration justifies itself, but the

conglomerates shouldn't be able to use the government to shut out small

competitors.

These actions --

> and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be avoided by

> removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition.

Sure they would. Like I said, the AMA wields no power whatsoever except the

power to use government to punish dissenters.

I'm sorry,

> but the very idea is ludicrous.

Perhaps you didn't think it through then?

You have to think in terms of

> incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to force a lie

> down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and what they

> read in magazines and newspapers.

You don't. Funny how that works.

Actually, I hear often from educated, otherwise intelligent people-- and they

teach us in college-- that you have to check studies for who funded them,

because corporate studies are biased, and government studies are not biased.

Obviously they're all biased, but the common belief is that government has no

profit motive, therefore speaks the truth.

As pointed out, the egg industry hasn't had much luck convincing

folks eggs are healthy. They have plenty of money, but no government backing.

Furthermore, Big Agro and Big Pharma

> have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their businesses; why

> would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for their needs?

That's the point. Getting government out of THEIR business, and IN everyone

else's makes government their perfect tool.

If corporate taxes are high, the big boys who can manage the loopholes and

get the exemptions get major advantage over those who can't, with no basis in

their ability to provide a product consumers want. If there are no corporate

taxes, there are no corporate tax breaks. The very power that corporate taxes

give to Big Agro or any other industry is their ability to escape those taxes

but leave them on their competitors.

Furthermore, Big Agro looooves the government providing a full 20% income,

then using foreign policy to open up Mexican markets, and take advantage of the

fact that Mexico only subsidies its agriculture by 3% of its income, and be

financed by US tax payers to make artificially cheap food to drive Mexico's

agriculture out of business.

> >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on it,

> then

> >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur when

> >beneficial to both parties.

>

> I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for starters,

> it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually beneficial to

> them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and cannot

> exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to their own

> real benefit, something which often doesn't occur.

That's true . It also requires the humility to admit that each person is

the own best judge of their actions.

People eat sugar

> knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing they're

> harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government from the

> equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and removing

> government would magically change human nature either.

, what right do you have to decide whether it is in someone else's

interest to do these things? You think my position is logically indefensible,

but

if I understand yours I think its morally indefensible. I don't consider

myself to be the judge of anyone else's interest. If someone wishes to

sacrifice

health for pleasure, what right do they have not to? What is health worth, if

it's not the means to happiness? How can you consider someone unable to judge

what makes them happy?

Chris

January 10, 2004

Been there, done them all too. Self employment, the out. Even though its not

my ideal choice. Can't be an associate to purposes and choices that I

wouldn't choose to do.

Wanita

From: <mfjewett@...>

> Having worked for years on all sides of the fence (government, small

> companies, large companies), I see where public statements (even if it's

> just a comment made to the guy in the next cubicle) can bite someone in

the

> butt if it doesn't conform exactly with the " group " , however that may be

> defined. So, many people simply decide that it's easier and simpler to

> just keep one's mouth shut.

January 11, 2004

Chris-

>That makes me " dead wrong " ? What use is the AMA, what power does it have, if

>the state doesn't give it a monopoly on licensure?

The AMA was one example of several. Numerous non-governmental entities

(corporations and trade associations, largely) exert substantial power over

the public consciousness of health. The idea that without government

they'd all be magically stripped of their powers is ludicrous on several

grounds. First, they largely own the media. Removing government would not

magically strip the media of its power to filter and distort. Second, they

largely own the research apparatus nowadays. Removing government would not

magically de-corrupt research. Third, these very non-governmental entities

spend appreciable amounts of money FIGHTING government. If government were

nothing more than the ultimate tool in their toolbox, they wouldn't be

doing this.

>Megacorporations enhance their profits by giving shows that get good ratings.

A massive no sequitur.

>Sure they would. Like I said, the AMA wields no power whatsoever except the

>power to use government to punish dissenters.

Nonsense. Do you think a trade association needs the power of government

to strip members of their licenses if they step out of line? Do you think

corporations need the power of government to buy up media and decide who

and what gets published, at least broadly? Come on.

>Perhaps you didn't think it through then?

The shoe is on the other foot.

>because corporate studies are biased, and government studies are not biased.

>Obviously they're all biased, but the common belief is that government has no

>profit motive, therefore speaks the truth.

Uh, no, you always have to check for bias. However, if a drug company

funds a study which, what a surprise, " proves " that their expensive new

drug is a miracle cure, you have a lot more reason to be suspicious than if

some disinterested parties conduct the study. Of course, when it turns out

that industry is secretly hiring those supposedly disinterested parties on

the side, then the system breaks down.

>As pointed out, the egg industry hasn't had much luck convincing

>folks eggs are healthy. They have plenty of money, but no government backing.

They don't have as much money, and they missed their opportunity. Once a

belief becomes orthodoxy, it takes a lot of time for that orthodoxy to be

overturned.

>, what right do you have to decide whether it is in someone else's

>interest to do these things?

This is a straw man bordering on personal attack. You seem to be acquiring

a pseudo-religious anti-government fervor, so I don't think I'm going to

bother arguing against a ceaseless barrage of irrational positions when I

also have to contend with misleading personal rhetoric. That's about as

politely as I find myself able to put it at the moment.

-

January 11, 2004

In a message dated 1/11/04 3:10:38 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> The AMA was one example of several. Numerous non-governmental entities

> (corporations and trade associations, largely) exert substantial power over

> the public consciousness of health.

Isn't " power of consciousness " a contradiction? Consciousness in the sense

we're meaning it is unique to humans-- it is derived from a volition within the

human being. It is, in fact, the one thing that I remain in total power

over, no matter what violence is used against my body.

The idea that without government

> they'd all be magically stripped of their powers is ludicrous on several

> grounds. First, they largely own the media.

But I can choose to watch the television, or read the newspaper, or not, and

I can choose which channel I watch, which newspaper I watch, or which magazine

I read. I can use the internet, which is largely anarchical. I can buy

Atkins' book if I want, which is, to say the least, somewhat popular right now.

Ownership of the " corporate media " is fundamentally different from the power

of the AMA, because I

-- CAN choose to set up my own website, or, if I have the money, buy my own

radio station, or write my own letter to an editor

whereas I

-- CANNOT choose to practice medicine without a license, lest I be thrown in

jail, by the cooperative agreement of the AMA and the government.

Removing government would not

> magically strip the media of its power to filter and distort.

, you are living proof that the present ownership of the media cannot

exert power over human consciousness if the human wishes to retain his own power

over his own consciousness.

Second, they

> largely own the research apparatus nowadays. Removing government would not

>

> magically de-corrupt research.

Given the *presence* of government currently, and the current involvement of

government in research, clearly the presence of government will not magically

de-corrupt research.

Third, these very non-governmental entities

> spend appreciable amounts of money FIGHTING government. If government were

>

> nothing more than the ultimate tool in their toolbox, they wouldn't be

> doing this.

You can't fight for an unfair tax advantage if there are no corporate taxes.

You can't fight for exemptions from regulations which do not exist.

A corporation's right to dispose with its property as it wishes is its own

right derived from the inherent right of a human's control over his own effort.

The moral problem is not that a corporation that owns more controls more--

that is consistent with a rational standard of morality; the problem is that a

corporation can either

a) claim entitlement to anything beyond or aside from what it acquires by its

own productive achievement

or

can claim an unfair advantage over its competitors by having different

rules, taxes, regulations, etc, applied to itself, than to its other

competitors.

So a corporation fighting for its taxes to be lowered or fighting price caps

is simply fighting for the right to its own property. A corporation fighting

for its taxes to be lowered while a competing corporation pays a different tax

rate, however, gives that first corporation a chance to acquire wealth by

means other than its own resources, which is immoral.

> >Megacorporations enhance their profits by giving shows that get good

> ratings.

>

> A massive no sequitur.

, the logic is simple. Higher ratings equal more advertising dollars,

equal larger revenues, which, for constant costs, equal more profits. Where's

the non-sequitor?

>

> >Sure they would. Like I said, the AMA wields no power whatsoever except

> the

> >power to use government to punish dissenters.

>

> Nonsense. Do you think a trade association needs the power of government

> to strip members of their licenses if they step out of line?

, if it weren't for the government throwing me in jail for practicing

without a license, why on earth would I care if I had one?

Do you think

> corporations need the power of government to buy up media and decide who

> and what gets published, at least broadly? Come on.

No, they need their own money to buy their own property to use it as they

wish. I explained the difference above.

> >Perhaps you didn't think it through then?

>

> The shoe is on the other foot.

Again, the significance of licensure from the AMA does not exist apart from

the penalties of practicing without a license. Which are enforced by...?

>

> >because corporate studies are biased, and government studies are not

> biased.

> >Obviously they're all biased, but the common belief is that government has

> no

> >profit motive, therefore speaks the truth.

>

> Uh, no, you always have to check for bias. However, if a drug company

> funds a study which, what a surprise, " proves " that their expensive new

> drug is a miracle cure, you have a lot more reason to be suspicious than if

> some disinterested parties conduct the study. Of course, when it turns out

> that industry is secretly hiring those supposedly disinterested parties on

> the side, then the system breaks down.

First, the system is likely inherently broken since it doesn't seem to ever

have worked. Secondly, the history of science is replete with horrible and

just dead wrong theories remaining in place and the advocates of theories we now

hold to be true scoffed at and mocked, where there was no financial interest

to be had by either party. So yes, financial bias exists. But overall, it

doesn't overshadow biases due to mere clinging to the established view.

> >As pointed out, the egg industry hasn't had much luck convincing

> >folks eggs are healthy. They have plenty of money, but no government

> backing.

>

> They don't have as much money, and they missed their opportunity. Once a

> belief becomes orthodoxy, it takes a lot of time for that orthodoxy to be

> overturned.

So it's just coincidence that in every case where the government supports the

industry's view, it becomes orthodoxy, and where the government opposes the

industry's view, it does not?

> >, what right do you have to decide whether it is in someone else's

> >interest to do these things?

>

> This is a straw man bordering on personal attack. You seem to be acquiring

> a pseudo-religious anti-government fervor, so I don't think I'm going to

> bother arguing against a ceaseless barrage of irrational positions when I

> also have to contend with misleading personal rhetoric. That's about as

> politely as I find myself able to put it at the moment.

[as an aside here I want to point out that you've repeatedly used the word

" uh " to indicate my incapacity for rational thought, and have reffered to my

positions explicitly as irrational and indefensible, implying that I,

personally,

am incapable of rational thought, which, in my opinion, is equivalent to

being human. I personally am not bothered by this, but I think we share guilt

equally if we share any at all]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. You had said that government intervention is

necessary because people are not always competent to choose their own

self-interest, and then listed various activities such as eating sugar, smoking,

and

drugs, as examples. Is it not a reasonable interpretation of this statement

that

you believe that government should intervene in people's choices to use these

things?

If that's not what you meant, I apologize for the implication, but since

drugs are already banned, since banning sugar has been previously suggested on

this list, and since plenty of people favor banning smoking, it doesn't seem

that

much of a stretch to believe you meant it. If you did, I stand by what I

said.

If you didn't, I'm curious to know what you meant. I suppose you could have

been making the point that removing government will not stop people from

making bad decisions, but that seems somewhat self-evident to me, so I'm not

sure

why you would bother making the point.

Of course people will always, always, make bad decisions. But one man's bad

decision is another's good decision, and making mistakes and learning from

them is part of life.

Chris

January 11, 2004

Chris-

>Isn't " power of consciousness " a contradiction? Consciousness in the sense

>we're meaning it is unique to humans-- it is derived from a volition

>within the

>human being. It is, in fact, the one thing that I remain in total power

>over, no matter what violence is used against my body.

Are you seriously suggesting that you have total power over your own

consciousness? That advertising is 100% ineffective, or that whatever

effectiveness it has is strictly achieved through rational

persuasion? That you're perfectly immune to peer pressure, to cultural

pressure? And that even if the impossible were true and you were a purely

rational actor that you're not a freak exception and that everyone else is

the same?

Even if you were, a lie would still have the power to deceive, and

therefore liars would still have some power over people's consciousness, it

would just be somewhat harder to perpetrate large-scale deceptions.

>But I can choose to watch the television, or read the newspaper, or not, and

>I can choose which channel I watch, which newspaper I watch, or which

>magazine

>I read. I can use the internet, which is largely anarchical. I can buy

>Atkins' book if I want, which is, to say the least, somewhat popular right

>now.

Why do you persist in assuming that everything is boolean? This is a

common argument among anti-government zealots -- since there's some kind of

alternative somewhere, everyone must be making a rational choice.

Think instead of what happens when you introduce a poison into a bacterial

culture. Even if it's very harmful, it likely doesn't kill all of them,

just some or maybe most. Does the fact that all the bacteria didn't die

mean that the poison isn't harmful, isn't lethal? Similarly, when you

introduce a harmful lie into human culture and back it with money and

authority, the fact that not everyone is deceived -- and that eventually

the truth starts leaking out once more and more people die from believing

it -- hardly proves that it has no power. The fact that alternate voices

are (increasingly) available doesn't mean that everyone hears them or makes

a rational choice between voices.

In the continuum of human nature, some people have a great respect and

requirement for authority and are therefore very strongly inclined to trust

doctors, medical institutions and so on, and others tend to distrust

authority figures. Whether the cause is nature or nurture (an argument I

don't really want to get into, though I highly recommend _Blank Slate_, by

Pinker) I and my whole family are anti-authority types. I never

hear something from on high and assume it must be correct. My girlfriend,

by contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum, making it difficult or

impossible to talk to her about health. These two tendencies are not

related to intelligence, and to some degree they're probably both

necessary. Man is a social creature, and without some tendency to obey and

trust authority, societies would never work and we'd never have

successfully formed hunter-gatherer tribes, accepted wisdom from elders and

experts, and gone on to form modern civilization. And yet without a

counteracting tendency to distrust authority, we'd have been permanently

vulnerable to selfish and foolish leaders and we would've followed too many

of them right into disaster. Both tendencies are necessary, both are

double-edged swords, and there's always tension and flux between them. And

yet neither automatically dispose people towards purely rational

evaluations of arguments, of competing voices and schools of thought, etc.

>Ownership of the " corporate media " is fundamentally different from the

>power of the AMA, because I -- CAN choose to set up my own website, or, if

>I have the money, buy my own

>radio station, or write my own letter to an editor whereas I -- CANNOT

>choose to practice medicine without a license, lest I be thrown in jail,

>by the cooperative agreement of the AMA and the government.

You can choose to set up your own website, but the odds are overwhelming

that without a lot of money and a lot of PR value, it'll get

nowhere. Hell, the WAPF site is very small beans compared to the

mainstream, and it's supported by ever-increasing throngs of acolytes and

devotees. Nor can you buy your own radio station without enormous

quantities of money. And your letter to the editor may or may not be

published, but there's a strong if incomplete filter against

antiestablishment views.

As to practicing medicine, yes, it's true you can't operate or prescribe

medicine without a government-backed license, but you certainly can provide

nutritional advice, and unless you get a lot of training, I don't think you

should be operating or prescribing (some) medications.

>, you are living proof that the present ownership of the media cannot

>exert power over human consciousness if the human wishes to retain his own

>power

>over his own consciousness.

Again with the boolean thing -- if one person disagrees with the media,

then it's totally ineffective. Can't you see how incorrect that assumption is?

>Given the *presence* of government currently, and the current involvement of

>government in research, clearly the presence of government will not magically

>de-corrupt research.

Actually, as research has gotten substantially more corrupt over the last

decade or so, government involvement has *dropped* substantially. I don't

have the exact figures at hand, but something like 90% of research was done

at universities ten years ago. Now it's down to 34%, with the vast

majority of research being done by contract research organizations,

companies set up specifically to serve Big Pharma and the medical

industry. Whereas actual researchers used to conduct experiments, examine

data and write and publish papers in medical journals back then, nowadays

CROs conduct research, hide most of the data, ghost-write papers, and then

pay doctors for their bylines without ever letting them examine the

research or do anything other than sign on the dotted line.

To be sure, university research was never perfect. We got a lot of pure

garbage in the nutritional sphere out of that system, and I'm hardly

defending it except by contrast to the CRO arrangement (and the further

corruption of the FDA) which has led to more and more ridiculous claims and

approvals and prescriptions for drugs.

Nutrition, by contrast, is making a little progress largely for two

reasons: people spend decades getting fatter and sicker following

mainstream advice, and Atkins finally realized he had to personally fund

some low-carb studies if he ever wanted to ever have some

mainstream-credible results to point to. (And BTW, some or all of those

studies were conducted at universities, and AFAIK there was nothing hinky

about how the data was handled, unlike with the CRO system.)

>A corporation's right to dispose with its property as it wishes is its own

>right derived from the inherent right of a human's control over his own

>effort.

I see. You believe there should be no taxation at all? There's not really

any reason to discuss anything even tangentially related to government with

you at all, then. It would be like discussion evolution with a biblical

literalist -- there's simply zero common ground for rational

discussion. Or am I misunderstanding you?

>a) claim entitlement to anything beyond or aside from what it acquires by its

>own productive achievement

>

>or

>

> can claim an unfair advantage over its competitors by having different

>rules, taxes, regulations, etc, applied to itself, than to its other

>competitors.

You see no problem with a corporation lying?

>, the logic is simple. Higher ratings equal more advertising dollars,

>equal larger revenues, which, for constant costs, equal more profits. Where's

>the non-sequitor?

It's irrelevant to the point that corporations use control of the media to

promote certain attitudes and philosophies.

>, if it weren't for the government throwing me in jail for practicing

>without a license, why on earth would I care if I had one?

Because so many people care so deeply about the authority and credibility

of licensed medical doctors. The AMA has spent decades building the power

of its brand. (They may finally be destroying that power by killing so

many people, but even if they are, that destruction will take

time. However, as it progresses, there will be more and more room for

competing voices.)

However, look at what happens to abortion doctors. In the absence of

government sanction, do you really think there'd be no undesirable

consequences for non-AMA doctors? Look at what happened back before fire

fighters were turned into a government monopoly -- people would display the

sign of the fire company from which they'd bought insurance, but when a

fire broke out, multiple fire companies would appear on the scene hoping to

get the fee, fights would break up, and often enough an insured home would

burn to the ground as a result, while poor people went unprotected and

entire poor areas were sometimes allowed to turn to ash. The absence of

government power is no guarantee of utopia.

>where there was no financial interest

>to be had by either party.

Finances aren't the only kind of interest. There's also power and prestige.

>So it's just coincidence that in every case where the government supports the

>industry's view, it becomes orthodoxy, and where the government opposes the

>industry's view, it does not?

Hardly. As I'm sure even you'd agree, the government is vulnerable to

lobbying -- which is to say to the power of money. However, your basic

assumption is incorrect. The government definitely doesn't always get its

way in establishing orthodoxy. Far from it.

>[as an aside here I want to point out that you've repeatedly used the word

> " uh " to indicate my incapacity for rational thought,

No, I've used to the word " uh " to indicate confusion about what you

mean. In a couple cases I mistook your meaning, in a couple others it

turned out I thought your position was ludicrous.

>and have reffered to my

>positions explicitly as irrational and indefensible, implying that I,

>personally,

>am incapable of rational thought,

Again with the boolean nature of reality. Everyone is capable of some

degree of rational thought and is at the same time of believing in

irrational positions. The human mind isn't a computer which is either

functioning and therefore 100% rational or broken and therefore 100%

irrational. I'm sure I believe some things which, upon closer examination,

would prove to be irrational and therefore indefensible. That hardly means

I'm incapable of irrational thought. The very suggestion would be a straw

man and a lame-ass ad hominem attack.

>Perhaps I misunderstood you. You had said that government intervention is

>necessary because people are not always competent to choose their own

>self-interest,

Please point out specifically where I said this.

>Is it not a reasonable interpretation of this statement that

>you believe that government should intervene in people's choices to use these

>things?

It would depend on what I'd actually said.

AFAIK the only thing I've said the government should absolutely regulate in

the food sphere is PHO, which I've said I consider a poisonous non-food

substance I think should be banned from the food supply.

>since banning sugar has been previously suggested on

>this list, and since plenty of people favor banning smoking, it doesn't

>seem that

>much of a stretch to believe you meant it. If you did, I stand by what I

>said.

No, I don't believe in banning sugar OR smoking, though I do think that

many of the public-area bans on smoking are good, fair and just because of

the damage secondary smoke does to many or maybe even all people. (We can

argue about whether secondary smoke harms bystanders just because they're

in poor health from poor diet and other factors, or due to undesirable

additives in cigarettes and/or undesirable methods of growing and curing

tobacco, but the fact is it's pretty clear that secondary smoke is harmful

at the very least to the large and growing group of asthmatics, and

probably to other people too, so at least until such time as it's not a

problem for huge swathes of the population, it ought to be kept to private

spaces where people can actually make their own choices.)

However, I do believe that in exchange for the privilege of using public

airwaves and other public resources, corporations and individuals ought not

be allowed to lie to promote their products and to harm those of

competitors. Individuals can be prosecuted for libel and slander even if

they use their own personal property to disseminate the deception. Why

should corporations be held any less responsible, and why should the field

of nutrition be an exception?

I'm not sure how the best system to prevent such lies should be designed,

but I do know that today's state of corruption is worse than yesterday's

state of active, more-independent government, even though both suck on an

absolute scale.

>I suppose you could have

>been making the point that removing government will not stop people from

>making bad decisions,

Yes, I've been explicitly making this point over and over again, and making

the more general point that removing government will not magically change

human nature.

>But one man's bad

>decision is another's good decision, and making mistakes and learning from

>them is part of life.

Eating PHO is nobody's good decision. And how does a child who grows up to

have extreme and permanent health problems as a result of being fed noxious

crap (including abundant PHO) by parents deceived by a variety of bad

and/or ignorant actors profitably " learn " from " his " mistake?

-

January 11, 2004

At 11:56 AM 1/11/2004, you wrote:

>Given the *presence* of government currently, and the current involvement of

>>government in research, clearly the presence of government will not magically

>>de-corrupt research.

>

>Actually, as research has gotten substantially more corrupt over the last

>decade or so, government involvement has *dropped* substantially. I don't

>have the exact figures at hand, but something like 90% of research was done

>at universities ten years ago. Now it's down to 34%, with the vast

>majority of research being done by contract research organizations,

>companies set up specifically to serve Big Pharma and the medical

>industry.

An interesting note here: in an audit of news agencies, the BBC

turned out to have the LEAST bias of the news agencies. They

believe that is because, since it is a government agency, it

is watched far more carefully than, say, FOX in the US.

The nice thing about government agencies is that, in a system

with at least 2 parties, there are apt to be people in the agency

from both parties (or from no party) so no one view gets

total domination. Even if a lot of the people are bribed by

some corporation, there will likely be a lot of people who

are NOT bribed, because they are not employees.

Now, if the government gets taken over by ONE party then

it essentially becomes an arm of those ideologues, which,

unfortunately, does happen. If those ideologues are ALSO

related to only one or a few corporate entities, then

those entities take over the state.

Which has ALSO happened throughout history, which is one

reason we are supposed to have a " balance of power " kind

of gov't. It is the nature of guys in power to be corrupt

and greedy, at least for a large percentage of them, so they

need to be played off against each other. And played off

against " the public " .

-- Heidi

January 11, 2004

,

Suggested Blank Slate here while back after hearing author interview on NPR.

Glad you liked. Haven't got to it yet. Excellent perspective here. Would

like to add that its my feeling that in hunter-gatherer tribes there was or

had to be a reason evident and/or explainable why to respect an elder before

trust is given. Who, character was primary.What, status, position didn't

happen without the character.

> Whether the cause is nature or nurture (an argument I

> don't really want to get into, though I highly recommend _Blank Slate_, by

> Pinker) I and my whole family are anti-authority types. I never

> hear something from on high and assume it must be correct. My girlfriend,

> by contrast, is at the opposite end of the spectrum, making it difficult

or

> impossible to talk to her about health. These two tendencies are not

> related to intelligence, and to some degree they're probably both

> necessary. Man is a social creature, and without some tendency to obey

and

> trust authority, societies would never work and we'd never have

> successfully formed hunter-gatherer tribes, accepted wisdom from elders

and

> experts, and gone on to form modern civilization. And yet without a

> counteracting tendency to distrust authority, we'd have been permanently

> vulnerable to selfish and foolish leaders and we would've followed too

many

> of them right into disaster. Both tendencies are necessary, both are

> double-edged swords, and there's always tension and flux between them.

And

> yet neither automatically dispose people towards purely rational

> evaluations of arguments, of competing voices and schools of thought, etc.

Wanita

January 11, 2004

In a message dated 1/11/04 2:56:57 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

>

> Are you seriously suggesting that you have total power over your own

> consciousness? That advertising is 100% ineffective, or that whatever

> effectiveness it has is strictly achieved through rational

> persuasion? That you're perfectly immune to peer pressure, to cultural

> pressure? And that even if the impossible were true and you were a purely

> rational actor that you're not a freak exception and that everyone else is

> the same?

No, I'm not denying the existence of influence. However, while influence

could be considered a type of " power, " it is a qualitatively different type of

power than *force*. I personally would designate it as " influence " rather than

power for the sake of clarity.

The fact is that it is up to me, up to my free will, that is a product of my

own volition within my own consciousness, to determine to what degree I

subject myself to peer pressure or choose to " go against the grain. "

> Even if you were, a lie would still have the power to deceive, and

> therefore liars would still have some power over people's consciousness, it

> would just be somewhat harder to perpetrate large-scale deceptions.

Lies do not have any force however. They can exert influence, but when there

are a multiplicity of influences, the conscious human has the ability and

responsiblity to evaluate them and choose what to believe. Eliminating

government's role in exercising this influence does not eliminate lies or

influence,

but does level the playing field.

>

> >But I can choose to watch the television, or read the newspaper, or not,

> and

> >I can choose which channel I watch, which newspaper I watch, or which

> >magazine

> >I read. I can use the internet, which is largely anarchical. I can buy

> >Atkins' book if I want, which is, to say the least, somewhat popular right

> >now.

>

> Why do you persist in assuming that everything is boolean? This is a

> common argument among anti-government zealots -- since there's some kind of

> alternative somewhere, everyone must be making a rational choice.

, if someone fails to exercise a rational choice in selecting from the

millions of sources of information at their disposal, they've failed their own

responsibility to use that choice.

>

> Think instead of what happens when you introduce a poison into a bacterial

> culture. Even if it's very harmful, it likely doesn't kill all of them,

> just some or maybe most. Does the fact that all the bacteria didn't die

> mean that the poison isn't harmful, isn't lethal? Similarly, when you

> introduce a harmful lie into human culture and back it with money and

> authority, the fact that not everyone is deceived -- and that eventually

> the truth starts leaking out once more and more people die from believing

> it -- hardly proves that it has no power. The fact that alternate voices

> are (increasingly) available doesn't mean that everyone hears them or makes

> a rational choice between voices.

The difference is that bacteria have no ability to evaluate the poison and

choose whether or not to accept it.

> In the continuum of human nature, some people have a great respect and

> requirement for authority and are therefore very strongly inclined to trust

> doctors, medical institutions and so on, and others tend to distrust

> authority figures.

So say we have two types of organization:

TYPE 1: Various self-interested parties and various parties acting out of

scientific curiosity present their view points. The latter are influenced by

various biases, and the former if necesary twist facts and interpretations to

favor their interest. All views are forced to compete with each other.

TYPE 2: The same parties engage in the same process, but a third party

exists, which is recognized as unbiased, to have no self-interest, and therefore

objective. It gives a stamp of approval that is valued as authoritative by

folks

who have regard for authority, and while each party competes with the other

in the marketplace of ideas, those who are able to receive the stamp of

objectivity win the competition.

In which of these types of organization is the authority-minded person most

likely to be deceived?

If industry had only money at its disposal and advertising power, each

industry would battle each other. The soy industry can claim soy burgers are

healthier than beef burgers, while the beef industry can claim that beef burgers

are

healthier than soy burgers, but without the FDA stamp of approval that 25

grams of soy protein per day prevents heart disease, the consumer has no reason

but their own power of evaluation to believe one over the other.

That's why Steve Forbes can't win the Oval Office.

>

> >Ownership of the " corporate media " is fundamentally different from the

> >power of the AMA, because I -- CAN choose to set up my own website, or, if

> >I have the money, buy my own

> >radio station, or write my own letter to an editor whereas I -- CANNOT

> >choose to practice medicine without a license, lest I be thrown in jail,

> >by the cooperative agreement of the AMA and the government.

>

> You can choose to set up your own website, but the odds are overwhelming

> that without a lot of money and a lot of PR value, it'll get

> nowhere. Hell, the WAPF site is very small beans compared to the

> mainstream, and it's supported by ever-increasing throngs of acolytes and

> devotees.

Mercola's site is the 8th most popular health-related site. Atkins webiste

is ranked even higher.

Nor can you buy your own radio station without enormous

> quantities of money.

The sole reason being that the FCC has minimum range requirements and the

government will bust me as a " radio pirate " if I set up a smaller station.

That said, so what? If you want to buy property, you have to work and save

money for it. Others manage.

And your letter to the editor may or may not be

> published, but there's a strong if incomplete filter against

> antiestablishment views.

There is a plethora of outlets for antiestablishment views. And what the

" establishment view " is depends on what rag you're reading. The anti-war view

is

certainly anti-establishment, but one need only look to the New York Times to

find it. Laissez-faire capitalism is an anti-establishment view, but one

need only look to the Wall Street Journal to find it. Pop culture mags like

Rolling Stone and niche market mags like High Times are good outlets for

anti-establishment views.

> As to practicing medicine, yes, it's true you can't operate or prescribe

> medicine without a government-backed license, but you certainly can provide

> nutritional advice, and unless you get a lot of training, I don't think you

> should be operating or prescribing (some) medications.

You're changing the subject. You had offered the AMA as an example of how

self-interested parties can organize to use force without government. Now you

are arguing that the AMA's effects are positive.

The issue was whether their power is derived from government or their own

organization, and the fact is that their licensure is entirely irrelevant,

except

in the presence of a government agreement to punish dissenters with force.

> >Given the *presence* of government currently, and the current involvement

> of

> >government in research, clearly the presence of government will not

> magically

> >de-corrupt research.

>

> Actually, as research has gotten substantially more corrupt over the last

> decade or so, government involvement has *dropped* substantially. I don't

> have the exact figures at hand, but something like 90% of research was done

> at universities ten years ago. Now it's down to 34%, with the vast

> majority of research being done by contract research organizations,

> companies set up specifically to serve Big Pharma and the medical

> industry. Whereas actual researchers used to conduct experiments, examine

> data and write and publish papers in medical journals back then, nowadays

> CROs conduct research, hide most of the data, ghost-write papers, and then

> pay doctors for their bylines without ever letting them examine the

> research or do anything other than sign on the dotted line.

The lipid hypothesis didn't come out of the last decade. One example of

private research would be Atkins' research into his own diet, which has probably

had the most dramatic recent positive effect on public health consciousness.

I'm not arguing private institutions won't lie, but obviously gov't

involvement in research has no net advantage over private research. Weren't all

the

greatest advances in science conducted by private individuals who financed their

own research?

> >A corporation's right to dispose with its property as it wishes is its own

> >right derived from the inherent right of a human's control over his own

> >effort.

>

> I see. You believe there should be no taxation at all? There's not really

> any reason to discuss anything even tangentially related to government with

> you at all, then. It would be like discussion evolution with a biblical

> literalist -- there's simply zero common ground for rational

> discussion. Or am I misunderstanding you?

You believe that property rights are irrational?

I'm not convinced to the anti-government camp, yet anyway, in which case

there would have to be some sort of taxation. But if one believes in such a

thing

as property, then at best this must be regarded as a necessary evil, and

government's activities would be limited to those required by a government, in

which case taxation would be minimal.

If you consider the basis for rational discussion agreement with you, then

no, we probably have no basis. But there's a long line of philosophers who have

rationally justified the right to property, and one who believes in such is

perfectly rational.

I don't want to have anything other than a rational discussion:

While land and natural resource exist indepent of human agency, human agency

can modify them. Therefore property is required to protect the right of the

human to the product of his own effort. If 10 settlers move to an uninhabited

island, presumably the only fair way to divvy up the land is either to use it

communally, or to divide it in tenths, with roughly equal distribution of

resources according to the value of said resources. Since no human agency

affected the land, there is no justification for one person to have more

property

than another, or even for private property to exist without the consent of the

parties.

However, say each of these ten engages in various activities that change the

land. For example, they might modify the landscape to be more productive or

aesthetically more valuable, they might engage in agriculture, might change the

soil composition, or might harvest raw materials to build objects.

Now say of these same ten, five had arrived first and spent several years

modifying the land, and the other five came along after. One cannot make the

same justification for dividing the land equally, if all of the land has been

modified in some way. In such a case, the person would not be acquiring what

simply existed, but would be acquiring in addition the fruits of another human's

effort, and that human would have engaged in effort, and have lost it. Thus,

such a distribution would be theft.

Therefore, we justifiy property so that the person who engaged in

modification of the resources can sell them, so that he receives something for

the effort

he engaged in.

In such a case, the person who owns the property must set their own price for

it, as judge of what their own effort is worth to them. The buyer can choose

to buy if he believes he will benefit, or choose not to. If the seller finds

his effort invaluable, he can choose not to sell it. He can also choose to

lower his price to what the buyer will accept. Each can offer a price, buyer

or seller, but the transaction can only occur if both parties agree to it.

All forms of property, including intellectual property, or ownership of a

business, are a protection of the person's effort. If houses existed without

human effort, I would have no more a right to mine than my neighbor would to

mine. But they must be built. If one person builds a house, and another takes

it

and lives in it, that is a fundamental violation of the right to the builder

over the product of his own effort.

Media corporations and power corporations and any other business venture is

bought with money that is accumulated from working and saving money, which

represents the fruits of those efforts, and is therefore that person's property.

Now, the question is, what justifies taking it by force? I assume you agree

that if someone enters my house without my permission, they are an intruder,

and if someone takes my car without my permission, they are a thief. So, the

question becomes, what justifies distinguishing betwen one person's theft and

another, or the theft perpetrated by an individual, and an organization, or

between the theft perpetrated by two organizations?

Presumably, it makes no difference whether a private individual or an angry

mob of individuals takes my car. If the mob is big enough, was the theft

justified? If the mob is defined as 51% of the American public, is the theft

justified? And if so, why?

This is the rational basis for the discussion. I layed down premises and

used logic to extrapolate from them. You can unquestionably disect this

reasoning and show where it is wrong if it is wrong, or answer the question I

arrived

at based on the reasoning.

> >a) claim entitlement to anything beyond or aside from what it acquires by

> its

> >own productive achievement

> >

> >or

> >

> > can claim an unfair advantage over its competitors by having different

> >rules, taxes, regulations, etc, applied to itself, than to its other

> >competitors.

>

> You see no problem with a corporation lying?

Did I say that? I was distinguishing between moral and immoral acquisition

of wealth. I think it makes perfect sense to have some sort of arbitration

system to settle disputes wherein fraud was involved. Presently we have courts

for that.

But the issue I was dealing with above was separating moral and immoral

acquisition of wealth, and justified and unjustified conglomeration of industry.

Based on property rights as per above, if one accumulates property through

mutual exchange, it is justified. However, if one accumulates property by the

government putting a hindrance on one's competitors, then there is no

justification for the acquisition.

>

> >, the logic is simple. Higher ratings equal more advertising dollars,

> >equal larger revenues, which, for constant costs, equal more profits.

> Where's

> >the non-sequitor?

>

> It's irrelevant to the point that corporations use control of the media to

> promote certain attitudes and philosophies.

No, it isn't. I believe corporations use the media to maximize their profit,

and will put on whatever shows will gain them more profit. That's why, for

example, a representative from FAIR will get a spot on Fox News' media

criticism show. Or why Rage Against the Machine will sell millions of CDs

promoting

explicit anti-capitalism using the capital of a giant capitalist media empire.

>

> >, if it weren't for the government throwing me in jail for practicing

> >without a license, why on earth would I care if I had one?

>

> Because so many people care so deeply about the authority and credibility

> of licensed medical doctors. The AMA has spent decades building the power

> of its brand. (They may finally be destroying that power by killing so

> many people, but even if they are, that destruction will take

> time. However, as it progresses, there will be more and more room for

> competing voices.)

Yet so many people go to DOs, who had to fight to attain licensure from the

state. A DO can practice in a private practice or a hospital setting, and no

patient ever asks or cares to know whether they are licensed by the AMA. They

aren't. The patient just knows they are practicing medicine *legally*. Most

people have never heard of osteopathic medicine, but they don't even notice

that, say, my doctor is one.

The fact is that the AMA cannot stop anyone from practicing medicine without

the government. Period. Without the government, they have INFLUENCE but they

do not have POWER.

I cannot go out tomorrow and start my own Institute of Chrismasterjohnologic

medicine and start practicing. If I did, I'd need licensure from the state.

That's essentially what DOs did-- they fought the AMA hard, and they won by

attaining state licensure. That was they key to their authority.

> The absence of

> government power is no guarantee of utopia.

I never said it was. As to fires, I haven't given it much thought, but I'm

willing to accept public organization if it is proved necessary, and any

sensible community would. However, look at how most fire departments are run.

Except in cities, they are mostly volunteer organizations, and when they're not,

their run by the municipality. The burden of proof is on the advocate of

taxation that the tax is necessary, and it should be enacted in such a way that

it

is relatively easy to escape it if one does not want to pay it (and of course

not receieve the benefit the tax offers.)

> >where there was no financial interest

> >to be had by either party.

>

> Finances aren't the only kind of interest. There's also power and prestige.

I'm not sure what we're discussing at this section.

>

> >So it's just coincidence that in every case where the government supports

> the

> >industry's view, it becomes orthodoxy, and where the government opposes the

> >industry's view, it does not?

>

> Hardly. As I'm sure even you'd agree, the government is vulnerable to

> lobbying -- which is to say to the power of money.

Yes, it is. But the government is not vulnerable to lobbying for things

beyond its capacity if the government is held to a certain standard: namely, not

breaking its own laws.

Again, private interests can't lobby the government to support their research

if the government is not considered to be an entity that supports research.

Private interests can't get tax loopholes when those taxes do not exists.

Private interests cannot get exemptions from regulations that do not exist.

Private interests cannot get subsidies if the government is not considered

justified in stealing property. Private interests cannot lobby for the

government to

subsidize them and help them for the sake of the public good or the " economy "

if the government is not considered an entity whose job is to support the

public interest or abstract collective institutions such as " the economy. "

>

> >[as an aside here I want to point out that you've repeatedly used the word

> > " uh " to indicate my incapacity for rational thought,

>

> No, I've used to the word " uh " to indicate confusion about what you

> mean. In a couple cases I mistook your meaning, in a couple others it

> turned out I thought your position was ludicrous.

Fair enough, though you did explicitly refer to my positions as irrational

with a variety of adverbs.

>

> >and have reffered to my

> >positions explicitly as irrational and indefensible, implying that I,

> >personally,

> >am incapable of rational thought,

>

> Again with the boolean nature of reality. Everyone is capable of some

> degree of rational thought and is at the same time of believing in

> irrational positions. The human mind isn't a computer which is either

> functioning and therefore 100% rational or broken and therefore 100%

> irrational. I'm sure I believe some things which, upon closer examination,

> would prove to be irrational and therefore indefensible. That hardly means

> I'm incapable of irrational thought. The very suggestion would be a straw

> man and a lame-ass ad hominem attack.

, I agree with you 100%. By the same token, one doesn't have to be

immoral or incapable of immorality to hold a position that is morally

indefensible.

I'm not accusing you of a personal attack, I'm merely pointing out that our

exchange has been mutual and comparable. Like I said, I'm not bothered by

your consideration of my position as irrational, and I'm asking you not to be

bothered by my consideration of yours as immoral. Just as you consider me a

rational person, I consider you a moral person, but I disagree with the morality

of your position.

>

> >Perhaps I misunderstood you. You had said that government intervention is

> >necessary because people are not always competent to choose their own

> >self-interest,

>

> Please point out specifically where I said this.

I just looked and you didn't say it. I had been incorrectly " reading between

the lines " apparently.

> No, I don't believe in banning sugar OR smoking,

Fair enough... I'd misunderstood you.

Chris

January 11, 2004

In a message dated 1/11/04 3:50:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> An interesting note here: in an audit of news agencies, the BBC

> turned out to have the LEAST bias of the news agencies. They

> believe that is because, since it is a government agency, it

> is watched far more carefully than, say, FOX in the US.

What was their criteria for " bias " ? What " biases " were weaved into that

criteria?

Chris

January 11, 2004

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

> An interesting note here: in an audit of news agencies, the BBC

> turned out to have the LEAST bias of the news agencies. They

> believe that is because, since it is a government agency, it

> is watched far more carefully than, say, FOX in the US.

Do you have more information on this? This sounds like something that

would be very subjective--how did they measure it? Was the audit

conducted on coverage of a wide variety of issues, or just the war? Did

it deal exclusively with news coverage, or also with opinion shows?

> The nice thing about government agencies is that, in a system

> with at least 2 parties, there are apt to be people in the agency

> from both parties (or from no party) so no one view gets

> total domination.

Government employees, except political appointees, are notorious for

being almost monolithically left-wing.

> Even if a lot of the people are bribed by

> some corporation, there will likely be a lot of people who

> are NOT bribed, because they are not employees.

Which is it, then? Do big corporations own the government, or do they

not? I'm not sure what being employees (of the government, or of the

corporations?) has to do with it.

> Which has ALSO happened throughout history, which is one

> reason we are supposed to have a " balance of power " kind

> of gov't. It is the nature of guys in power to be corrupt

> and greedy, at least for a large percentage of them, so they

> need to be played off against each other. And played off

> against " the public " .

Playing politicians off against each other worked fairly well during the

Clinton years, but over the long term it just doesn't last, because the

voters generally don't have the sense or the organization to elect a

President and Congress from different parties. Also, the worst laws

often have strong bipartisan support. Anyway, the evil that politicians

do in the light of day is far, far worse than the silly games they play

under the cover of night. Much better to go with the original American

ideal, which is to cripple them to the degree that it doesn't really

matter how corrupt they are. If you read the Consitution, it's

abundantly clear that not only are we supposed to have a " balance of

power " kind of government, but that we're supposed to have a " not much

power to speak of " kind of government, too. I guarantee you that you

won't find any authorization for Social Security, Medicare, corporate or

personal welfare, or the War on Drugs in there.

Berg

January 11, 2004

>However, government agencies such as the FDA, CIA, IRS and many

>others are not subject the party system. Some of these arms of the

>government have been found to be corrupt, breaking the law, etc. The

>FDA allowed aspertame on the market and the IRS has had a few

>whistleblowers that have brought out the strong arm tactics and law

>breaking done by that agency, and so on and so on. Look at

>Watergate.

The point about Watergate is ... it DID eventually come

to light. There are some good laws about government

papers being available to the public. Not perfect, to

be sure, and some adminstrations are more secretive

than others ... but there is no equivalent for

corporations at all. I can go to my local country

courthouse and get tax records and land records

and all kinds of stuff. I can't go to Walmart and

find out *anything* except maybe their hours of business.

The BBC has to keep open books and they are open

to criticism if they are seen as being biased. Private

networks have no such restraints (there are a few laws,

but most of their actions are voluntary).

-- Heidi

January 11, 2004

:

>Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> An interesting note here: in an audit of news agencies, the BBC

>> turned out to have the LEAST bias of the news agencies. They

>> believe that is because, since it is a government agency, it

>> is watched far more carefully than, say, FOX in the US.

>

>Do you have more information on this? This sounds like something that

>would be very subjective--how did they measure it? Was the audit

>conducted on coverage of a wide variety of issues, or just the war? Did

>it deal exclusively with news coverage, or also with opinion shows?

I'll try to find it.

> > The nice thing about government agencies is that, in a system

>> with at least 2 parties, there are apt to be people in the agency

>> from both parties (or from no party) so no one view gets

>> total domination.

>

>Government employees, except political appointees, are notorious for

>being almost monolithically left-wing.

Says the right-wing, anyway. The left-wing says the opposite ...

>> Even if a lot of the people are bribed by

>> some corporation, there will likely be a lot of people who

>> are NOT bribed, because they are not employees.

>

>Which is it, then? Do big corporations own the government, or do they

>not? I'm not sure what being employees (of the government, or of the

>corporations?) has to do with it.

Well, if most of the Cabinet, for instance all used to work for the same company

say, it would not be surprising if maybe they would work in ways that would

benefit one company. But if they worked for 10 different companies, they

would not be monolithic.

Obviously big corps own a chunk of the government. But they can't

all own of it, because they are all competing against each other.

Playing politicians off against each other worked fairly well during the

>Clinton years, but over the long term it just doesn't last, because the

>voters generally don't have the sense or the organization to elect a

>President and Congress from different parties. Also, the worst laws

>often have strong bipartisan support. Anyway, the evil that politicians

>do in the light of day is far, far worse than the silly games they play

>under the cover of night. Much better to go with the original American

>ideal, which is to cripple them to the degree that it doesn't really

>matter how corrupt they are. If you read the Consitution, it's

>abundantly clear that not only are we supposed to have a " balance of

>power " kind of government, but that we're supposed to have a " not much

>power to speak of " kind of government, too. I guarantee you that you

>won't find any authorization for Social Security, Medicare, corporate or

>personal welfare, or the War on Drugs in there.

Sure, we should to away with aid to mothers with dependent children,

social security, college loans and all the rest. Go

back to the good ol' days when the robber barons owned

the railways and a person could starve in the streets.

It'd be great to have those ol' west Shootouts again,

gads it IS getting boring. Well, except for central LA, where

there really isn't any gov't intervention much. Back in

the Middle ages there was mostly local gov't too ... the

local king or whoever. Some of them were real characters.

Weren't you the one arguing in favor of more modern

society? Modern society couldn't have arisen without

the order and structure and security of modern gov't ...

no one wants to invest in a country that is chaotic. Those

social safety nets keep the beggars out of the streets,

more or less. India's economy is growing, amazingly enough,

partly because of gov't funded education etc. programs

that churn out lots of educated kids.

-- Heidi

January 11, 2004

Wanita-

>my feeling that in hunter-gatherer tribes there was or

>had to be a reason evident and/or explainable why to respect an elder before

>trust is given. Who, character was primary.What, status, position didn't

>happen without the character.

Though it's possible (or even likely) that the balance was at a different

point in pre-industrial societies, I think the fact that the human species

has these competing tendencies indicates that things weren't always so

nice. We wouldn't need an evolutionary tendency to respect and follow

authority for authority's sake if we didn't also have a destructive

tendency to be purely selfish, and we wouldn't have a competing tendency to

be skeptical of authority if our respect for authority didn't get us into

trouble with enough regularity to keep the skepticism trait useful and

therefore present in the genepool.

-

January 11, 2004

Heidi Schuppenhauer wrote:

>> Government employees, except political appointees, are notorious for

>> being almost monolithically left-wing.

>

> Says the right-wing, anyway. The left-wing says the opposite ...

The left wing says a lot of things. I wasn't able to find any data on

individual party affiliation (I'd certainly be interested in seeing it),

but here's some information on where political contributions from public

employee unions are going:

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=P04

And yes, I do realize that this isn't necessarily representative of

government employees in general, because the rank-and-file union members

don't really have much say in where their money goes, and because, where

joining is voluntary, conservatives are less likely to join.

> Playing politicians off against each other worked fairly well during

> the

>> Clinton years, but over the long term it just doesn't last, because

>> the voters generally don't have the sense or the organization to

>> elect a President and Congress from different parties. Also, the

>> worst laws often have strong bipartisan support. Anyway, the evil

>> that politicians do in the light of day is far, far worse than the

>> silly games they play under the cover of night. Much better to go

>> with the original American ideal, which is to cripple them to the

>> degree that it doesn't really matter how corrupt they are. If you

>> read the Consitution, it's abundantly clear that not only are we

>> supposed to have a " balance of power " kind of government, but that

>> we're supposed to have a " not much power to speak of " kind of

>> government, too. I guarantee you that you won't find any

>> authorization for Social Security, Medicare, corporate or personal

>> welfare, or the War on Drugs in there.

>

> Sure, we should to away with aid to mothers with dependent children,

> social security, college loans and all the rest.

Once again, no one is saying that we should get rid of any of those

things--only that they should be provided on a voluntary basis.

> Go back to the good ol' days when the robber

> barons owned the railways...

Isn't " robber baron " just a phrase people use to avoid having to present

a serious argument?

> and a person could starve in the streets.

Do you have any data on how often this actually happened? More

importantly, do you understand that the US in 1870 was much, much poorer

(by an order of magnitude, to the extent that it's measurable) than it

is today, and that the fact that it is wealthier now is not necessarily

attributable to the increase in the size and power of the federal

government (or, for that matter, to the presence of large gay-friendly

communities)?

> It'd be great to have those ol' west Shootouts again,

> gads it IS getting boring.

I'm not sure where this came from. Are we talking about gun control now?

> Well, except for central LA, where

> there really isn't any gov't intervention much.

Perhaps not now (honestly, I don't know), but housing projects and other

welfare programs are in large part responsible for the superslums we

have today, abysmal schools keep people from getting out, and drug

prohibition is the source of much of the gang activity there. Taking out

the police--one of the few legitimate functions of government--and

leaving the rest there isn't exactly a recipe for a prosperous

community.

A tangential observation: Washington, DC has a higher murder rate than

any other major city in the US. Make of it what you will.

> Back in

> the Middle ages there was mostly local gov't too ... the

> local king or whoever. Some of them were real characters.

Back in the Middle Ages, the king took the land by force and parcelled

it out to the various nobles, and the serfs were bound to the land. It

was a form of slavery. It's not a question of local government versus

distant government (at least, not fundamentally, although there are

various theories about why governments at certain levels tend towards

certain policies). It's a question of freedom versus tyranny. I

guarantee you that your argument will be none the weaker for taking this

little gem out of your arsenal.

A tangential observation: The Italian Renaissance arose among a

collection of autonomous city-states.

You're going to bring out the " power vacuum " argument, right? Again, I'm

arguing libertarianism, not anarchism. Although I'm sure that Mr. Miles

has some absolutely brilliant arguments for why this wouldn't be a

problem in a stateless society, I'm not familiar with them myself. In

libertarian thought, the state exists solely for the purpose of filling

the power vacuum and preventing anyone with nefarious (or worse, noble)

intentions from stepping in.

> Weren't you the one arguing in favor of more modern

> society? Modern society couldn't have arisen without

> the order and structure and security of modern gov't ...

> no one wants to invest in a country that is chaotic.

If you still don't understand what's wrong with this, read the paragraph

above on the distinction between libertarianism and anarchy again.

In the twentieth century, at least (and not necessarily at most),

governments have introduced far more chaos than order. Case in point:

South-Central LA. Inflation. The rise in out-of-wedlock births. The

Great Depression. The IRS--Americans spend over $200 billion per year

dealing with tax law. And that's just in the US. Elsewhere they've

killed many tens of millions of people and laid waste to entire

civilizations.

> Those

> social safety nets keep the beggars out of the streets,

> more or less.

So why, despite federal spending approaching $10,000 per person and

state and local spending at a few thousand more, much (probably most if

you count Social Security--and why wouldn't you?) of it on social safety

nets of one sort or another, do we still have beggars on the streets?

Anyway, as I, and a few others have pointed out repeatedly, it's

just not true that only the state can provide a social safety net.

A tangential observation: Nets are impassible in both directions.

Another tangential observation: I've never seen a beggar on a private

street.

> India's economy is growing, amazingly enough,

> partly because of gov't funded education etc. programs

> that churn out lots of educated kids.

I don't really know enough about India's situation to comment on the

specifics, but I think you'll understand my reluctance to take your word

for it where economic analysis is concerned. In general, though, an

investment either does produce an acceptable return, or it does not. A

bad investment does not become good just because it is made by the

government--it just seems good to those who do not bear the cost.

January 12, 2004

Heidi wrote:

> >Sure, we should to away with aid to mothers with dependent children,

> >social security, college loans and all the rest.

> Then wrote:

> Once again, no one is saying that we should get rid of any of those

> things--only that they should be provided on a voluntary basis.

I'm all for college loans, but I think she meant Aid to Families with

Dependent Children and Social Security, which are specific programs that should

certainly be abolished.

Their is no moral excuse for Social Security as it currently is. It was

initially voluntary, but was made mandatory because not enough people would

accept

it (this may have only been the case for gov't employees, I can't remember.

But I think it's funny that the same people who bemoan the unequal

distribution of wealth support the direct theft of money that would otherwise be

used to

invest in retirement plans in the stock market-- i.e. own a portion of the

country's wealth-- to basically put a hold on it that amounts to throwing it in

the toilet. I saw a Tom Tomorrow cartoon where he compared investing a

portion of SS in the stock market to buying lottery tickets (I swear the man was

born without a brain)-- but while the stock market can go down and up and down,

the long-term trend is inevitably up. The money can waste away in gov't hands

at a 2 % return, or can make three times that in the stock market, increase

invested capital and thereby stimulate the economy, and increase the amount of

wealth in the hands of the " have nots. "

That would be more pratical; a more moral system would allow people to invest

their own money how they see fit since it is, well, theirs.

I think it would be difficult to argue that AFDC has don't more good than

harm.

Heidi wrote:

> >Go back to the good ol' days when the robber

> >barons owned the railways...

Out of curiosity, Heidi, who were they robbing?

> Heidi wrote:

> >and a person could starve in the streets.

While I doubt this is a remotely reasonable characterization of pre-20th

century America (and know it is for NE, anyway), I'd like to point out that a

government who lets someone starve (as if there is nothing to stop the person

from

starving but government, or as if gov't would do the job best) is much more

moral than a government that directly induces starvation.

Case in point, the expansion of the Federal government's power to negotiate

pseudo free trade treaties with Columbia, subsidize the hell out of its

agribusiness for the sake of " the economy " and " the public good, " so they can

artificially outcompete local agriculture, cause coca to be the only stable cash

crop

in Columbia, then use its military to fly over planes, invading the country,

and destroying the farmers' only means of survival as if it had any

jurisdiction whatsoever over what its own citizens grow in their own back yards,

let

alone the citizens of another country IN another country. Then, to boot, watch

them destroy the rain forest so they can hide and keep producing coca.

A government that actively destroys the means of survival of other people for

the sake of the " public good " is considerably more immoral than a government

that leaves charity to its citizens.

> wrote:

> A tangential observation: Nets are impassible in both directions.

That's a profound observation.

Chris

January 12, 2004

In a message dated 1/12/04 9:02:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> LOL! I love it. The NY Times and the Wall Street Journal are

> anti-establishment magazines!

That's sort of the point, be it a paradox or not: They *aren't*

anti-establishment magazines, but there is enough lack of definitioin to the

" establishment " to find elements of anti-establishment views spread across the

" establishment " .

Chris

Sign In

Re: Re: money and health

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest