Re: money and health (was Nutrition 101)

[Guest guest]

-

>The difference, and the reason that

>strong government involvement in these areas aggravates the problem, is

>that the government wields such immense power and authority that it is

>able to cause distortions far greater than any private source could

>manage.

Government in toto is larger than any given corporation, but in most

spheres it's definitely not more powerful, and the actual relevant parts of

government are not nearly as big as the whole heterogeneous mess considered

in its entirety. The vast majority of the military budget, for example,

has absolutely no involvement with or effect on nutrition policy

whatsoever. You have to look at the actual governmental organizations that

are directly involved, like the FDA. Regardless of the fact that they're

part of the government, they're more like individual business units, and

the fact is that they're often under-funded, over-stressed and under

attack, both overtly and via subversion and corruption. Furthermore,

government is bureaucratic and internally at odds with itself.

>People blame the grain industry for the widespread belief that

>low-fat diets are healthful, and the oil industry for the widespread

>belief that vegetable oils are healthful, but why hasn't the beef

>industry been able to do the same?

Simple. The beef production industry isn't as consolidated, and more to

the point, doesn't have nearly as high of a profit margin. There was a

time when beef producers could've fought back, but they weren't organized

(probably in part because they weren't so consolidated, but also because

they weren't culturally accustomed to that kind of fight in the first

place) and they missed their opportunity. Also, a lot of beef production

is fairly well intertwined with a lot of grain and vegetable oil

production, and I expect the fact that mass beef producers wouldn't want

their production methods examined too closely played a role too. But

fundamentally it comes down to initiative and available capital; the grain

and vegetable oil industries seized the initiative and had far more profits

to spend on the cause -- and those profits were under the control of fewer

(far fewer?) people, so the war could be directed much more coherently.

Again, though it's not useful for nutritional information, I highly

recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It explains a lot of the history and

current practice of manufacturing scientific " consensus " and swinging

public opinion.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/10/04 2:56:38 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Of course not. You don't need every element in a mechanism to be part of

> some kind of conspiracy for a harmful system to be effective.

I agree. I would say the same for your queries on how Big Agro can be

against government regulation, while gov't regulation simultaneously supporting

the

conglomeration of agricultural industry.

>

> >The

> >conference was explicitly addressing this issue, and the proposal was

> >proposed as a way

> >to increase sales, by increasing the flavor of the fries.

>

> Then you've just destroyed your own point. They didn't suggest switching

> to tallow to save money by reducing costs, but to increase profits by

> increasing sales volume despite an increase in costs.

How is that destroying my own point? I don't recall making any other point

except exactly that.

Vegetable oil and

> PHO were initially highly desirable to industry because they're

> cheaper. Industry compensated for their inferior taste by touting supposed

> health benefits (and by pouring money into researching artificial flavors,

> texture additives, etc.)

Sure. No argument. I was just giving an example of how a corporation

seeking its self-interest could replace bad foods with good foods, rather than

only

the reverse.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I would say the same for your queries on how Big Agro can be

>against government regulation, while gov't regulation simultaneously

>supporting the

>conglomeration of agricultural industry.

I don't follow. If Big Agro is a small collection of relatively rational

actors, why would it oppose government at all if government is the ultimate

tool for big business and nothing else? It's not like there's someone out

there spending lots of money convincing people that government is wonderful

(whereas there are people and companies spending boatloads of money

convincing people that government is the root of all evil).

>How is that destroying my own point? I don't recall making any other point

>except exactly that.

You said they were going to switch to tallow to save money because tallow

was cheaper, therefore suggesting that they didn't initially switch to PHO

to save money -- how could they have if tallow is cheaper? The fact that

they're considering switching to a more expensive ingredient in the hopes

of making money merely indicates that there are hidden costs to PHO which

they hadn't considered, such as flavor and resulting sales. Well,

duh! But that doesn't mean they didn't expect to reap massive savings at

least for a good long while by making the initial switch, and it also

doesn't mean that switching back to tallow would successfully boost sales

enough to reverse the slide, since the fries will be just as fatty as ever

(just made with a better fat), and the current public consciousness is

largely anti-fat and somewhat anti-carb in some circles, meaning fries lose

on both sides of the debate.

>I was just giving an example of how a corporation

>seeking its self-interest could replace bad foods with good foods, rather

>than only

>the reverse.

I've never suggested that anything in the world is an absolute (except of

course that everyone will always be mistaken about something), only that

the pressure will always be in the direction of

cheaper-in-the-short-term-and-therefore-more-harmful. Nor, as I said, do

we have any guarantees that a switch to tallow would improve Mcs'

sales -- nor yet do we even have any real reason to believe they'll

actually make the switch, since it was only proposed by two board members.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/11/04 2:17:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> I don't follow. If Big Agro is a small collection of relatively rational

> actors, why would it oppose government at all if government is the ultimate

> tool for big business and nothing else?

I didn't say government was nothing but a tool for business, ever.

Government is government, it's own class of leeches.

Does Big Agro oppose the US government providing a full 20% of its income?

It's not like there's someone out

> there spending lots of money convincing people that government is wonderful

>

> (whereas there are people and companies spending boatloads of money

> convincing people that government is the root of all evil).

That's kind of simplistic. Obviously Big Agro would want to oppose some

actions of government that it would find limiting, and maximize other actions of

government, such as providing a fifth of its income. (And that's revenue, not

profit. I'm not sure what the profit margin is on agrobusiness, but I

wouldn't be surprised if US gov't was providing 100% of its profits!)

> >How is that destroying my own point? I don't recall making any other

> point

> >except exactly that.

>

> You said they were going to switch to tallow to save money because tallow

> was cheaper, therefore suggesting that they didn't initially switch to PHO

> to save money -- how could they have if tallow is cheaper?

I never, never said that. If I did, I was out of my mind at the time I wrote

it and can't recall writing it. Quote me if you want, and I'll believe it.

The fact that

> they're considering switching to a more expensive ingredient in the hopes

> of making money merely indicates that there are hidden costs to PHO which

> they hadn't considered, such as flavor and resulting sales.

I agree fully.

Well, > duh! But that doesn't mean they didn't expect to reap massive

> savings at

> least for a good long while by making the initial switch, and it also

> doesn't mean that switching back to tallow would successfully boost sales

> enough to reverse the slide, since the fries will be just as fatty as ever

> (just made with a better fat), and the current public consciousness is

> largely anti-fat and somewhat anti-carb in some circles, meaning fries lose

> on both sides of the debate.

Who knows? It's only been, what, 20 years since they switched? They tried

to gyp consumers and over time its failing.

>

> >I was just giving an example of how a corporation

> >seeking its self-interest could replace bad foods with good foods, rather

> >than only

> >the reverse.

>

> I've never suggested that anything in the world is an absolute (except of

> course that everyone will always be mistaken about something), only that

> the pressure will always be in the direction of

> cheaper-in-the-short-term-and-therefore-more-harmful. Nor, as I said, do

> we have any guarantees that a switch to tallow would improve Mcs'

> sales -- nor yet do we even have any real reason to believe they'll

> actually make the switch, since it was only proposed by two board members.

Agreed.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/12/04 2:53:17 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

>

> >Government is government, it's own class of leeches.

>

> And that, particularly because of its absoluteness, strikes me as a

> position of faith, not logic, fact and observation.

That's fine-- it's a relatively inflammatory and intentionally controversial

statement that admittedly was neither supported by rational dialectic nor the

crux of my argument. It's also a metaphorical characterization, that can't

really be argued for or against rationally, unless we could agree, as a premise,

on the definition of " leech. "

>

> >I never, never said that. If I did, I was out of my mind at the time I

> wrote

> >it and can't recall writing it. Quote me if you want, and I'll believe it.

>

> Hmm, you're right. I checked back and it was my misunderstanding. You

> said two board members suggested the switch to tallow to increase profits,

> not to save money. My apologies.

No prob. I similarly misunderstood you in the other thread about banning

smoking, etc, and apologize similarly.

>

> >Who knows? It's only been, what, 20 years since they switched? They tried

> >to gyp consumers and over time its failing.

>

> No, that's another unwarranted assumption. Yes, they tried to gyp

> consumers, but you're making a hidden assumption: that if they'd stayed

> with beef tallow they'd have done better in the past and that they'll do

> better in the future if they switch back. The CSPI and the media and the

> medical establishment would've given them far more grief if they'd stayed

> with beef tallow, so there's good reason to guess that sales of fries

> would've dropped a lot earlier and probably a lot more if they hadn't made

> the switch. Also, for at least a large portion of those 20 years (or

> however long it's been) they reaped substantially increased profits due to

> switching to a much cheaper ingredient.

No argument.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Government is government, it's own class of leeches.

And that, particularly because of its absoluteness, strikes me as a

position of faith, not logic, fact and observation.

>I never, never said that. If I did, I was out of my mind at the time I wrote

>it and can't recall writing it. Quote me if you want, and I'll believe it.

Hmm, you're right. I checked back and it was my misunderstanding. You

said two board members suggested the switch to tallow to increase profits,

not to save money. My apologies.

>Who knows? It's only been, what, 20 years since they switched? They tried

>to gyp consumers and over time its failing.

No, that's another unwarranted assumption. Yes, they tried to gyp

consumers, but you're making a hidden assumption: that if they'd stayed

with beef tallow they'd have done better in the past and that they'll do

better in the future if they switch back. The CSPI and the media and the

medical establishment would've given them far more grief if they'd stayed

with beef tallow, so there's good reason to guess that sales of fries

would've dropped a lot earlier and probably a lot more if they hadn't made

the switch. Also, for at least a large portion of those 20 years (or

however long it's been) they reaped substantially increased profits due to

switching to a much cheaper ingredient.

And finally, as I said before, there's no reason to assume that switching

back would substantially increase sales. Yes, the fries would taste

better, but the two leading nutritional camps at the moment are anti-fat

and anti-carb, and neither one likes fries. Since low-carb eating has hit

the bottom lines of other carb foods like bread, why assume the same isn't

happening with fries -- at the same time as the anti-fat people are having

an effect? Isn't Subway doing gangbuster business offering all its

very-low-fat crap food? Can't we guess they've cut into Mcs'

business? In fact, I've read that it would be no guess at all, but who

knows, I didn't examine the data or conclusions. It seems to me that

Mcs would likely do best to offer two new classes of fast foods:

low-fat and low-carb. I expect both would be noxious crap, but as the

success of fake foods in both domains proves, there'd be a large potential

market.

-

[Guest guest]

-- In , Idol wrote:

>Again, though it's not useful for nutritional information,

>I highly recommend _Trust Us, We're Experts_. It explains

>a lot of the history and current practice of manufacturing

>scientific " consensus " and swinging public opinion.

About this book . . . I'd better get busy and read it, myself. In

spite of not having read it yet, however, I am somewhat familiar

with it. Check out the picture on the cover, at the URL:

http://www.prwatch.org/books/experts.html

I'll be buying in order to own it, not just borrowing it from the

library. Check it out.

-- P.F. Jennings

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 14:54:10 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>You anti-government types are actually uptopians, even though I think many

>of you don't realize it, and utopian dreams are always doomed to

>failure.

>

>

>

>-

>

A standard charge, one that many people hold to, but it has no real

foundation. In fact I think the shoe fits on the other foot, as

evidenced by the excerpt below.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

While it is vital for the libertarian to hold his ultimate and " extreme " ideal

aloft, this does

not, contrary to Hayek, make him a " utopian. " The true utopian is one

who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human

beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not

work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The

utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in

operation. The utopian goal of the left: communism, the abolition of

specialization and the adoption of uniformity, could not work even if

everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because

it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the

uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abilities and

interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production

of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to

rapid starvation and extinction.

In short, the term " utopian " in popular parlance confuses two kinds of obstacles

in the

path of a program radically different from the status quo. One is that

it violates the nature of man and of the world and therefore could not

work once it was put into effect. This is the utopianism of communism.

The second is the difficulty in convincing enough people that the

program should be adopted. The former is a bad theory because it

violates the nature of man; the latter is simply a problem of human will,

of convincing enough people of the rightness of the doctrine. " Utopian "

in its common pejorative sense applies only to the former. In the

deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not utopian but

eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really

consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does

not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to

give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And

in doing so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity

and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently " practical " result

generally scorned by true utopians as evil " materialism. "

The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully

the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the

seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in " limited

government " who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative

keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be

severely limited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails

against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of

federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper

lesson from that degeneration. The idea of a strictly limited

constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the

most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why

should a similar experiment fare any better now? No, it is the

conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the

decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then

says, " Limit yourself " ; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.

Murray Rothbard

For a New Liberty - Chapter 15

the complete section can be found at

http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty14.asp

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 4:59:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> There was a

> situtation just south of me a few years back where Dr.

> was raided by the FDA with the help of the local police. And that is not

> an unsual story. We could probably start a separate board with horror

> stories of people and their involvement with the law and food.

During the raw milk prohibition there were raids by the LAPD on health food

stores too.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:21:34 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>>the problem is that it is the tool with a

>>difference. Unlike any other institution in our society, it carries

>>the power of the gun behind it.

>

>You're making this argument either as a moral position or a practical

>observation.

,

Actually I was simply pointing out the intrinsic nature of civil

government, what distinguishes it from every other institution in

society, without exception. Otherwise it is just a voluntary

organization and we wouldn't be having this debate on NN.

That was the purpose of the article I posted in defense of that

proposition.

But since you brought it up I might as well comment on it. There are two

problems with *forcible* government:

1. It is immoral

2. It doesn't work

Since I am concerned with brevity in these posts (my own - not the post

itself) I will simply quote from others and provide a link if someone

wants to check it out further.

Point 1 - It is immoral:

Forcible Government is Morally Wrong (http://tinyurl.com/3cw36)

" For traditional, forcible government to accomplish anything, it first

must tax.

This requires stealing, at gunpoint, money (property) from everyone

under its rule, even the people who don’t want done what the government

is going to do. This is theft. There is no more fitting term for it.

Government gets away with this, first because it has more guns than any

individual it’s taxing; and second because the population has usually

been convinced, lately through years of government schooling, that such

stealing is necessary for civilization.

Hand-wringing philosophers are invited to write me to disagree, but I hold that

it’s self-evident that there is no good act that can be performed that

requires first the commission of an evil act. As an example, " killing

the few to save the many " has never in human history found a practical

application outside war, which always involves governments imposing

their wishes on each other. There is no natural emergency or shortage of

resources that requires first committing evil in order to bring about a

good. Bringing about a good never allows beginning with an evil. "

Point 2: It doesn't work:

Government Never Works

" There has been found no domain of activity in which government action

is as effective

or efficient as solutions provided by entrepreneurs in the market. This

extends obviously to schooling and medical care; even the general public

knows this. It is less obvious (except to students of history) that this

applies also to roads, justice, and military defense. For empirical

evidence of these claims, search for the names I listed earlier. "

I list them here:

Lew Rockwell

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466021/lewrockwell/

Ruwart (her book is also online)

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0963233661/lewrockwell/

Hans-Hermann Hoppe

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0945466374/lewrockwell;/

Bruce Benson

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0936488301/lewrockwell/

and

" There are two reasons government never works in practice: First, 100%

of government

employees operate under distorted incentives. No government employees

face only the incentive to serve their customers, while 100% of

entrepreneurs do.

The second reason government never works is its creation of laws that are

applied

by force to an entire population. First, government laws can, almost

always do, have unintended consequences: Minimum wage laws always result

in higher unemployment and crime; " equal employment opportunity " laws

always result in people being hired based on the color of their skin

more than the content of their character; the Americans with

Disabilities Act has resulted in workplace mass murders, usually at US

Post Offices; and so on.

Second, government laws are always used to advantage by those who have

an incentive to do wrong. As one example, polluters are allowed to

pollute to certain levels by the EPA. Thus, polluters have no legal

responsibility to landowners whose wildlife they’ve killed, as long as

the polluters can prove they’re within legal guidelines. If people had

true property rights, people could seek restitution based on damage done,

not based on whether laws were obeyed. Under present circumstances,

lawsuits are won and lost only on whether laws were obeyed; damage done

is irrelevant. As another example, Enron used accounting and reporting

laws to legally hide losses on the balance sheets of other companies in

which they had part ownership. Enron also used campaign contributions to

buy the favor, and silence, of US legislators. It was the stock market

that first broke the news that Enron had problems.

Third, government laws invariably create losers by creating win/lose scenarios

when the unfettered market creates win/win scenarios. All government

laws select winners and losers, except criminal laws, which make

everyone a loser. Under forcible government, criminals usually come out

of the system worse off than when they entered, and victims are forced

at gunpoint to pay for the criminals’ upkeep in the meantime; at the

same time, victims have little claim to restitution. I mentioned

environmental laws, which make partial winners of polluters and complete

losers of everyone else. Name the law of your choosing, and you can

identify the loser immediately. "

I will respond to the remainder of your post in separate message.

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:21:34 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

If it's even partially a practical observation, though, the

>force the government has at its disposal is fairly insignificant in most

>cases as far as promulgating bad nutrition goes.

Are you kidding me? The government routinely applies its enforcement

powers with the use of a gun, sometimes literally. There was a

situtation just south of me a few years back where Dr.

was raided by the FDA with the help of the local police. And that is not

an unsual story. We could probably start a separate board with horror

stories of people and their involvement with the law and food.

Compulsory government schooling promulgates gov't nutritional doctrine

as a matter of course.

Gov't regulations regarding advertising in various industries require

that producers participate whether they agree with the message or not.

Where do you think the money comes from for those ubiquitous bulletin

boards

telling us that milk is good food?

In the state of WA, try selling non USDA certified eggs at something

other than a farmers market. You will be out of business in a hurry,

courtesy of the enforcement power of the state.

Now this doesn't mean that they enforce all things everywhere at all

times, but the idea that the bully power of the state is insignificant

when it comes to bad nutrition is a HUGE stretch.

Look at the actual

>history of the matter, and observe the incredible power of all the tools in

>the liars' toolbox. While it has no real nutritional focus or wisdom,

>_Trust Us, We're Experts_ is otherwise a superb and very revealing look at

>how the levers of deception are pulled in the modern era. Yes, government

>has been part of the problem, but an obsessive, even fetishistic, focus on

>government to the exclusion of the myriad other factors involved, not to

>mention the fundamental nature of the mechanism, is short-sighted and

>doomed to failure.

You can *say* that but of course that is the very point in question. The

uniqueness of the state as opposed to anything else was my original

rebuttal to your answer to Joe's post. I think the article I posted

answers your charge in the last paragraph quite well. I won't post it

again but here is the link.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1408

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 10 Jan 2004 11:30:47 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>The thing we have a hard to grasping is how much

>we are tied to GROUPS. Corporations work to

>create a " corporate culture " because they know that

>the culture in a building highly influences how each

>individual works. Each person thinks of themselves

>as an individual, but humans are social creatures and

>it is very, very difficult for most people to work

>against the group.

>

>For instance, I'd bet that and , who really

>do act as individuals in most things, would have a difficult

>time lounging around in a dress or carrying a purse. Unless

>they are part of the " gay " group, in which case they might

>think it was fun, and even dress up with a couple of friends

>and go shopping.

Heidi,

I'm guessing you are making this statement because you have this

perception that libertarians are these gungho rugged individualistic

types who are totally concerned for themselves and no one else. IIRC, I

think you said as much in the OT Libertarian thread awhile ago.

I think many people probably share your view, and I think it is

important to point out that there is no one libertarian blueprint of

society. Abolishing *civil* government or greatly limiting it means just

that, abolishing civil gov't or greatly limiting it.

Such a view of gov't has no bearing whatsoever on whether we are

dominated by or a part of a group or groups, or whether we choose to be

a lone ranger out in rural " who knows where, " USA.

There is nothing inherent in libertarian thinking that precludes a focus

on groups if one so chooses. None whatsoever.

I myself am a part of three groups, my family, Orthodoxy, and my

business associates, all of which are assets and have had and are

continuing to have a significant impact in my life.

>

>This list is a group, and by participating, we are all influencing

>each other and reinforcing the rightness of our belief system.

>Many of us would have a difficult time " doing " NT without the

>influence of the group. I know I would!

This is as true of libertarians as any other group. There are even

libertarian lists, LOL!

>

>Now, the average person in the US gets their " culture " from

>TV, radio, and from their workplace, and somewhat from their

>extended family. I saw one person in particular go from being

>highly liberal to arch conservative because she decided to

>joing the " Rush Limbaugh " group -- she is generally an

>independent, strong woman, but that's her " group " now.

You and Rush Limbaugh aren't as far apart in your thinking as you might

believe. In fact in terms of your approach to the state you and he are

spot on.

>

>When libertarians talk about " free choice " they are correct

>in a sense ... each individual has choice. But it ignores

>how incredibly powerful the pull of the group is.

No it doesn't. In fact it is a system of thought that takes into account

both dynamics.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

-

>Actually I was simply pointing out the intrinsic nature of civil

>government, what distinguishes it from every other institution in

>society, without exception.

Government is hardly the only institution in the history of human society

to rely on compulsion, but think as you wish. I see no point in arguing

with someone who believes that his particular favorite theoretical

political system is non-utopian just because someone asserts that it's

based on actual human nature. Human nature is amenable to scientific

study. Therefore, assertions of accordance can be tested and justified on

the basis of fact and logic, if not now then when the science has advanced

sufficiently, which ought to be in the near future given that a lot of

incorrect dogmas are crumbling in the face of increasing evidence and

testing, not to mention productive inter-disciplinary convergence (probably

facilitated if not all but caused by modern means of communication) . I

also see no point in arguing with someone who is a biblical literalist, and

who believes that all goals, means and values, not to mention truths, must

be derived from (and/or found within?) the bible. Argument on authority is

not valid, and when someone has an unshakeable belief in a particular

authority, there's simply no point in debate.

I don't mean to suggest I'm never going to talk to you again, just that I

see no point getting into any serious political conversation. As a largely

hypothetical example, consider smoking. There may well be truth to your

assertion that smoking tobacco is not inevitably (IOW by its very nature)

harmful or as harmful as it generally is today, and that the present harm

is due to either changes in the way tobacco products are created (including

such factors as declining soil fertility, curing methods, chemical

additives) or to modern deficiencies in people's health (such as an

increase in PUFA consumption, resulting in more damage-prone physiology) --

or more likely to some combination of the two fundamental reasons. If you

were to make your argument on a scientific basis and if I had any interest

in the subject I might participate, but if you were to say something to the

effect of " The bible says smoking is cool, therefore all modern science is

wrong " , well, you play in your sandbox and I'll play in mine. (Aside from

that, I have little interest in that particular subject, which is why I

chose it; regardless of whether some theoretical tobacco product could be

benign for healthy people, it's vanishingly unlikely that my lungs and

system would be able to tolerate even the most benign product any time in

the near future, if ever, and even if I'm wrong and " ideal " tobacco

products would be perfectly cool, there's no way that the smokers who are

currently impairing my health with their smoke to the degree I can't avoid

it are going to switch to ideal or even dramatically improved products in

numbers sufficient to make any difference whatsoever.)

-

[Guest guest]

-

An example of why I won't continue discussing these things with you. I've

pointed out a number of examples of non-governmental forces which have

acted to the detriment of our health, and explained how some of them

work. I've also recommended a book which goes into abundant detail on both

mechanisms and examples. Your response is to dismiss those examples and

mechanisms out of hand merely because they're not government. That's

argument on assertion (and, ultimately, on authority), and yet you accuse

me of mere assertion.

> > Look at the actual

> >history of the matter, and observe the incredible power of all the tools in

> >the liars' toolbox. While it has no real nutritional focus or wisdom,

> >_Trust Us, We're Experts_ is otherwise a superb and very revealing look at

> >how the levers of deception are pulled in the modern era. Yes, government

> >has been part of the problem, but an obsessive, even fetishistic, focus on

> >government to the exclusion of the myriad other factors involved, not to

> >mention the fundamental nature of the mechanism, is short-sighted and

> >doomed to failure.

>

>You can *say* that but of course that is the very point in question. The

>uniqueness of the state as opposed to anything else was my original

>rebuttal to your answer to Joe's post.

-

[Guest guest]

>I think many people probably share your view, and I think it is

>important to point out that there is no one libertarian blueprint of

>society. Abolishing *civil* government or greatly limiting it means just

>that, abolishing civil gov't or greatly limiting it.

Given the range of " libertarian " viewpoints espoused so far,

yeah. I mentioned the " group " thing, I believe, in response

to the " cowboy " attitude, esp. in regards to not wanting to

help pay for the upkeep of women with children.

Since you libertarian types seem to be all over the place

in terms of other beliefs, and since there are no examples

of successful libertarian societies, I'm trying to stay out of

the debate. In your case, the " Orthodoxy " part of your

belief might take the place of the " civil government " part

(churches ARE a form of government, for the members).

Until someone *does* a libertarian society, it's mainly

a theory. So far the historical examples of " no civil

government " are power voids, which are eventually

filled by usually far less desirable elements.

I myself am a part of three groups, my family, Orthodoxy, and my

>business associates, all of which are assets and have had and are

>continuing to have a significant impact in my life.

Right, and if we do away with civil gov't, those will take

>the place of it -- which SOUNDS nice, but in the case

>of say, Afghanistan, the lack of gov't means the tribes

>take over, with all their old tribal disputes. Or in Iraq,

>the church will take over, most likely, which is not great

>for women's rights. Europe was ruled by the church, more

>or less, for a long time, and it wasn't *better* than

>our current gov't.

> You and Rush Limbaugh aren't as far apart in your thinking as you might

>believe. In fact in terms of your approach to the state you and he are

>spot on.

Ack! That is cruel. I have not listened to the guy for eons, but

every quote I've heard from him makes my skin crawl. And

I'm not exactly a flag-waving patriot ... I like the gov't to

keep the corporations in line, esp. on environmental issues,

and he doesn't strike me as an environmentalist.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/19/04 10:16:53 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> First, I am not a biblical " literalist. " I'm not even sure you know what

> biblical literalism is, because if you did you wouldn't be leveling such

> a charge at me.

,

Are you familiar with Archbishop Lazar Puhalo? He's as traditionalist as they

come, and is a strong opponent of biblical literalism and fundamentalism.

His website is www.orthodoxcanada.org, and has a book worth reading, _The

Evidence of Things Not Seen: Orthodox Christianity and Modern Physics_

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/20/04 12:51:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Were pirates " government " ? Are muggers " government " ? Are churches

> " government " ? If you define government as " anything that uses compulsion " ,

> then you're right. Otherwise, you're wrong

Government isn't unique in the application of force; it is unique in

establishing a _monopoly_ on force. And notice that in order to attempt to

disprove

the point, you've equated government with muggers and pirates. Are you making

our point or yours?

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 16:24:42 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>>Actually I was simply pointing out the intrinsic nature of civil

>>government, what distinguishes it from every other institution in

>>society, without exception.

>

>Government is hardly the only institution in the history of human society

>to rely on compulsion, but think as you wish.

I will until proven otherwise. The fact remains that no other

institution in our society has a legal monopoly on force, and you

haven't offered one iota of evidence to the contrary, either now or

historically.

And if you can't see how that makes civil government unique, then you

are right, we really don't have a basis for discussion, at least not a

rational one. You may think that uniqueness is okay, but to deny it is

to simply put blinders on.

I see no point in arguing

>with someone who believes that his particular favorite theoretical

>political system is non-utopian just because someone asserts that it's

>based on actual human nature.

You are not serious are you? Apparently you are, lol! You think that the

basis of denying that libertarianism is utopian is based on a mere

assertion? That is a good one. But it unfortunately is not a good

argument and not consonant with the facts. But Murray Rothbard has a

whole book (which I linked to and drew the excerpt from) and a rather

large body of work as well which is based on something more than mere

assertions.

Now you may disagree with the indutibles that inform his work (just as

I'm sure he would disagree with yours - of course you may not think you

have any indutibles informing your worldview that are empirically

impossible to prove but that is another topic altogether) but to to

simply say it is an assertion is ludicrous. That is easy to rectify

however, for a good chunk of his work is online at the Mises Scholar

Page:

http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N

Human nature is amenable to scientific

>study. Therefore, assertions of accordance can be tested and justified on

>the basis of fact and logic, if not now then when the science has advanced

>sufficiently, which ought to be in the near future

LOL! This is funny given your comments below about authority and

biblical literalism (whatever the heck that means).

But your comment, " assertions of accordance can be tested and justified

on the basis of fact and logic, if not now then when the science has

advanced " is rather enlightening.

If that phrase isn't a statement of faith ( " if not now then when science

has... " ) I don't know what is. It looks innocent enough but it is most

definitely a statement of faith. Just another way of saying " we don't

have the tools now but we will someday! " Really? On whose authority do

you say such a thing?

Interesting indeed.

given that a lot of

>incorrect dogmas are crumbling in the face of increasing evidence and

>testing, not to mention productive inter-disciplinary convergence (probably

>facilitated if not all but caused by modern means of communication) . I

>also see no point in arguing with someone who is a biblical literalist, and

>who believes that all goals, means and values, not to mention truths, must

>be derived from (and/or found within?) the bible.

You seem to be laboring under some misconceptions.

First, I am not a biblical " literalist. " I'm not even sure you know what

biblical literalism is, because if you did you wouldn't be leveling such

a charge at me.

Second, even those who make up a very small subset of Protestant

Christianity known as fundamentalists/independents (and some

evangelicals), who willingly call themselves " literalists " when it comes

to the Scripture, are themselves not " literalists " in the way that term

is normally understood.

They are such when it suits their theology, and remarkably non-literal

when it does not. Not unlike many health folks, who draw from sources

they otherwise decry when it suits their purposes.

At any rate, Orthodox Christianity is about as far away from biblical

literalism as you can get within the framework of historic Christianity,

just ask any so called " biblical " literalist, LOL!

And your last statement is simply false. I have nowhere said on this

list that " all goals, means and values, not to mention truths, must

be derived from (and/or found within?) the bible. "

Not only have I not said that, I don't believe such.

Argument on authority is

>not valid, and when someone has an unshakeable belief in a particular

>authority, there's simply no point in debate.

This is funny too, especially as I read your interactions with some of

the other libertarian posts on the list. I imagine this same comment

could be thrown back in your direction and would fit quite well.

Suffice it to say we all argue from *some* authority, whether we are

explicitly aware of such or not. That authority might be reason, science,

logic, Buddha, whathaveyou. It might just be the authority of your own

mind, which you think is more than capable of determining what is

authoritative and what isn't. Nonetheless, it is a metaphysical

impossibility to act/think otherwise.

The logical fallacy of the appeal to authority has no meaning in this

context, and you are simply using it out of hand.

Further we all have a set of indutibles, a worldview if you will, by

which we judge and understand facts and the world around us. These

indutibles are *not* subject to empirical measurement and are therefore

pre-theorectical, thus *religious* in nature.

>

>I don't mean to suggest I'm never going to talk to you again, just that I

>see no point getting into any serious political conversation.

Then I imagine you will be ignoring my posts. I'm sure others do as well.

As a largely

>hypothetical example, consider smoking. There may well be truth to your

>assertion that smoking tobacco is not inevitably (IOW by its very nature)

>harmful or as harmful as it generally is today, and that the present harm

>is due to either changes in the way tobacco products are created (including

>such factors as declining soil fertility, curing methods, chemical

>additives) or to modern deficiencies in people's health (such as an

>increase in PUFA consumption, resulting in more damage-prone physiology) --

>or more likely to some combination of the two fundamental reasons. If you

>were to make your argument on a scientific basis and if I had any interest

>in the subject I might participate, but if you were to say something to the

>effect of " The bible says smoking is cool, therefore all modern science is

>wrong " , well, you play in your sandbox and I'll play in mine.

You know what? You have built a big huge bogeyman here. I'm not sure

where you are coming from with all this. Since when did I or anyone on

this list ever suggest that smoking was the 11th commandment or even

mention the Bible in relation to smoking?

When I posted a link to the online book, In Defense of Smokers,

http://www.lcolby.com/, I was making an argument, and it was based on

science. So your above example is a fallacious use of a hypothetical,

since the reality was clearly otherwise, and your hypothetical was

clearly designed to create a scenario where my approach would be

considered irrational. Nothing of the type has occurred on this list,

and I reject such nonsense.

Seems to me that not only are you playing in your own sandbox, but you

are the only one in a sandbox.

(Aside from

>that, I have little interest in that particular subject, which is why I

>chose it; regardless of whether some theoretical tobacco product could be

>benign for healthy people, it's vanishingly unlikely that my lungs and

>system would be able to tolerate even the most benign product any time in

>the near future, if ever, and even if I'm wrong and " ideal " tobacco

>products would be perfectly cool, there's no way that the smokers who are

>currently impairing my health with their smoke to the degree I can't avoid

>it are going to switch to ideal or even dramatically improved products in

>numbers sufficient to make any difference whatsoever.)

Like I said, I don't know where this rant came from. One of my points

about smoking is that there are good smokes and bad

smokes available at this very moment, and the science behind the

" smoking is bad mantra " is as bad as the science behind the " cholesterol

is bad mantra. "

Make of it what you will.

Nevertheless, my original points stand:

1. Government is unique from the rest of society in its legal monopoly

over the use of force.

2. Traditional forcible gov't is immoral because it is based on taxation,

which is an act of involuntarily separating people from their property,

which is theft, pure and simple

If you would care to present *evidence* to the contrary, ie. that there

are other institutions in our society (either now or historically) which

have the same uniqueness as the state, and that taking someone's

property *against their will* is not theft, I'm sure there are many who

would love to read it.

Superhero Bush Rescues Marriage

http://tinyurl.com/yvrn6

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> In a message dated 1/19/04 4:59:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> slethnobotanist@... writes:

> > There was a

> > situtation just south of me a few years back where Dr.

> > was raided by the FDA with the help of the local police. And that is

> not

> > an unsual story. We could probably start a separate board with horror

> > stories of people and their involvement with the law and food.

>

> During the raw milk prohibition there were raids by the LAPD on health

> food stores too.

You mean the LAPD and agents of Big Dairy, right? And PR-men from Monsanto?

Because obviously a squad of armed police officers wouldn't be enough to

shut down a health food store.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

-

>I will until proven otherwise.

Were pirates " government " ? Are muggers " government " ? Are churches

" government " ? If you define government as " anything that uses compulsion " ,

then you're right. Otherwise, you're wrong.

>You think that the

>basis of denying that libertarianism is utopian is based on a mere

>assertion? That is a good one. But it unfortunately is not a good

>argument and not consonant with the facts.

OK, I'll draw this out a little. What _kind_ of legitimate basis do you

believe there can be for accurate conclusions about human nature? IOW what

brand of expertise is required? What form of investigation yields the

correct kind of knowledge in your view?

>of course you may not think you

>have any indutibles informing your worldview that are empirically

>impossible to prove but that is another topic altogether)

My worldview? Of course there are what you call " indubitables " , provided I

understand you correctly, though if so I think it's a very misleading and

counterproductive term. All thought -- all philosophy, all legal theory,

all economic theory, etc. -- is composed of two fundamentally separate

elements: goals (what you might call values) and facts. People can have

conflicting root goals without either party being in some way fundamentally

correct or incorrect, or accurate or inaccurate. Is it correct, or

accurate, to prefer the color blue to the color yellow? Bach to

Beethoven? Cats to dogs? (Well, OK, that latter example is *definitely*

incorrect! <g>) Even liberty to slavery? The concepts of accuracy and

inaccuracy have no bearing. Different goals are merely differently

desirable to different people. Empirical facts and logical conclusions

derived from them, however, are amenable to scientific examination and

testing, and assertions of fact can be and in fact always are factually

correct or incorrect, even though it's not always known whether an

assertion of fact is correct or not. Take slavery, for example. It would

doubtless be possible to prove that, at least under most conditions, slaves

would be _unhappy_ in their servitude, but it's not a _fact_ to say that

slavery is " wrong " or " incorrect " , it's a belief, a value, a goal. Slavery

has existed and can exist. Its existence is a fact. Its desirability is a

value.

I certainly have values, but I do my best not to confuse values with facts

and assertions thereof.

>That is easy to rectify

>however, for a good chunk of his work is online at the Mises Scholar

>Page:

>

>http://www.mises.org/scholar.asp#Murray%20N

Provided I'm supposed to be looking at Rothbard's work (the page has

several people's) I see a bunch of statements of value masquerading as

assertions of fact. Here's an example:

>>The great German sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that there are

>>two mutually exclusive ways of acquiring wealth; one, the above way of

>>production and exchange, he called the " economic means. " The other way is

>>simpler in that it does not require productivity; it is the way of

>>seizure of another's goods or services by the use of force and violence.

>>This is the method of one-sided confiscation, of theft of the property of

>>others. This is the method which Oppenheimer termed " the political means "

>>to wealth. It should be clear that the peaceful use of reason and energy

>>in production is the " natural " path for man: the means for his survival

>>and prosperity on this earth. It should be equally clear that the

>>coercive, exploitative means is contrary to natural law; it is parasitic,

>>for instead of adding to production, it subtracts from it.

That's from http://www.mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp

The idea that confiscation is contrary to some kind of natural law, that

it's some kind of violation or contravention of nature, is

ludicrous. Confiscation (if I can use the term generally) is actually one

of the founding principles of nature: organisms fall into a food chain in

which various life-forms consume others -- or confiscate their lives, their

bodies, their nutritional content, etc. And parasites, even true

parasites, are abundant.

>But your comment, " assertions of accordance can be tested and justified

>on the basis of fact and logic, if not now then when the science has

>advanced " is rather enlightening.

>

>If that phrase isn't a statement of faith ( " if not now then when science

>has... " ) I don't know what is.

Fair point, but the only element of faith in the statement (a faith I was

careless in expressing, since I don't actually have it) is that humans will

continue their scientific investigation of human nature long enough and

well enough to achieve a degree of knowledge which will allow assertions of

accordance (of political theories with human nature) to be tested and

justified on the basis of fact and logic. Human civilization could die

before that happens, society could develop in some way which would prevent

further accurate study, etc. But I don't believe human nature is

theoretically unknowable to any degree, and my belief is fact-based, not

value-based. (I don't believe that the actions of every individual could

someday be predicted accurately down to the last detail, though, if that's

what you think I mean.)

>First, I am not a biblical " literalist. " I'm not even sure you know what

>biblical literalism is, because if you did you wouldn't be leveling such

>a charge at me.

You've said something or other to roughly that effect in the past. Do I

really have to go back and dig it up? I'm not pretending I'm

characterizing your beliefs with precise accuracy, but if you consider the

bible (or some other religious tract) an authority on a number of important

matters of fact (particularly those relevant to politics) then my point stands.

>They are such when it suits their theology, and remarkably non-literal

>when it does not.

Of course, but it can't help but be so for any so-called literalist, since

the bible is full of internal contradictions.

>And your last statement is simply false. I have nowhere said on this

>list that " all goals, means and values, not to mention truths, must

>be derived from (and/or found within?) the bible. "

Do you deny you said something roughly similar? My point, though, isn't to

trap you into defending some position you don't believe in. That was my

understanding of your position. If my understanding was mistaken, so be

it. You've certainly discussed deciding on what values are acceptable

depending on their consonance with the bible, though.

> I imagine this same comment

>could be thrown back in your direction and would fit quite well.

Only if someone confuses values with facts. Libertarians have a set of

values. I agree with some and disagree with others, and of course there's

value variance within the overall community of libertarians. Libertarians

also believe their desired systems will function as they believe because of

their assumptions and assertions about human nature, but some of those

assumptions and assertions are incorrect.

>Suffice it to say we all argue from *some* authority, whether we are

>explicitly aware of such or not. That authority might be reason, science,

>logic, Buddha, whathaveyou.

If you're going to call empirical fact an " authority " , then you're

attempting to destroy the meaning of the word.

>You know what? You have built a big huge bogeyman here. I'm not sure

>where you are coming from with all this. Since when did I or anyone on

>this list ever suggest that smoking was the 11th commandment or even

>mention the Bible in relation to smoking?

I never said you suggested any such thing. You've merely suggested that

the science against smoking is claptrap, that you think it can be perfectly

healthy, and that you can smoke without experience deleterious physical

effects. You've posted some links to articles to that effect which I

haven't read.

>So your above example is a fallacious use of a hypothetical,

>since the reality was clearly otherwise,

, my hypothetical was not fallacious, because it wasn't meant to

express reality. I haven't paid much attention to your statements of

fact. What I said was that if I did care to investigate whether smoking

might under some conditions be healthy or health-neutral instead of

harmful, I might discuss the issue with you if your assertions were based

on science but I wouldn't if they were based on some authority like the

bible. I didn't say you'd done either one.

I suppose I should've picked a completely invented hypothetical, though, to

avoid the confusion. So substitute " eating hamster fur " or " dancing the

lambada " for smoking.

>1. Government is unique from the rest of society in its legal monopoly

>over the use of force.

Even in our present society government doesn't exercise a legal monopoly on

force. People are allowed, for example, to use force in self-defense.

>2. Traditional forcible gov't is immoral because it is based on taxation,

>which is an act of involuntarily separating people from their property,

>which is theft, pure and simple

>

>If you would care to present *evidence* to the contrary,

How does one present _evidence_ of morality or immorality? All moral

judgements are based on values, which are neither correct nor

incorrect. Unfortunately, the use of the words " right " and " wrong " in the

domain of values has clouded that essential distinction, but when we speak

of practices that are right and wrong, we're clearly talking values, not facts.

-

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> In a message dated 1/20/04 12:51:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> Idol@... writes:

>

>> Were pirates " government " ? Are muggers " government " ? Are churches

>> " government " ? If you define government as " anything that uses

>> compulsion " , then you're right. Otherwise, you're wrong

>

> Government isn't unique in the application of force; it is unique in

> establishing a _monopoly_ on force. And notice that in order to

> attempt to disprove the point, you've equated government with muggers

> and pirates. Are you making

> our point or yours?

Arrrrrgh! Four more years, or I'll make the lot of ye walk the plank, ye

scurvy dogs!