POLITICS - Re: money and health (was Nutrition 101)

[Guest guest]

>are you including warfare?

Yes, if you count it on a per-capita basis. During many times in

history, there was low level warfare between tribes or towns

that went on constantly. In Greece, going to war in the spring

was just the norm (you didn't need a reason, necessarily).

The fact the Europeans formed a Union after umpteen years

of constant warefare is totally amazing. The fact Canada, the US,

and Mexico aren't having border skirmishes is amazing.

The fact Seattle and Snohomish don't send out raiding parties

is amazing, from an historical viewpoint.

A lot of the rest of the world is back where the US was 300 years

ago, still fighting tribe on tribe, with some unfortunate intervention

from the bigger powers.

>and what about all the physical injury that goes unreported?

It's hard to get good stats. If you read the books various eras

though, you can get an idea of what daily life was like. On the

Navy ships, for instance, lashes with a cat o'nine tails were

normal punishment for various offenses. Whipping kids with

sticks or boards was normal in schools. A man was expected

to beat his wife to keep her in line. Barroom brawls weren't

even worth reporting ... still aren't, in some places (There was

a fellow student who came in Mondays often with bruises

and black eyes -- he would go out Saturday night to a certain

bar and pick fights or allowed one to be picked. " Why? " I asked --

" because it's fun! " ). Duelling was common in Europe, and legal.

Slavery was common (whites could be slaves too) until fairly

recently. Slaves were property and could be dealt with however

the owner wanted. Infanticide was fairly common in mose

societies too, and was not considered a crime (it was up

to the ranking male member to decide if a baby was wanted,

or not, in some places and times).

If you go back further, to Mideival or Roman times, it gets

more gruesome. What we know of tribal culture isn't

any better ... the populations are sparser, the warfare

uses fewer soldiers ... but you have evidence is say, the

mud pueblos that enemies poured oil in the tops and

burned the families alive. Nice stuff.

So yeah, compared to previous eras, ours is highly

non-violent.

>also, how can we compare our current rate of physical injury to " ANY society

>EVER " - have they all kept accurate statistics on this throughout history?

>do we have those stats on medieval iceland, ancient israel and the other

>samples listed above?

We have few stats on any society ... we do have lots of skeletons

with embedded arrowheads, shrunken heads, stories of glorious

raids, etc. I expect there have been nice peaceful societies ... esp.

those who are isolated so no one could attack them and

had populations that didn't increase beyond the food supply. But

it in interesting what they may have considered " peaceful " ---

when you watch Fast Runner, for instance (which meshes

with other stories I've heard of the Inuit) -- knocking your opponent

on the temple with your fist was a good challenge and socially

acceptable in some situations. Killing someone was ok if you

warned him of your intent first.

>well, we've had hangings in recent history while living under our

>government, and i'm sure you're aware that wife and child beating occur

>rather frequently as well. i don't have any statistics, but i get the

>impression that we are a rather violent society.

We are still pretty violent. The difference between now and

then is mainly that it is no longer as *acceptable.* The school

marm cannot beat my kid without getting fired, and if I send

my kid to school with bruises I'm likely going to get in trouble.

100 years ago, both were acceptable. And I'd wager that

kids are beat less frequently than they were, and wives

are beat less frequently too. And more wives that are married

to violent men feel free to leave.

(Yeah, someone is going to say where is the proof, that

REALLY in the past it was peaceful and it's just in the movies

it seems violent. If you read books like Huck Finn and Mutiny on

the Bounty and Moby Dick and diaries written during the time

though, the level of acceptable violence seems alarmingly

high, and most of it was not done by the government. Also in

Guns Germs and War, the author (who is a better researcher

than I am) says there was a very high level of homicide

in the tribal cultures, that one of the advantages of our

modern system of civilization is that it is safer. One of the

disadvantages is that we lack social support).

>i don't see it that way. i'm admittedly a neophyte when it comes to

>libertarianism and still know very little about it, but the more i read the

>more " doable " it seems. i think it's my *lack* of knowledge of it that has

>generally made it seem " out there " and " unatainable " for the most part. so i

>don't think it's fair to characterize it as " living in an alternative

>universe " IF you haven't read a good deal about how it works - at least a

>few good books - minimum. which maybe you have, and i'm misunderstanding

>your knowledge base of libertarianism from which you are making your

>critiques.

The " alternative universe " has to do with how folks view history.

My reading of history is that for the most part if was violent,

people starved a lot, and we are better off now in many ways.

Whether or not L. will work as a way of life, which *perhaps* if

I had enough knowledge I'd agree with.

>i would be disappointed if you did! i'm learning quite a bit from these

>exchanges and appreciate that you share your ideology with us as much as i

>appreciate that michael, chris and brandon do. but i i understand that it

>can be frustrating at times and tiring, so will respect your decision to

>give up, if that's what you want to do.

Suze, with you I like to discuss because you stick to the

subject and don't throw in these " you always " statements (insults?)

that make arguments so tiresome. Maybe you had some

marriage counselling training at some point ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Quoting Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>:

> >I gave some examples, even cited links. I will give some again (but no

> links).

> >

> >1. Ancient Israel (before the Kings)

> >2. Medieval Iceland, a society praised by some scholars for its cultural

> >output

> >3. 17th century Pennsylvania

> >4. Somalia

>

> Well, these emails have all been way out of order and I give up

> trying to keep up with them. But I'd say in general, if your goal

> is non-aggression, then hey, we've done it! Out current society

> has the lowest rate of physical injury by government OR fellow

> homo sapiens of ANY society ever, including the examples you

> give above. ly there are very few armed gaurds around,

> or police,

Not all aggression ends in physical injury. When I pay taxes solely in order

to avoid a raid from the IRS, that's aggression. Everything the government

does is backed by the implicit threat of violent or deadly enforcement.

That's aggression. They are rarely forced to take this to its logical

conclusion, but it does happen often enough to remind the rest of us of the

cost of failing to render unto Caesar. The Weavers' fate awaits anyone who

dares to step too far out of line.

By the way, this tactic of comparing two entirely different cultures and

asserting that selected properties of one or another are due to more or

less government without giving any theoretical basis for this claim is just

silly. If you don't understand that, we really are living in different

universes.

> . In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have

> sprouted throughout the country, handling between $200 million and $500

> million in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety

> of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to

> operate, and security is provided by militias. The ongoing civil

> disturbances and clan rivalries, however, have interfered with any

> broad-based economic development and international aid arrangements. In

> 2002 Somalia's overdue financial obligations to the IMF continued to

> grow.

The problem with Somalia is that it was a horrible place to live when they

had a government. Capitalism took thousands of years to develop in Europe,

when they had governments. You can't build a culture of respect for

property rights overnight. Somalia is essentially a stone-age society

dropped into the middle of the information age. The relevant question is

not the difference between Somalia and the US, but the difference between

Somalia then and Somalia now.

> The other two I don't know, but if they were truly peaceful

> non-aggressive societies then they were the exceptions

> that prove the rule ...

<chuckle>

Why did you even bother to ask for examples, then, if you were just going to

dismiss them with that stupid cliche? By the way, you never addressed any

of mine. Are they also exceptions that prove the rule?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 08:49:43 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>I gave some examples, even cited links. I will give some again (but no links).

>>

>>1. Ancient Israel (before the Kings)

>>2. Medieval Iceland, a society praised by some scholars for its cultural

>>output

>>3. 17th century Pennsylvania

>>4. Somalia

>

>Well, these emails have all been way out of order and I give up

>trying to keep up with them. But I'd say in general, if your goal

>is non-aggression, then hey, we've done it! Out current society

>has the lowest rate of physical injury by government OR fellow

>homo sapiens of ANY society ever, including the examples you

>give above. ly there are very few armed gaurds around,

>or police,

>

No Heidi, you are incorrect. Your paragraph above is logically

fallacious. You are committing what is known formally as the fallacy of

equivocation, that is taking a word or concept which is defined one way

and then redefining to suit your ends, all the while acting as if its

the same word in substance.

I said several things in the above post which you left out, so for the

sake of anyone else reading this here they are again:

" Well since I have answered these out of order, I hope you have come to

understand the *singular* foundational agreement among all libertarians,

the belief in the NAP - non-agression principle. "

In a previous post to you I defined NAP - the non-aggression principle.

I will post it again here:

" The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that

no man or group of men may aggress against the person

or _property_ of anyone else. This may be called the nonaggression

axiom. Aggression is defined as the _initiation_

of the use or threat of physical violence against

the person or _property_ of anyone else. Aggression is

therefore synonymous with invasion.

If no man may aggress against another, if, in short,

everyone has the absolute right to be free from aggression,

then this at once implies that the libertarian

stands foursquare for what are generally known as

civil liberties: the freedom to speak, publish, assemble,

and to engage in . . . victimless crimes. "

And lest you are still unclear about what that means here is something

else I posted to you:

" In contrast to

all other thinkers, left, right, or in-between, the libertarian refuses

to give the State the moral sanction to commit actions that almost

everyone agrees would be immoral, illegal, and criminal if committed by

any person or group in society. The libertarian... makes no special

exemptions for any person or group. But if we look at the State naked,

as it were, we see that it is universally allowed, and even encouraged,

to commit all the acts which even non-libertarians concede are

reprehensible crimes.

The State habitually commits mass murder, which it

calls " war, " or sometimes " suppression of subversion " ; the State engages

in enslavement into its military forces, which it calls " conscription " ;

and it lives and has its being in the practice of forcible theft, which

it calls " taxation. " The libertarian insists...War is Mass

Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery... "

Now, in light of that, lets look again at what you said above:

> " But I'd say in general, if your goal

> is non-aggression, then hey, we've done it! Out current society

>has the lowest rate of physical injury by government OR fellow

>homo sapiens of ANY society ever, including the examples you

>give above "

Leaving aside your factual incorrectness, you move the goalposts (i.e.

equivocate) by *redefining* or more precisely limiting the NAP as

" physical injury by government. "

That is false. That is not the definition of the non-agression principle.

Further, " physical injury by gov't " doesn't even mean that the NAP has

been violated, unless it was _initiated_ by the gov't. In other words a

defensive response would be totally consistent with the NAP.

So Heidi, you argument fails in light of taxation alone. In terms of the

NAP, our society and others like it are just as thuggish as they have

always been, given that moderns gov'ts continue to engage in war (murder),

taxation (robbery) , and conscription (slavery). Taxation alone is a

violation of the NAP and there is no " physical injury by gov't " involved

although there is an invasion of property which is just as egregious a

violation of the NAP. And more, the *threat* of injury undergirds

everything the state does, including not paying taxes.

>If you are reading the same Bible I am, those folks had plenty

>of aggression, though as you state, it would be more spread

>out, so more people could get in on the act. Which I guess

>makes sense, why shoule the gov't have all the fun? We should

>bring back town hangings and stonings, and a bit of wife and

>child beating while we are at it.

I am not sure who is doing what in the above statement but here goes:

1. Since I don't know what Bible you read, or if you actually read it I

can't answer that question.

2. Given that you misdefined or redefined the NAP I won't comment on

your idea of " those folks " aggression since I'm not sure who you mean by

" those folks. "

3. Town hangings occurred within the lifetime of my parents and within

the lifetime of some of the people on this list. I don't know if you

were meaning to infer that hangings were a feature of " those folks "

meaning the groups above, but if so it wasn't exclusive to them but made

its way into " modern " times. But for clarity lets break down the

application of the death penalty by group:

Israel - stoning, by the community, in full view of everyone. Required

for murder. Other offenses usually taken care of by monetary restitution.

Iceland - no death penalty at all. Monetary restitution even for murder.

Pennsylvania - during the period I am talking about murder would lead to

death. Would have to look up the prevailing method. For other offenses

restitution sometimes even banishment.

Somalia - same as Iceland

Contrast that with America - lynching (town hangings) not too long ago,

gas chamber, hanging (state hanging), electrocution, all current. Other

offenses, jail time (at taxpayers expense), fines (payable to the state

and not the victim), and other assorted weird approaches.

Don't know what your bite a wife and child beating statement is all

about.

The point is the inclusion or lack thereof a specific practice does not

speak directly to the issue of gov't or lack thereof. You need something

to back that claim up otherwise this is a pointless discussion.

>

>As for Somalia, it REALLY doesn't seem like an argument for

>a non-aggressive state, it is almost in a state of civil war.

Again, you have misdefined the NAP.

> From the CIA:

>

> In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange

>services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $200

>million and $500 million in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main

>market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic

>gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and security is provided by

>militias.

Hey this is *good* news! No formal banking sector? Translation - no

state run/controlled banks. Hallelujah! No government graft under the

guise of " banking. "

$200-$500 million dollars annually? You mean money can peacefully be moved like

that without the guiding hand of gov't? No way! God Forbid!!

The newest electronic gadgets? Hotels? Security? I thought that place

was in a state of chaos? How is peaceful commerce being conducted? You

mean the shelves aren't empty like they were in all the socialist

paradises around the world? Egads! Get them a gov't lest they figure out

they don't need one. By the way, who according to the CIA, are these

militias? And why are they providing security?

Wait but there is more from the CIA (those lovers of freedom):

>The ongoing civil disturbances and clan rivalries, however, have

>interfered with any broad-based economic development and international

>aid arrangements. In 2002 Somalia's overdue financial obligations to the

>IMF continued to grow.

LOL! As I said in the previous post, we should *not* be looking to

apologists for big gov't to determine what is happening over there.

A quick translation of the CIA assessment - " all that money we stole from

our own citizenry (members of the IMF) and then loaned to the former

gov't of Somalia we WON " T GET BACK, unless they institute another civil

gov't that we can hold accountable and put back under our thumb. "

All I have to say is, GO CLANS GO!

Civil disturbances? Clan rivalries? I have to see what the CIA describes

as civil disturbances before commenting. And clan rivalries have been a

feature of that part of the world for a long time, irrespective of the type

of gov't or lack thereof. However, such rivalries are always intensified

by gov't meddling. Always.

>So yeah, it's all ground up at this point, with militias gaurding

>everything and ongoing " civil disturbances and clan rivalries "

Excuse me? Where does it say " militias guarding everything " ? It is

impossible for anyone to " guard everything " And next time you get out

check out the number of private security around hotels and retail shops.

>Is that a society you want to live in?

If I was a Somalian, compared to what they had? Absolutely!

I don't -- I suspect they

>don't either -- give 'em a few years and they'll settle down

>to one central government. Historically we get central

>governments or clan governments, and then the clans

>fight.

" They " ? How you you know? Compared to what they had? I would be inclined

to suspect the exact opposite.

>The other two I don't know, but if they were truly peaceful

>non-aggressive societies then they were the exceptions

>that prove the rule ...

Wait! Didn't you say you wanted some examples? And now that you have

some examples they don't count because they are exceptions? Then why ask

for examples in the first place? And if I am not mistaken others have

given you examples as well.

Anyway, you left out another piece of my post which I quote below:

" Also there are numerous micro-examples of libertarian societies and the

private provision of services. I posted some material that gives much

historical evidence. Since I posted it once I won't bother posting it

again. "

What I see here is not an lack of examples, but a knowledge gap. The

information is there but you are unaware of it. There a plenty of

examples waiting to be checked out.

>It could be though that you guys are living in an alternative

>universe, which is the theory I'm currently coming to.

>Kind of like some of us are living on a 4,000 year old earth

>and others on an earth that is billions of years old -- two

>different histories, not reconcilable.

Thats funny. Anyway, there are lots of people who think I live in a

different universe when it comes to nutrition, so that is no big deal.

The truth of the matter is just about everything I hold dear today I

would have thought in the past would only have been held by someone

living in an " alternate universe. " My oh my how time can change things.

>>The point is, Mr. Limbaugh is more than happy to use the power of gov't

>>and theft when it advances *his* social agenda, and you are just as

>>happy to do the same thing when it advances *your* social agenda.

>

>Ok, you are right, I agree with him on that. Our gov't isn't the best,

>but it is far better than the alternative.

That seems to be the very question in play.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 07:42:45 -0000

" Anton " <michaelantonparker@...> wrote:

>@@@@@@@@@@ :

>> In a previous post to you I defined NAP - the non-aggression

>principle.

>> I will post it again here:

>>

>> " The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that

>> no man or group of men may aggress against the person

>> or _property_ of anyone else. This may be called the nonaggression

>> axiom.

>[...]

>@@@@@@@@@@@@

>

>I would like to define the Odd-Berry Principle:

> " The berry parity creed rests upon one central axiom: that no berry

>may grow if there is an even number of earthworms within a 461 meter

>radius of the potentially berry-growth site. "

>

>Possible configurations of nature?

>

>

Mike,

Got to get me some of those waterbugs. Sounds like a joint is nothing

compared to them......

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

> Got to get me some of those waterbugs. Sounds like a joint is

nothing

> compared to them......

>

>

@@@@@@@@@@@

Damn straight. They don't dispense those glandular secretions in

medicine droppers for nothing...

But in all seriousness I haven't eaten any waterbugs in over three

days, just kimchi, cheese, sprouts, bone marrow, and raw beef

today... It's just the Dali thing; I can't emphasize that point

enough...

Mike

SE Pennsylvania