Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 12:57:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> > >[] " The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting

pollutants

> into

> > > the air, and thereby invading the rights of person and property.

Period.

______

This doesn't strike me as a remedy. The enforcement of such, and the

adjudication of disputes regarding this dictum is riddled with problems.

First, " pollutant " must be defined. Doing anything at all, even living

itself, will change the air around you. By merely living I change the

composition

of my downwind neighbor's air to contain less oxygen and more carbon dioxide.

If I burn anything at all I will release a vast array of chemicals into the

air that will change its composition. If these are pollutants, the enjoinment

above would prevent me from cooking food and heating my house, among many

other things.

Then, we must consider whether a chemical's status as a pollutant is

dependent only on its qualitative characteristics, or on its quantitative

characteristics as well, such as its concentration in the air. Since certain

concentrations of some otherwise noxious chemicals are certainly innocuous,

either a court

or a legislative body is going to have to set some standard by which we must

differentiate between that chemical's two possible statuses.

But then we are back to sqaure one. Any such standard is going to be

somewhat arbitrary, in contrast to Rothbard's attempt to make an eternal and

objective law rather than an arbitrary decree out of the situation.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

In a message dated 2/17/05 12:57:10 AM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> > >[] " The remedy is simply to enjoin anyone from injecting

pollutants

> into

> > > the air, and thereby invading the rights of person and property.

Period.

______

[Chris] - This doesn't strike me as a remedy. The enforcement of such, and the

adjudication of disputes regarding this dictum is riddled with problems.

First, " pollutant " must be defined.

[] - Of course, but that is not a problem unique to this remedy but *any*

remedy. Today, when the EPA charges people or companies with a violation of the

clean air act, for example, they do so on the basis of some definition of

pollutants which they deem harmful. So you are only stating something which is

true *regardless* of the approach.

You might be reading this too literally since I couldn't link to the full

article to provide the necessary context.

In the context of the article from which the quote is taken, Rothbard grants

that the environmentalists are essentially right (thus taking the then current

operational definition of pollutants for granted) but argues that their solution

is wrong, full of unnecessary hyperbole and hysteria, and then suggests that the

answer is not a taxpayer funded program based on some arbitrarily decided

allowable level of pollutants, or for the courts to find harm but then try

balancing property rights in the name of the " public good " but simply to defend

property rights when they are violated.

[Chris] - Doing anything at all, even living

itself, will change the air around you. By merely living I change the

composition

of my downwind neighbor's air to contain less oxygen and more carbon dioxide.

If I burn anything at all I will release a vast array of chemicals into the

air that will change its composition. If these are pollutants, the enjoinment

above would prevent me from cooking food and heating my house, among many

other things.

[] - See answer above. Also you seem to be assuming that technology is

static, and that even if these activities were found harmful, ways could not be

found to mitigate or remove their impact. Clearly there would be economic

incentive to do so if such activities as *currently constituted* were found to

be harmful to a particular person or property. Inherent in Rothbard's

understanding of pollutants is something that *harms* not just something that is

created or already exists.

[Chris] - Then, we must consider whether a chemical's status as a pollutant is

dependent only on its qualitative characteristics, or on its quantitative

characteristics as well, such as its concentration in the air. Since certain

concentrations of some otherwise noxious chemicals are certainly innocuous,

either a court

or a legislative body is going to have to set some standard by which we must

differentiate between that chemical's two possible statuses.

[] - They have to do that now so I'm not sure what your objection is. In

the scenario posited above, if harm can be proven (i.e. the pollutants in the

air entered my body *and* caused damage) then compensation must be made for

damage to my body. If not, there is no case. Farting might cause temporary

unpleasantness to the air I breathe, but one would be hard put to prove harm in

a court of law.

As it stands right now, companies and people are allowed to pollute, regardless

of whether it damages or not, as long as it doesn't go beyond what some court or

legislative body has decided *arbitrarily* as constituting the " public good. " I

don't see anything arbitrary about needing to prove harm to my person or

property in order to have a case, rather I see all kinds of arbitrariness in the

current system which allows a court to decide whether that harm is justified in

the name of the " public good. "

[Chris] - But then we are back to sqaure one. Any such standard is going to be

somewhat arbitrary, in contrast to Rothbard's attempt to make an eternal and

objective law rather than an arbitrary decree out of the situation.

[] - The only standard that would apply is whether you can prove harm or

not, short of that, there is no case. In other words it is not the pollutants

per se that is the issue, but what, if any, their negative impact upon someone

else's person or property.

Throw Away Your Vote!

If you must, vote for a third party

http://snipurl.com/a8od

" In The Abolition of Man, C.S.

observed that the modern schoolboy

is conditioned to take one side in

a controversy which he has not learned

to recognize as a controversy at all.

That is, he is trained to assume a

materialist and Darwinian outlook,

without realizing that materialism and

Darwinism have been subject to thoughtful

criticisms from their first appearance. "

Joe Sobran

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

>

> I don't know about " true " libertarians (seems like it's the

> same argument as for " true " Christians, no one agrees on who

> the " true " ones are!). But recently in my neck of the woods

> we had our electricity rates skyrocket because of so-called

> Libertarian " free market " strategies, when Enron was given

> free reign.

I've been trying to stay out of the these political arguments, but someone

has to address this: Pointing to the problems with a heavily-regulated

industry is not a valid indictment of the free market. If anything, it's an

argument in favor of the free market. By the way, you tried to pull the same

trick the last time we were discussing health care, and it wasn't any more

valid then, but I never got around to pointing out the fallacy.

> Have you HEARD the Enron tapes? They are truly

> what I would describe as " sicko " . The PUD (our local energy

> grid, who is now stuck with this high-rate contract) procured

> the tapes and aired them in court.

The " P " in " PUD " must stand for " private, " right? I thought it stood for

" public, " but it just wouldn't make sense to blame the free market for a

public utility district's decision to sign a long-term, high-rate contract.

> In theory, yeah, folks would care about the long term and

> would be more prosperous etc. etc. History has shown though,

> that humans are, in general, very poor at caring about the

> " long term " and adopt short term strategies that backfire.

History has shown that your ideas about what history has shown aren't always

accurate. I have, in the past, given you examples of corporations doing

things that won't pay off for years or decades to come (e.g., some of IBM's

research, timber farms, and some medical research), so I'd appreciate it if

you'd stop advancing this false generalization as an argument for entrusting

the state with more power.

Besides, your argument hinges on the assumption that government will for

some reason be better at long-term planning than corporations. This is

almost certainly backwards. Politicians just have to fool the typical voter

to get away with sacrificing long-term good for short-term personal gain,

but corporations have to fool investors who have billions of dollars on the

line and accountants who make a living looking for signs of bookkeeping

fraud. Neither is perfect, but I know whom I'd rather trust.

> If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

There are over 2,000 corporations in the United States with a market

capitalization of $1 billion or greater. That opponents of free markets have

for the last few years been pointing constantly at Enron, which wasn't even

operating in a free market, tells us a lot about those other 2,000 large

corporations. Enron is an exception, and that it was able to wreak such

havoc was arguably a result of government regulations.

In short, why should anyone take your arguments against free markets

seriously when you clearly don't know what a free market is?

[Guest guest]

> RE: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>

>So are chapter contacts on the web page? (yeah, I know, I can check myself)

Yes. http://www.westonaprice.org/localchapters/locallist.html Your local

chapter leader(s) should be able to help you locate pastured meats, raw

dairy, etc.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

Also, I am curious

>how many physicians are active in WAPF besides Tom Cowan, MD. I think

>it helps add credibility to the nutritional approach, for SAD folks

>set in a mainstrean mind set especially.

I don't know for sure, but I thought there were quite a few mainstream docs

at the 2003 conference on the lipid hypothesis. One of the most memorable

people I met there was Dr. Rubin Ong, a surgeon. His wife, a pyschologist

(or something like that), was also there. Dr. Ong has since become a chapter

leader and I think he or other members of his clinic do educational outreach

about WAPF/traditional nutrition.

There are also some practitioners with conventional credentials on the WAPF

practitioners' list like a D.O., a vet and some chiros, IIRC. I don't recall

having seen an MD. But I'm not holding my breath for them to sign on, nor do

I think very many will give up the drug pushing palliative paradigm for one

of true healing and preventative medicine.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

At 12:33 PM 2/22/05 -0500, you wrote:

>There are also some practitioners with conventional credentials on the WAPF

>practitioners' list like a D.O., a vet and some chiros, IIRC. I don't recall

>having seen an MD. But I'm not holding my breath for them to sign on, nor do

>I think very many will give up the drug pushing palliative paradigm for one

>of true healing and preventative medicine.

I know one MD who is at least a WAPF member - he's part of my food/dairy

group. He's now practicing more along the ND path, but still holds his MD

license.

MFJ

If I have to be a grownup, can I at least be telekinetic too?

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>What would happen to Big Agro if

>they lost the 30% of their income that is paid for by tax money?

Where on earth do you get that figure?

-

[Guest guest]

Irene-

>I think we also need to keep in mind that there might also be other

>factors. Price's natives also did not have to deal with the toxic assaults

>that modern people do. Toxins, pollution and pharmaceuticals might also

>play a role in who can and cannot tolerate foods.

Excellent point. Inasmuch as precise mixtures of gut flora become more and

more important the more carbs are in your diet, the modern environment, in

which everyone consumes antibiotics and other pollutants in water and food

and is exposed to all sorts of other pollutants via other vectors, probably

makes an extremely starchy diet much harder to pull off successfully.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Also, please explain the obvious counter-evidences to your hypothesis

>such as Dr. Mercola's private practice. It would appear he's doing

>everything

>in his power to prevent disease.

Economic theory generally (and not entirely accurately) holds that people

simply do what they believe is in their own economic best interest. This

is far from purely true, but Mercola's not exactly what you'd want in a

true, pure exception to the rule. First, the US population is stuffed full

of ailing and sickly people. There's really no way Mercola could possibly

change things such that he'd run out of prospective patients, and thus

income, any time in the foreseeable future. Second, he doesn't make money

just through patients via his practice. He sells books and other products,

does speaking tours, etc., and to put it somewhat crudely, he makes more

money by enduringly helping more people.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It's relevant because it's an example of a private organization that spends

>money for causes that are not monetarily profitable.

There's no question that some people act in ways that aren't in their

direct perceived self-interest some of the time, though often what seems

altruistic isn't. (Charitable donations are often made to much fanfare,

for example.) But there's no question that people often act in their

perceived short-term self-interest, so the fact that sometimes some people

don't is hardly a rebuttal to the statement that where there's an

opportunity for profit, people will take advantage of it.

-

[Guest guest]

Deanna-

>What WAPF work are you feeling mixed about, if you don't mind my

>curiosity?

Primarily their promotion of sugar and starch, and their modest dilution of

what I would consider the true definition of " grass-fed " .

-

[Guest guest]

--- Dr. Arden (might be mispelled). He writes for Acre's

and speaks at International Ag Labs seminars. He possibly supports

WAPF. He was reared on a dairy farm. I haven't had the chance to

google his adress or location. Heard him recently on tape speaking

at an International Ag labs seminar. BTW he is a practicing

physician. Dennis Kemnitz

In , " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@v...>

wrote:

>

> > Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

> >

>

> Also, I am curious

> >how many physicians are active in WAPF besides Tom Cowan, MD. I

think

> >it helps add credibility to the nutritional approach, for SAD

folks

> >set in a mainstrean mind set especially.

>

> I don't know for sure, but I thought there were quite a few

mainstream docs

> at the 2003 conference on the lipid hypothesis. One of the most

memorable

> people I met there was Dr. Rubin Ong, a surgeon. His wife, a

pyschologist

> (or something like that), was also there. Dr. Ong has since become

a chapter

> leader and I think he or other members of his clinic do

educational outreach

> about WAPF/traditional nutrition.

>

> There are also some practitioners with conventional credentials on

the WAPF

> practitioners' list like a D.O., a vet and some chiros, IIRC. I

don't recall

> having seen an MD. But I'm not holding my breath for them to sign

on, nor do

> I think very many will give up the drug pushing palliative

paradigm for one

> of true healing and preventative medicine.

>

>

>

>

> Suze Fisher

> Lapdog Design, Inc.

> Web Design & Development

> http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

> Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

> http://www.westonaprice.org

>

> ----------------------------

> " The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol

cause

> heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our

times. " --

> Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at

Vanderbilt

> University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

>

> The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

> <http://www.thincs.org>

> ----------------------------

[Guest guest]

> Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>

>

>--- Dr. Arden (might be mispelled). He writes for Acre's

>and speaks at International Ag Labs seminars. He possibly supports

>WAPF. He was reared on a dairy farm. I haven't had the chance to

>google his adress or location. Heard him recently on tape speaking

>at an International Ag labs seminar. BTW he is a practicing

>physician. Dennis Kemnitz

>

>

He's a D.O. in fact (and also has a Ph.D.). Dr. Andersen is also a

practicing ag consultant, if I'm not mistaken. I've got his book " Real

Medicine Real Health " but haven't read it yet. Don't know if he supports

WAPF, but he most certainly supports eating nutrient-dense food.

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

“The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times.” --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/05 10:15:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >What would happen to Big Agro if

> >they lost the 30% of their income that is paid for by tax money?

>

> Where on earth do you get that figure?

____

_New York Times_ editorial, but I just remembered that that is for Europe. I

think it was about 20% for US.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/05 10:38:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Economic theory generally (and not entirely accurately) holds that people

> simply do what they believe is in their own economic best interest. This

> is far from purely true,

____

I agree. This could be shown to be absurd by extreme counter-examples such

as ascetics who live in the wilderness, or the monastics of various religions.

People do what they perceive to be in their own interest based on their own

values. They will only do what is in their financial interest insofar as they

value money.

_____

> but Mercola's not exactly what you'd want in a

> true, pure exception to the rule. First, the US population is stuffed

full

> of ailing and sickly people. There's really no way Mercola could possibly

> change things such that he'd run out of prospective patients, and thus

> income, any time in the foreseeable future. Second, he doesn't make money

> just through patients via his practice. He sells books and other

products,

> does speaking tours, etc., and to put it somewhat crudely, he makes more

> money by enduringly helping more people.

_____

I'm not sure what you're getting at. My point wasn't about making money or

market dynamics or Mercola being a valiant exception to human nature. It was

that private individuals and groups can pursue long-term goals and those in the

health field can and do give people strategies to achieve true health and

keep them from needing the doctor.

That Mercola is able to do this and make it profitable might help such a

strategy spread to show how it is economically feasible for other doctor's to

pick

up, but it is beside my point, which was that the difference between doctors

that hook people on pills so they can endlessly pay them bills and doctors

that give people real health to avoid the doctor like a stealth does not

correspond to the difference between private and public. Private groups can and

do do

good and bad, beneficial to others and not, short-term and long-term, and

public groups can and do do just the same.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/22/05 10:41:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >It's relevant because it's an example of a private organization that spends

> >money for causes that are not monetarily profitable.

>

> There's no question that some people act in ways that aren't in their

> direct perceived self-interest some of the time, though often what seems

> altruistic isn't. (Charitable donations are often made to much fanfare,

> for example.) But there's no question that people often act in their

> perceived short-term self-interest, so the fact that sometimes some people

> don't is hardly a rebuttal to the statement that where there's an

> opportunity for profit, people will take advantage of it.

____

1) I did not comment on altruism, and I agree. I commented on monetary

profit. To donate to charity could be self-serving because it makes the donor

feel

good about her or himself, too. Yet, it is not monetarily profitable

(generally) to donate to charity.

2) People do often act in perceived short-term interest, but this usually

isn't profitable, so should be dissociated from your last statement. Profit

usually requires at least some degree of long-term consideration. For example,

even if one purely speculates on the stock market with saved income, one must

first spend some time (with exceptions for people born rich, of course)

accumulating that money by decreasing perceived short-term interest (that is,

consumption), and increasing savings.

3) I was not attempting to rebut the statement that where there is an

opportunity for profit, someone will take advantage of it. I was attempting to

rebut

Heidi's apparent association of " private " with short-term self-serving

thought and action as opposed to " public " with long-term everyone-else-serving

thought and action.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

-

>Besides, your argument hinges on the assumption that government will for

>some reason be better at long-term planning than corporations. This is

>almost certainly backwards. Politicians just have to fool the typical voter

>to get away with sacrificing long-term good for short-term personal gain,

>but corporations have to fool investors who have billions of dollars on the

>line and accountants who make a living looking for signs of bookkeeping

>fraud. Neither is perfect, but I know whom I'd rather trust.

Perhaps a little remedial logic is in order. First, WHOSE INTERESTS are we

debating? Your assertion is that corporations are better at long-term

planning than governments, but in whose interests? Second, to the degree

government is separated from the corporate sphere and beholden to the

public (a degree which has, admittedly, been radically diminished in these

days of revolving-door regulatory employment and vastly expensive

campaigns, and which can never be raised to anything remotely resembling an

ideal level) government is likely to be BETTER at long-term planning

because it has to be. Our government cannot afford to go out of business

(though that's basically the neocon agenda) but businesses go bust all the

time.

> > If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

>

>There are over 2,000 corporations in the United States with a market

>capitalization of $1 billion or greater. That opponents of free markets have

>for the last few years been pointing constantly at Enron, which wasn't even

>operating in a free market, tells us a lot about those other 2,000 large

>corporations. Enron is an exception, and that it was able to wreak such

>havoc was arguably a result of government regulations.

No, Enron is the most visible and well-known example, that's all. Surely

you're not suggesting that people harping on Enron proves that other large

corporations are good? Why, that would be tantamount to pointing to the

problems with a heavily-regulated industry as a valid indictment of the

free market!

-

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your responses, . You've articulated the opposing side much

better than I did.

Tom

Idol wrote:

> Chris-

>

>

>>It's relevant because it's an example of a private organization that spends

>>money for causes that are not monetarily profitable.

>

>

> There's no question that some people act in ways that aren't in their

> direct perceived self-interest some of the time, though often what seems

> altruistic isn't. (Charitable donations are often made to much fanfare,

> for example.) But there's no question that people often act in their

> perceived short-term self-interest, so the fact that sometimes some people

> don't is hardly a rebuttal to the statement that where there's an

> opportunity for profit, people will take advantage of it.

>

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

>

> <HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

> <B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

> <UL>

> <LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

> <LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

> </UL></FONT>

> <PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

> <B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

> </FONT></PRE>

> </BODY>

> </HTML>

>

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>_New York Times_ editorial, but I just remembered that that is for Europe. I

>think it was about 20% for US.

I'd still like to see some documentation on that. It just seems

ludicrously high.

-

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>My point wasn't about making money or

>market dynamics or Mercola being a valiant exception to human nature. It was

>that private individuals and groups can pursue long-term goals and those

>in the

>health field can and do give people strategies to achieve true health and

>keep them from needing the doctor.

Yes, they can. But that has no bearing on whether people also exploit

profit opportunities which don't involve long-term improvements in people's

health.

>That Mercola is able to do this and make it profitable might help such a

>strategy spread to show how it is economically feasible for other doctor's

>to pick

>up, but it is beside my point, which was that the difference between doctors

>that hook people on pills so they can endlessly pay them bills and doctors

>that give people real health to avoid the doctor like a stealth does not

>correspond to the difference between private and public. Private groups

>can and do do

>good and bad, beneficial to others and not, short-term and long-term, and

>public groups can and do do just the same.

True as far as it goes, but in order to put the larger picture together,

you have to look at the incentives. In the public domain, to the degree

it's truly public (and today's massively corrupt government is obviously

not even close) profit is substantially removed from the incentive

space. In the private domain, the sicker the populace the more

opportunities there are to profit from providing people with permanent

health improvements, but there will always be more total directly available

profit through " sickness care " as it's often called.

Our form of government has obviously proven eminently corruptible, and I

expect there's no such thing as a corruption-proof system, since systems

and the entities which make them up evolve, meaning corruption will always

evolve too.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/05 5:51:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >_New York Times_ editorial, but I just remembered that that is for Europe.

> I

> >think it was about 20% for US.

>

> I'd still like to see some documentation on that. It just seems

> ludicrously high.

____

Unfortunately I don't have any. The editorial was discussing NAFTA and

Mexican agriculture, how the Mexican government views small family farms as

" inefficient " and deserving of economic death, so they open up to more

" efficient " US

companies that outcompete them. It pointed out that Mexican farmers receive

about 2% of income from subsidies, Americans about 20%, and Europeans about

30%. Therefore, outcompetition couldn't be any guage of efficiency. It

advocated the Mexican government doing more to help its farmers, including

increasing

subsidies to match American levels.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/23/05 5:59:21 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> >My point wasn't about making money or

> >market dynamics or Mercola being a valiant exception to human nature. It

> was

> >that private individuals and groups can pursue long-term goals and those

> >in the

> >health field can and do give people strategies to achieve true health and

> >keep them from needing the doctor.

>

> Yes, they can. But that has no bearing on whether people also exploit

> profit opportunities which don't involve long-term improvements in

people's

> health.

____

Agreed, and for the second time, I don't think that was Heidi's point and

that was not the point I was rebutting. I was rebutting the point (at least,

the

point as I perceived it) that public and private health care practitioners

differed by virtue of their respective statuses in their approach toward

long-term improvements in people's health.

______

> >That Mercola is able to do this and make it profitable might help such a

> >strategy spread to show how it is economically feasible for other

doctor's

> >to pick

> >up, but it is beside my point, which was that the difference between

> doctors

> >that hook people on pills so they can endlessly pay them bills and doctors

> >that give people real health to avoid the doctor like a stealth does not

> >correspond to the difference between private and public. Private groups

> >can and do do

> >good and bad, beneficial to others and not, short-term and long-term, and

> >public groups can and do do just the same.

>

> True as far as it goes, but in order to put the larger picture together,

> you have to look at the incentives. In the public domain, to the degree

> it's truly public (and today's massively corrupt government is obviously

> not even close) profit is substantially removed from the incentive

> space. In the private domain, the sicker the populace the more

> opportunities there are to profit from providing people with permanent

> health improvements, but there will always be more total directly

available

> profit through " sickness care " as it's often called.

_____

Putting aside profit for the moment, since the incentive to balance the books

involves essentially the same incentives (namely to minimize costs and

increase revenue) and is more applicable in the public sector than is profit

itself,

I think there is a substantial incentive for either private or public

practitioners to offer " sickness care " over health care. But more importantly,

and

removal of profit incentive is going to be opposed by a very thick and enormous

bureacracy.

Worse, unless there is an abolition of all private individuals and groups,

private individuals and groups that have considerable power and financial stakes

in certain kinds of health care can much more easily affect public

bureacracies and will work to do so much more relentlessly than their smaller

counterparts.

No public institution exists in a vacuum. It consists of private individuals

and interacts with private individuals and groups necessarily, all of whom

have their own interests. Public institutions through their massive layers of

bureacracy will magnify the power of whatever private individuals manage to

hold sway over them.

Anyway, let's look at what happens in the real world. I don't see any

evidence that public hospitals are practicing health care over disease care any

more

than private hospitals, or that Medicare is more liberal towards health care

practicies versus disease care than are private insurances. Do you? I do,

however, see many private practitioners that are part of a growing movement of

health care rather than disease care practitioners, and they will become a

significant private force (arguably are already) long before they will ever be

able to influence the layers of public bureacracy to adopt their views.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/05 7:30:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies and overall

> agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap

grain

> and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is cheaper because

> of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

> agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

> revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

___

Could it be that 20% of their *costs* are paid for by subsidies?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/24/05 7:30:32 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies and overall

> agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap

grain

> and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is cheaper because

> of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

> agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

> revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

___

Oh, and who is the " they " to whom you are referring? Farms or junk food

companies?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>It pointed out that Mexican farmers receive

>about 2% of income from subsidies, Americans about 20%, and Europeans about

>30%.

OK, but there's a humungaloid difference between farm subsidies and overall

agribusiness subsidies. Among other things, General Foods buys cheap grain

and turns it into high-margin products. Yes, the grain is cheaper because

of farm subsidies (and IIRC, it was Nixon who really screwed up our

agricultural system's finances) but they're not getting 20% of their

revenue in the form of tax dollars. That's a huge error.

-