Re: POLITICS - money and health

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 02:44:56 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>Anyway, we did discuss libertarianism briefly, and I was rather undecisive

>about it. I used to be far left, but haven't been so for several years. I've

>found libertarianism increasingly appealing over the last year or so, mostly

>under the influence of its articulate proponents on this list, especially

>, and 's incessant provision of facts.

>

>Also, I've just done reading and thinking.

>

>Chris

Thanks Chris. That is a very nice compliment. I'm always thrown for a loop

when someone mentions that something I said or wrote had an influence on

them.

As I was telling Suze the other night when I post I do so with no

preconceived notion of who is going to read or respond to what I say, if

at all. But it is nice to hear that not everyone thinks I'm crazy <g>.

Not that I would care, given my personality, but it is still nice to

hear. <weg>

One day I will catch up with all these posts and become a regular

contributor again.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:04:07 -0500

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

i find it

>interesting that you, and from what i can tell, *all* the libertarians on

>this list *except* michael, are arguing a minarchist POV. when i wrote the

>question about building codes, i was thinking of the anarcho-capitalist

>libertarian position, not minarchist, forgetting that most or all

>libertarians on the list seem to be minarchist. from a minarchist position,

>there seem to be a number of checks and balances for unscrupulous builders.

>i was just wondering what 'checks and balances' there might be in an

>anarcho-capitalist " system " , if any...

>

The same.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 11:29:12 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>Hi Suze,

>

>I'm not familar with anarcho-capitalism at all. I've been meaning to

>familiarize myself with it, but haven't gotten around to it.

Well here is a nice annotated bibliography for you:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html

You never know where someone is itching, and thus it is difficult to

know just what might be the right scratch for the itch, but Rothbard's

_For A New Liberty_ might be a good place to start. The online version

can be found here:

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

>

>But as far as I know, essentially the only differences between a libertarian

>minarchist perspective and an an-cap perspective are that

>--law

>--enforcement

>are private, rather than public, institutions. Now this seems relatively

>implausible to me, though I do know that private enforcement does have

historical

>basis in our country and is certainly workable. But it has never existed in

>the *absence* of public enforcement, so I'm not sure what kind of checks and

>balances would prevent private enforcement from turning into thugs with no

>respect for property-- IOW a government. (lol)

Here is a brief answer:

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/14_1/14_1_5.pdf - full article

" PRIVATIZATION AND CORRUPTION

It is widely held that private firms, organized for the enforcement

of law within the parameters implied by profit-making,

would be susceptible to bribery and corruption. The argument

is roughly as follows: private protection agencies are motivated

by the lure of profits; it would pay them, therefore, to engage in

thuggery, or to protect others who do so.

There is manifest in this argument a fundamental failure to

comprehend the workings of a free market. For one thing, private

protection agencies, as compared to the state, would be unable to

exercise coercion in the pursuit of clientele. A private protection

agency must convince potential clients that it is possessed of both

the wherewithal and the resolve to provide effective enforcement

of the law. Providing a guarantee to the customer is one

manner of doing so.

Therefore, it is likely, or in any case possible,

that the protection agencies would woo clients by offering to insure

their lives and property. Manifestly, the protection agency

that underwrites its clients has a strong incentive to protect them

vigorously and a strong disincentive to countenance bribery and

corruption. Crimes perpetrated against its clients then become

crimes paid for by the agency, and only an agency bent on masochism

would allow for its officers to indulge criminal conduct.

In fact, it is the public police force that stands to profit from

look-the-other-way law enforcement. After all, arriving at its

funding, as it does, from (coerced) tax revenues, the public police

will not endure economic hardship if and when it fails to arrest

the onslaught of crime. Therefore, it pays for its officers to accept

bribes from the perpetrators of crime, offering in exchange clemency.

This fact was given neon prominence in the Knapp Commission

Report on Police Corruption, published in 1972, which found

virtually every office in the entire NYPD to be corrupt.10 Moreov-

er, if indeed criminal activity grows while the public is being

protected by an unconcerned public police, it is very likely that

the police budget will increase as well. Crime, after all, can pay.

Which is not so much why the government runs the police as because

the government runs the police.

THE HUBRIS OF CENTRAL CONTROL

The officials of the state, possessed of but fragmented knowledge,

nevertheless presume to determine by fiat the necessary

degree of police protection for the entire citizenry. It is axiomatic

that such charlatanry will lead to the inefficient use of scarce

resources. The state cannot succeed because it squelches that vital

power - human freedom - but for want of which the machinery of

society might work more justly. "

>

>But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an an-cap

>society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The only

>question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

>enforcement institutions.

Yup.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

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

From: <slethnobotanist@...>

> As I was telling Suze the other night when I post I do so with no

> preconceived notion of who is going to read or respond to what I say,

if

> at all. But it is nice to hear that not everyone thinks I'm crazy <g>.

>

> Not that I would care, given my personality, but it is still nice to

> hear. <weg>

>

> One day I will catch up with all these posts and become a regular

> contributor again.

Don't you think you've done enough damage already?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/31/04 1:57:13 AM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> You never know where someone is itching, and thus it is difficult to

> know just what might be the right scratch for the itch, but Rothbard's

> _For A New Liberty_ might be a good place to start. The online version

> can be found here:

>

> http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty.asp

Thanks . I'll have to give this a look at some point, but first I

want to finish _America's Great Depression_ by the same author. I've read the

first 340 pages, and am also 250 pages into Pinker's _Blank Slate_, which

recommended, but before I could finish either, my classes started. So with

five lab classes, it might take me a few weeks to finish the books I'm already

reading, and I certainly won't want to start another one until the semester is

over, since I expect my classes to be considerably more demanding than last

semester's. But I'll be sure to check it out as soon as the semester is over.

Thanks!

BTW, I'm sure that's a good scratch for the itch, as I think Rothbard is a

genius. Also, have you read 's _Chaos Theory_? It's a collection of

articles that's only 60 pages and six bucks, but from the description sounds

like

a great book on the subject.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:30:39 -0500

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>>>>>But, it seems to me that the checks and balances on *builders* in an

>an-cap

>society would be just the same as in a libertarian minarch society. The

>only

>question would be the plausibility of the specific arrangment of legal and

>enforcement institutions.

>

>----------->that seems like a huge issue - making these two belief systems

>quite different. who would enforce a contract in an anarcho-capitalist

>society?

The ultimate appeal would still be to the courts. Same as now only

exclusively private, not the mixture we have today.

i realize that could be a complex issue, but i'm particularly

>wondering how the poor would be able to protect their interests. for

>example, if a builder didn't fulfill a contract he had with a family without

>means to have " building insurance " or whatever private system was in place

>to protect those who could afford it, then what recourse would that family

>have?

Ultimately the same recourse they have today. You don't need building

insurance to seek enforcement of a contract. And presumably, if they

could afford a house, then they could afford to insure a house. Probably

wouldn't get a loan if they could not.

Then of course there is always this very interesting word " poor " that

gets bandied about without any real substantive definition, other than

the silly definition put out by our government based on 48 year old USDA

food budget data. Give me break <g>

The Poverty of Poverty Statistics

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1347

Sample:

" Finally, the official poverty statistics take no account of the goods

people

own or the assets they have accumulated. Which means that a person who

has accumulated a million dollars worth of goods and assets but whose

income, for whatever reason, falls below the income threshold for the

year will be classified as poor.

An extreme case? Not so extreme. Researchers have discovered that

almost one million people classified as poor own homes worth more than

$150,000, while upwards of 200,000 people classified as poor own homes

worth more than $300,000.

So, what is the true extent of poverty in the U.S.? We'll never know.

The official measures are problematic to the point of being meaningless.

But the larger lesson of the Census Bureau's difficulties in estimating

poverty is that any measure of poverty is bound to be problematic to the

point of being meaningless.

Of course, the purpose of poverty statistics has never been to advance

our knowledge of society, but to advance the cause of government

planning. So, despite their flaws, poverty statistics survive. "

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/04 6:16:10 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

>

> I don't know that the record shows that Judaism, ancient or otherwise,

> *administered* the death penalty widely for anything.

I didn't realize that. Thanks-- that's pretty comforting to know.

> The pharisees failed on the first three counts. There was nothing to

> prosecute. And I doubt seriously they could have administered the dealth

> penalty under Roman rule at the time. I could be wrong but the only time

> I remember anyone dying in the NT at the hands of the Jewish leaders was

> under authorization of a Roman citizen.

I think you're right, and I think that underlies the story of Christ's

crucifixion.

> Israel before the Kings was arguably the most libertarian (of the

> anarchist variety) society the world has ever known.

True. God's pretty clearly on the side of the anarchists too.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 14:36:05 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>>So how can I argue

>>that a thing is " moral " if I don't believe in " morality " as a standalone

>>thing? for

>>me the question is: " Does It Work " , which, in this context, means " do humans

>>really work that way? " .

>

>I don't agree with your position exactly -- I do believe that the concept

>of morality is useful and not pure invention

Well it is good to know you reject, at least at some level, the

pragmatism of Heidi, which if pressed, is totally unworkable. There are

a number of things that might " work " that many of us would find morally

appalling.

-- but in the sense that it

>must have a foundation to be defensible, and that foundation must

>incorporate and account for real human nature, I agree completely.

IIRC, you said that the " science " of human nature is in its infancy. So

how do we know what incorporates and accounts for real human nature?

This reminds me of the 20th century attempt to make economics a " science "

in the same sense that say physics is a science. It just ain't so. That

is why the original name of economics, " moral philosophy " is much more

descriptive of what economics is all about.

It used

>to work fairly well (at least in some times and places) to say this is

>moral and that's immoral " because God said so " , but we have to go beyond

>that now, and saying " just because " simply isn't going to work.

I'm not sure who the " just becausers " are that you are referring too,

but if there is one thing that can be said about Western Christianity is

that it is not guilty of saying " just because. " One need only read

briefly in the history of the medieval *Western* church to see what I am

talking about.

All

>elements of an argument, including its foundations, must be defensible and

>explainable.

Agreed. But as my post way back on atheistic epistemology hinted at, we

would certainly disagree as to what is an adequate defense and an

adequate explanation at the foundational levels.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 12:06:49 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>In the mean time, ancient Judaism used the death penalty widely for such

>things we'd consider individual rights in our society,

I don't know that the record shows that Judaism, ancient or otherwise,

*administered* the death penalty widely for anything.

Underlying Mosaic law is the concept of victim's rights, allowing for a

victim to seek restitution, which in some instances included the death

penalty. But only in the case of conviction for murder (and maybe

practicing of the occult) was death *automatic*.

Of the two modern practices that are currently considered rights in

Western society but were illegal under Jewish law, abortion and same sex

sexual activity, only abortion would have brought any real sanctions.

Same sex sexual activity would have only been an issue if engaged in

publically.

Otherwise, according to the law, it was the victim's choice, who had the

right to reduce the sentence, since the whole purpose of Mosaic penology

was to restore the *victim* to wholeness, not pay a debt to some

amorphous entity known as " society. "

When I was doing a study on this whole issue, every competent Jewish

source and scholar I consulted said the death penalty was rarely invoked

by anyone.

Think of it this way, if you caught your husband cheating, which would

you rather have, a dead spouse or money to take care of you and your

kids for the rest of your life? Divorce was even then the better option

in nearly all instances of unrepentent adultery.

Restitution was the order of the day in ancient Israel. There were no

jails to speak of. And the death penalty in the case of murder was

considered a form of restitution since the victim was no longer around

to be repaid.

Theologically speaking, when one destroyed a man or woman made in the

image of God, they made direct restitution (with their life) to the one

whose image (God) they destroyed.

In the New Testament we find Jesus perfectly upholding the law in the

account of the women taken in adultery. The law required:

1. A trial

2. That *both* parties be brought before the court

3. Those bringing the charge be free of that particular sin.

4. Several witnesses

The pharisees failed on the first three counts. There was nothing to

prosecute. And I doubt seriously they could have administered the dealth

penalty under Roman rule at the time. I could be wrong but the only time

I remember anyone dying in the NT at the hands of the Jewish leaders was

under authorization of a Roman citizen.

>and survived with stable

>order for more than a millenium doing so,

Israel before the Kings was arguably the most libertarian (of the

anarchist variety) society the world has ever known.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 11:46:23 -0500

" Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...> wrote:

>----->but there would be no *gov't* legal system - *everything* would be

>privately owned. i'm wondering how low income folks would fare in such a

>system...will do some reading - thanks for the URL.

Well right now low income folks are getting their butts kicked when it

comes to access to the *current* legal system. And I do mean that

literally. The current system is so tragic it is not even remotely

defensible, as one of my former attorneys so eloquently laid out for me.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 14:24:30 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>>Again, what IS a fiscal libertarian?

>

>Someone who believes the government has no right to be in your bank account.

>

>

>

>

>-

>

And thus we come to the heart of the matter. And why, while interesting

discussions, these interchanges never really get down to the nub of

things.

Presumably by the above statement you believe gov't does have a

" right " to our bank accounts, since you declare yourself a civil

libertarian but not a fiscal libertarian.

But on what philosophical, moral, ethical, or theological basis does

gov't have a prior claim on any of my property (taxes), including my

body (like the draft)? If it doesn't, then anything it takes from me is

not on the basis of a " right " but is theft pure and simple, and thus

evil.

But in order to discuss the " right " or " wrong " of something of this

nature we have to discuss morality and ethics, something which Heidi

doesn't think is possible, and something you have yet to defend, i.e.

the morality of theft.

Libertarianism is a political philosophy which deals with the just use

of violence. It states quite clearly that the initiation of force is

wrong. Whatever the varied applications the bottom line principle is

clear. Those who argue otherwise, IMO, are standing in a pit of moral

quicksand.

By the way, I don't think your distinction is valid. I would certainly

put the use of my bank account (money possession) in the realm of

*civil* liberties.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 02:05:34 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>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

>

Thanks

I have heard of the Archbishop. Unfortunately, judging by 's use of

the term, the Archbishop would be considered a *proponent* of biblical

literalism and fundamentalism. But more on that in another post <g>

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

>>----->but there would be no *gov't* legal system - *everything* would be

>>privately owned. i'm wondering how low income folks would fare in such a

>>system...will do some reading - thanks for the URL.

>

>Well right now low income folks are getting their butts kicked when it

>comes to access to the *current* legal system. And I do mean that

>literally. The current system is so tragic it is not even remotely

>defensible, as one of my former attorneys so eloquently laid out for me.

>

agreed. but that wasn't my question - i want to know how they'd fare in an

anarcho-capitalist society, darling :-)

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]

<<Israel before the Kings was arguably the most libertarian (of the

anarchist variety) society the world has ever known.>>

,

Can you explain how you came by this conclusion?

TIA

Dedy

[Guest guest]

-

>But on what philosophical, moral, ethical, or theological basis does

>gov't have a prior claim on any of my property (taxes), including my

>body (like the draft)?

I just don't have time for this discussion right now, so I'm going to keep

this very brief, more a declaration than a debate. You believe in

absolutes; I mostly don't. You believe that the right to property is

absolute -- and paramount; I don't. I believe that there are a variety of

rights, that they often conflict, and that there must be, in effect,

compromises between them.

>By the way, I don't think your distinction is valid. I would certainly

>put the use of my bank account (money possession) in the realm of

>*civil* liberties.

Yes, well, that's just one more of your absolutist positions (I'm not

criticizing it on that basis, just describing it) but more to the point, my

description is practical, not ideological: there are civil libertarians who

aren't against taxation and regulation (such as the ACLU, of which I'm a

member), and there are fiscal libertarians who devote all their energy to

fighting taxation and regulation and little or none to the group of issues

commonly described as civil liberties. This is a simple fact, and while I

suppose you might argue that civil libertarians aren't really libertarians

at all, I don't see the point (particularly because I'm so pressed for time

<g>).

-

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 00:12:15 -0800

" Berg " <bberg@...> wrote:

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

>From: <slethnobotanist@...>

>> As I was telling Suze the other night when I post I do so with no

>> preconceived notion of who is going to read or respond to what I say,

>if

>> at all. But it is nice to hear that not everyone thinks I'm crazy <g>.

>>

>> Not that I would care, given my personality, but it is still nice to

>> hear. <weg>

>>

>> One day I will catch up with all these posts and become a regular

>> contributor again.

>

>Don't you think you've done enough damage already?

>

>

>

As a hired g-man for the Monsanto Corporation, it is my duty to cause as

much damage as possible.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

,

That comment is a real giggle. If that were true you would change your tag

line.

Judith Alta

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

From: slethnobotanist@... [mailto:slethnobotanist@...]

As a hired g-man for the Monsanto Corporation, it is my duty to cause as

much damage as possible.

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 12:09:24 EST

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>BTW, I'm sure that's a good scratch for the itch, as I think Rothbard is a

>genius. Also, have you read 's _Chaos Theory_? It's a collection of

>articles that's only 60 pages and six bucks, but from the description sounds

like

>a great book on the subject.

>

>Chris

No I haven't read his collection but do plan on reading it in the near

future. I'm currently reading _Conceived In Liberty_, which is a 3

volume history of the American colonies in the 17th century by Murray

Rothbard. The history of your state is rather interesting, to say the

least.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 11:03:02 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>>But on what philosophical, moral, ethical, or theological basis does

>>gov't have a prior claim on any of my property (taxes), including my

>>body (like the draft)?

>

>I just don't have time for this discussion right now, so I'm going to keep

>this very brief, more a declaration than a debate. You believe in

>absolutes; I mostly don't. You believe that the right to property is

>absolute -- and paramount; I don't. I believe that there are a variety of

>rights, that they often conflict, and that there must be, in effect,

>compromises between them.

>

,

Lets make clear something which can be very misleading in your above

statement. Read superficially it looks like this discussion has been

between an absolutist and one who really is not an absolutist, but that

would be quite wrong.

What you have really said is this, " , you are an absolutist, and

I am an absolutist. Where we differ is in what we think is absolute. "

Your saying I believe in absolutes and that you " mostly don't " is an

attempt to prejudice the argument. First, because to say you " mostly

don't " means that on some points " you do " believe in absolutes, so at

that level you and I are equivalent.

Second, because without us laying down what we consider to be absolutes,

you have NO IDEA how many absolutes I believe in or don't believe in,

and I don't have any idea how many or how little you believe in. So the

MOST that can be said is that we are BOTH absolutists, but that where we

are absolute differs.

Saying anything else at this point is illegitimate.

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/10/04 1:38:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,

slethnobotanist@... writes:

> No I haven't read his collection but do plan on reading it in the near

> future. I'm currently reading _Conceived In Liberty_, which is a 3

> volume history of the American colonies in the 17th century by Murray

> Rothbard. The history of your state is rather interesting, to say the

> least.

I'll have to read it at some point. MA has an interesting 18th century

history too. The first MA Constitution was rejected as it was considered too

centralized, so a second one was put to vote (direct democracy) but they changed

the manner of counting the votes so that, in effect, they could consider " no " s

to be " yes " s.

And of course, in response, we were the home of Shays' Rebellion. Shays'

Rebellion, until the last few years, was thought to be a rebellion of poor

indebted farmers with communistic tendencies. In fact, it was nothing of the

sort.

Shays was one of two leaders of the rebellion, and was one of the few

indebted farmers who took part in it. The entire Dickinson family

participated (as in ), and a great many others were upper income folks, but

it was a

whole mess of all sorts of people. The rebellion was against the MA

government, which was considered tyrannical and centralized. And that was back

THEN,

when it was much more decentralized than now. The MA government called it

" Shays' Rebellion " and dumped the other guy who led it (a rich guy; I forget his

name) as part of their propaganda campaign to smear the rebels as land

refomers.

Since they feared these sorts of rebellions were not stoppable by state

governments effectively, they used that propaganda to help propagate the

establishment of the Federal Government. Henry Knox convinced Washington

to

attend the Constitutional Convention solely on the basis that a stronger

national

government was needed to put down rebellions like Shays' rebellion, or else

private property would be eliminated.

Chris