Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 In a message dated 1/9/04 11:13:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, mfjewett@... writes: > Just as a matter of interest, couldn't it also be said that the original > switch to hydrogenated oils was also motivated by self-interested pursuit > of money? I don't know the details of how that happened or exactly when, > but I'd think that it's perfectly plausible that amidst an outcry of > " animal fats are BAAADDDD for you!! " , their profits would have gone down > also ... until they switched to the supposedly " good " oils. So now > there's an opposite outcry about hydrogenated oils, so ... *flip*! Ms. Jewett, Sure... that's essentially the point-- the public interest folks pressured the food industry to adopt hydrogenated oils. They may have increased profits by it too, since hydrogenated oils are cheaper. But they also make an inferior product, and it seems to hurt sales over time. > >The self-interested pursuit of money says no one is > >entitled to anything except what they acquire through their own productive > >achievement and voluntary exchange with others. > > And just as a bit of a cynical note, here ... I think that some huge > conglomerate's definition and " our " definition of " productive " might vary > just a tad. My definition of " productive " is something that is produced. You do work, you create something out of your effort. It doesn't matter whether that something is a nuclear bomb, a television, an artificial rainbow machine, a glass of raw milk-- if you put the effort in, and you produced something, that is productivity. If two people engage in pursuit of their self-interest by means of voluntary exchange, it is impossible to engage in an exchange that hurts the other person. If you act in your self-interest, you only make exchanges that benefit you. If you can't force someone to make the exchange, you have no choice but to focus your productivity into producing something that benefits the other person-- and of course you aren't going to produce something that harms your own self-interest. So in this manner all exchanges benefit both parties. When people begin advocating public policy in pursuit of the interest of an undefined " public, " the exchanges become involuntary, backed up by the barrel of a gun. Suddenly the pursuit of power behind a gun takes on the language of humanitarianism. The person who allows the surrender of the ideal of voluntary exchange in order to ensure the laborer gets the wages he's " entitled " too, is surrenduring to the system that ensures Mc's gets the profits they're " entitled too. " Then exchanges are forced based on who gets more friends in Washington, who makes sure they have bigger and better guns than the populace, in the name of the " public interest. " > Oh. By the way. HI! I'm new here too. My name's (the > OTHER , I guess!). Nice to meet you! Nice to meet you ! :-) Chris _____ Judith wrote: >Do you deny that the proposed changes at Mcs are anything but a ploy >to maintain the health of their bottom line? It's a " change or die " >situation. Judith, Hi. No, I don't deny it. Nor do I object to it. I fully accept Mc's right to pursue their own interest, to maximize their bottom line, and to do whatever they please to achieve this, so long as it does not include using force. I fully reject any entitlement Mc's might hypothetically claim to avoid " dying " and believe Mc's should perish without my sympathy if they fail to provide customers with a product that customers will pay for. >The truth is that people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And are >looking for better ways to live. The promise of perfect health offered by >the low fat diet has been found out for the lie that it is, and people are >dropping it in droves as they discover for themselves the benefits of >following the dietary lifestyle changes recommended by the likes of Atkins, >Eades and Schwarzbein. Good. Then they can CHOOSE not to eat at Mcs. I don't. Do you? >Expect to see quantities of " news " reports on the " dangers " of these >lifestyles. Low fat will not die without much screaming and struggling. The >drug and medical industries stand to lose the most in the battle and will >scream the loudest. Good. I'm glad to see the proof that conscientious people can have a huge impact on industry simply by arguing the truth, providing they have the freedom to publish their own views. Clearly, customers can react to what they believe to be the truth and what they determine is effective for them, despite the propaganda of industry, and the industrial and governmental looters who believe they have " entitlements " to profits and taxes. >Who needs statin drugs, with their life threatening side effects, when >eating meat and fat will bring the numbers down with much less cost and >effort? Same for diabetes and many other drugs. Not me! Chris _____ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2004 Report Share Posted January 9, 2004 At 10:53 AM 1/9/04 EST, you wrote: >Mc's recently had a board meeting to determine how to reverse their >decrease in profits, and two of seven of the members suggested returning to >frying in tallow to increase their profits. > >The self-interested pursuit of money led them to consider turning to tallow. >The non-profited pursuit of the " public interest " caused them to switch to >hydrogenated oils in the first place, under pressure from so-called " public >interest " groups. Just as a matter of interest, couldn't it also be said that the original switch to hydrogenated oils was also motivated by self-interested pursuit of money? I don't know the details of how that happened or exactly when, but I'd think that it's perfectly plausible that amidst an outcry of " animal fats are BAAADDDD for you!! " , their profits would have gone down also ... until they switched to the supposedly " good " oils. So now there's an opposite outcry about hydrogenated oils, so ... *flip*! >The self-interested pursuit of money says no one is >entitled to anything except what they acquire through their own productive >achievement and voluntary exchange with others. And just as a bit of a cynical note, here ... I think that some huge conglomerate's definition and " our " definition of " productive " might vary just a tad. Oh. By the way. HI! I'm new here too. My name's (the OTHER , I guess!). Nice to meet you! MFJ Any moment in which you feel like dancing is a perfect moment. http://www.jpnuts.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Dear & , Sorry for jumping in here, but about government, their motivation is to keep their jobs. I don't think government is for the people. It is supposed to be, but it's not. It's a group like any other and has group-think, group values, group agreements, etc. Their motivation in the end is money and maybe prestige. If doing what industry wants buys them votes or helps them keep their jobs or gives them more prestige or fame (and they don't think outside the box of the group) and their drive to obtain money or prestige is greater than their morals, they will go along no matter what is good or bad for the public. In the US the guy who was most instrumental in approving of aspertame worked for the government, but a short while later he became an exec at nutrasweet. Something is wrong with that picture eh? Here in Canada the government allows representatives from industry to pass judgement on consumer's issues as part of a board or committee. So are they for the public good? No. Not when you have vested interests from drug cos., Coca Cola, Monsanto, who form these boards. It is the government that allows this to happen. It is the government that taxes the little guy more than corporations. Where is the public good done by government? I could go on and on but I won't. I didn't follow your whole thread but wanted to say this about government. Thanks. Bee --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > Chris- > > >I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, but there are > >plenty of the opposite. > > Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any trend, instances > where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal, but that > hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely universal, that > there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't corrupted. > > >without the foolish > >idea that the government has business telling people what to eat, there would > >have been no success. > > you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Doctors > organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations corrupted > medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These actions -- > and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be avoided by > removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition. I'm sorry, > but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of > incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to force a lie > down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and what they > read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big Pharma > have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their businesses; why > would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for their needs? > > >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on it, then > >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur when > >beneficial to both parties. > > I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for starters, > it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually beneficial to > them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and cannot > exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to their own > real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat sugar > knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing they're > harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government from the > equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and removing > government would magically change human nature either. > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Dear Irene, I have known many people who worked for the government and I have worked for the government. I am not usually so general in painting the broad brush but in this case I was following this thread which lumped government into one basket. I agree with you Irene. Government is made up of many many groups which all have their own set of beliefs, values, etc. and there " is " no more " group think " in government than in any other group. The best, Bee > >Dear & , > >Sorry for jumping in here, but about government, their motivation is > >to keep their jobs. I don't think government is for the people. It > >is supposed to be, but it's not. It's a group like any other and has > >group-think, group values, group agreements, etc. Their motivation > >in the end is money and maybe prestige. > > > >If doing what industry wants buys them votes or helps them keep their > >jobs or gives them more prestige or fame (and they don't think > >outside the box of the group) and their drive to obtain money or > >prestige is greater than their morals, they will go along no matter > >what is good or bad for the public. > > > >In the US the guy who was most instrumental in approving of aspertame > >worked for the government, but a short while later he became an exec > >at nutrasweet. Something is wrong with that picture eh? > > > >Here in Canada the government allows representatives from industry to > >pass judgement on consumer's issues as part of a board or committee. > >So are they for the public good? No. Not when you have vested > >interests from drug cos., Coca Cola, Monsanto, who form these > >boards. It is the government that allows this to happen. It is the > >government that taxes the little guy more than corporations. Where > >is the public good done by government? > > > >I could go on and on but I won't. I didn't follow your whole thread > >but wanted to say this about government. Thanks. > > > >Bee > > > >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...> > >wrote: > > > Chris- > > > > > > >I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, but > >there are > > > >plenty of the opposite. > > > > > > Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any trend, > >instances > > > where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal, > >but that > > > hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely universal, > >that > > > there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't > >corrupted. > > > > > > >without the foolish > > > >idea that the government has business telling people what to eat, > >there would > > > >have been no success. > > > > > > you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. Doctors > > > organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations > >corrupted > > > medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These > >actions -- > > > and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be avoided by > > > removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition. I'm > >sorry, > > > but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of > > > incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to force > >a lie > > > down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and what > >they > > > read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big > >Pharma > > > have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their > >businesses; why > > > would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for their > >needs? > > > > > > >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of acting on > >it, then > > > >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only occur > >when > > > >beneficial to both parties. > > > > > > I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for > >starters, > > > it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually > >beneficial to > > > them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and > >cannot > > > exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to their > >own > > > real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat > >sugar > > > knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing > >they're > > > harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government > >from the > > > equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and > >removing > > > government would magically change human nature either. > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 Dear Irene, No problem. I can identify with you about being very busy and not able to keep up with the posts. I wanted to catch as much as I could today because I won't have time for a week but I've been glued to this computer for hours and still haven't gotten through my backlog. Whew! I night even get my dishes washed sometime today. LOL! Cheers to you Irene, Bee > > > >Dear & , > > > >Sorry for jumping in here, but about government, their motivation > >is > > > >to keep their jobs. I don't think government is for the people. > >It > > > >is supposed to be, but it's not. It's a group like any other and > >has > > > >group-think, group values, group agreements, etc. Their motivation > > > >in the end is money and maybe prestige. > > > > > > > >If doing what industry wants buys them votes or helps them keep > >their > > > >jobs or gives them more prestige or fame (and they don't think > > > >outside the box of the group) and their drive to obtain money or > > > >prestige is greater than their morals, they will go along no matter > > > >what is good or bad for the public. > > > > > > > >In the US the guy who was most instrumental in approving of > >aspertame > > > >worked for the government, but a short while later he became an > >exec > > > >at nutrasweet. Something is wrong with that picture eh? > > > > > > > >Here in Canada the government allows representatives from industry > >to > > > >pass judgement on consumer's issues as part of a board or > >committee. > > > >So are they for the public good? No. Not when you have vested > > > >interests from drug cos., Coca Cola, Monsanto, who form these > > > >boards. It is the government that allows this to happen. It is > >the > > > >government that taxes the little guy more than corporations. Where > > > >is the public good done by government? > > > > > > > >I could go on and on but I won't. I didn't follow your whole > >thread > > > >but wanted to say this about government. Thanks. > > > > > > > >Bee > > > > > > > >--- In , Idol <Idol@c...> > > > >wrote: > > > > > Chris- > > > > > > > > > > >I know there have been instances documented that suggest this, > >but > > > >there are > > > > > >plenty of the opposite. > > > > > > > > > > Look at the aggregate. There are always exceptions to any > >trend, > > > >instances > > > > > where any given pressure is insufficient to accomplish its goal, > > > >but that > > > > > hardly means that if corruption isn't 100%, absolutely > >universal, > > > >that > > > > > there's no corruption at all or that most of the press isn't > > > >corrupted. > > > > > > > > > > >without the foolish > > > > > >idea that the government has business telling people what to > >eat, > > > >there would > > > > > >have been no success. > > > > > > > > > > you're just dead wrong. Completely, utterly wrong. > >Doctors > > > > > organized to assure their own fees were paid. Megacorporations > > > >corrupted > > > > > medical journals and bought the media to enhance profits. These > > > >actions -- > > > > > and the incentives to do these things -- would hardly be > >avoided by > > > > > removing government from the spheres of health and nutrition. > >I'm > > > >sorry, > > > > > but the very idea is ludicrous. You have to think in terms of > > > > > incentives. Government doesn't have some magical ability to > >force > > > >a lie > > > > > down people's throats. People believe what they see on TV and > >what > > > >they > > > > > read in magazines and newspapers. Furthermore, Big Agro and Big > > > >Pharma > > > > > have spent a lot of money getting government OUT of their > > > >businesses; why > > > > > would they do that if government were such a perfect tool for > >their > > > >needs? > > > > > > > > > > >If someone has an idea of public interest, but no way of > >acting on > > > >it, then > > > > > >each will pursue her self-interest, and exchanges will only > >occur > > > >when > > > > > >beneficial to both parties. > > > > > > > > > > I'm sorry again, but this is an indefensible fallacy. Just for > > > >starters, > > > > > it requires that both parties know exactly what is actually > > > >beneficial to > > > > > them (IOW it requires omniscience, something which does not and > > > >cannot > > > > > exist) and it requires that both parties always do what is to > >their > > > >own > > > > > real benefit, something which often doesn't occur. People eat > > > >sugar > > > > > knowing it's bad for them. People smoke and do drugs knowing > > > >they're > > > > > harmful. This wouldn't magically change by removing government > > > >from the > > > > > equation. Government doesn't magically change human nature, and > > > >removing > > > > > government would magically change human nature either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 10, 2004 Report Share Posted January 10, 2004 >>>>The point is that the uniquely virtuous qualities of the state which supposedly justify the enormous power vested in it simply do not exist.<<<< Right on ! May I quote you sometime? Cheers, Bee --- In , " Berg " <bberg@c...> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@q...> > > > > Just curious. Do you actually know someone who works for the > government? > > There are millions of people working for the goverment in many > capacities. > > They all have their own sets of beliefs, values and motivations. To > paint > > such a large group with such a broad brush is bizarre. There is no > more > > " group think " among government employees than there is in any other > group. > > Perhaps this is true, but what she said was that there is no less (I'd > quote it if you hadn't top-posted). The point is that the uniquely > virtuous qualities of the state which supposedly justify the enormous > power vested in it simply do not exist. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2004 Report Share Posted January 11, 2004 However, government agencies such as the FDA, CIA, IRS and many others are not subject the party system. Some of these arms of the government have been found to be corrupt, breaking the law, etc. The FDA allowed aspertame on the market and the IRS has had a few whistleblowers that have brought out the strong arm tactics and law breaking done by that agency, and so on and so on. Look at Watergate. Government is not run for the people and of the people like it used to back when the Constitution was written. Sad but true. When people wake up to what is really going on they will start looking for the truth. Bee > >Given the *presence* of government currently, and the current involvement of > >>government in research, clearly the presence of government will not magically > >>de-corrupt research. > > > >Actually, as research has gotten substantially more corrupt over the last > >decade or so, government involvement has *dropped* substantially. I don't > >have the exact figures at hand, but something like 90% of research was done > >at universities ten years ago. Now it's down to 34%, with the vast > >majority of research being done by contract research organizations, > >companies set up specifically to serve Big Pharma and the medical > >industry. > > An interesting note here: in an audit of news agencies, the BBC > turned out to have the LEAST bias of the news agencies. They > believe that is because, since it is a government agency, it > is watched far more carefully than, say, FOX in the US. > > The nice thing about government agencies is that, in a system > with at least 2 parties, there are apt to be people in the agency > from both parties (or from no party) so no one view gets > total domination. Even if a lot of the people are bribed by > some corporation, there will likely be a lot of people who > are NOT bribed, because they are not employees. > > Now, if the government gets taken over by ONE party then > it essentially becomes an arm of those ideologues, which, > unfortunately, does happen. If those ideologues are ALSO > related to only one or a few corporate entities, then > those entities take over the state. > > Which has ALSO happened throughout history, which is one > reason we are supposed to have a " balance of power " kind > of gov't. It is the nature of guys in power to be corrupt > and greedy, at least for a large percentage of them, so they > need to be played off against each other. And played off > against " the public " . > > -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2004 Report Share Posted January 15, 2004 --- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@p...> wrote to Masterjohn: > > I think that it is you who is fundamentally pathological, > if anyone is here. Just curious, but why do you consider fundamentally pathological? I've never got any such impression of him even when I was arguing with him myself. > But to conclude that a concept that is truly humanitarian, > whether workable or not, now or ever, is PATHOLOGICAL, is > ridiculous, and shows that you are the ideologue (not so > vague reference to the Chomsky debate awhile back). I think that concluding a concept is humanitarian even while admitting it is not workable " now or ever " is more a sign of an ideological fixation than the converse. Those advocating a low-fat high-carb diet claim humanitarian goals in doing so. Is that diet thereby any less harmful? > You are one of the last people that I would want defining > human nature for me. Why do you hate so much? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 >>>>>I'm by far *not* the most intelligent and capable libertarian to argue here...<<<< ---------->just curious...back when we were dating <weg> i was under the impression you were to the far left, perhaps even a socialist. did you recently make the transition to libertarianism, or was i just not aware of your leanings back then? OR are you a left-leaning libertarian? just curious since you are running hard and strong with the libertarian ball in so many recent threads! LOL :-) suze (yes, *me* brandon - need another reality adjustment? LOL ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2004 Report Share Posted January 16, 2004 --- In , Idol <Idol@c...> wrote: > > To the degree this is the fiscal libertarian assumption, > it relies on transparency. IOW, people have to KNOW that > unsafe houses are unsafe in order to correctly value such > houses on the market. (I only say " to the degree " because > fiscal libertarians would probably say that if some people > knowingly choose unsafe houses, that's cool, and there > probably would be such people, so such builders would stay > in business.) If enough people are freely choosing to buy less safe houses, supposedly because they're are cheaper, then why -shouldn't- such builders stay in business? They are supplying for a demand. If I chose to give up my house, my second car, my computer, and numerous other goods and services that I've enjoyed over the years, I could have bought one of those extremely expensive bullet-proof cars, which is something I truly would like to have, but instead I chose as I did, and drive cars that are less safe, and thus much less expensive. Many people make similar decisions every day. > The problem with the theory is that it's in the house-builders' > interest to eliminate transparency -- to pretend their houses > are better and safer than they are -- and there's simply no way > to completely unmask their deception and thus restore transparency > and accuracy to the market. Accuracy isn't necessary for " the market " which is just an abstraction, and not the ultimate ethical concern of libertarianism. Differing degrees of transparency and accuracy are necessary in each given case, for the sake of the satisfaction of the individuals involved alone, not for some imagined system-wide effect. The means are certainly available to check into a product or service and see if it meets one's needs, and it is further possible in case fraud is later discovered to seek legal action. My father is a carpenter and as such I can tell you that there are a certain number of things that must be present to make sure a house won't collapse on itself. It's quite simple to determine whether these things have been done or not, including having your house inspected at every stage of the construction. There is also such a thing as a contract. You can make a contract with your builder to provide a house with all of features you want, and if it is later found out that he didn't do the job correctly, you can sue him for your money and any other damages that are a result of the poor construction. > I know people are going to argue that without the government > there'd be no means of imposing opacity, but that's simply not > true at all. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that among the few legitimate functions of a government are the prosecution of fraud, and the enforcement of contracts. I'm also arguing that there are means of " imposing opacity " in -any- system, but there are also many means of penetrating opacity. I can't see where you've offered anything superior to capitalism in the pursuit of a misinformation- free society, or offered anything in the way of proof that a capitalist system is more prone to the abuse of consumers, other than the insistence that the more money people have, or have the opportunity to acquire, the worse they will behave in pursuing that goal. That makes no sense, and has been pointed out to you several times. The only services which consistently disatisfy the " customers " and yet maintain repeat business, are precisely those services now monopolized by the government. > The means of imposing opacity, of lying successfully, are > legion, and misusing government is just one of them. And dishonesty by big business is just another of them. The solution is the prosecution of fraud, and enforcement of contracts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 > > Do they do the rescuing for profit? This isn't a serious question, just a cheap shot, so I'm not going to answer it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2004 Report Share Posted January 17, 2004 LOL.....glad that cold is over...good thing hubby can do plumbing repair...guess its back to other's pockets now. Wanita From: " Hawkeye Day " <hawkeye_day@...> > ***** Its been so cold in New England I actually saw > a lawyer with his hands in his " own " pockets! <G> Chas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2004 Report Share Posted January 18, 2004 --- In , Gene Schwartz <implode7@p...> wrote: > Understanding when something is a joke would help, though, wouldn't it? How > could you possibly construe that as a serious request? ------I sincerely hope I'm not crossing the line into " psyoanalyzing " or making a personal attack... but there are friendly jokes done in the spirit of fun and good will, and then there are barbs presented as jokes, and these kind are passive aggressive and inappropriate. Your hostility towards is apparent to those of us reading your messages, and thus your " jokes " aren't really, since the underlining ill will is clear, despite the " but it was just a joke " defense. I probably should have waited to see what is going to say, since the job of moderator is his, and not mine. If I've overstepped my bounds, , please let me know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.