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

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:45:55 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>-

>

>>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.

,

I never defined gov't as " anything that uses compulsion. " I don't know

where you got that from or why you even have it in quotes. I don't

recall any other libertarians on this list defining gov't in that manner

either. You have erected a straw man of your own making and then

proceeded to shoot him down.

What I have said is that the problem with civil gov't mean is that it

has a _legal_ monopoly on the initiation of force, and such a characteristic

means it is unique among every other institution in our society. To say

otherwise is to only deny the obvious.

All the examples that use above are cites of the _illegal_ use of force.

And how interesting that you have to compare gov't to pirates and

muggers to make your point, which is precisely the libertarian point,

that forcible gov't engages in theft in order to exist.

St. Augustine said it centuries ago, that state as an entity is nothing

but a group of thugs. You have reminded us of that dictum once again.

The history of taxation originates out of theft and graft, and taxes

became the way to legitimize such activity. Should you be so inclined

you might want to check out the classic essay, _Taxation is Robbery_.

http://www.mises.org/etexts/taxrob.asp

I post an excerpt below:

" By way of preface, we might look to the origin of taxation, on the theory

that beginnings shape ends, and there we find a mess of iniquity. A

historical study of taxation leads inevitably to loot, tribute,

ransom, the economic purposes of conquest.

The barons who put up toll-gates along the Rhine were tax-gatherers. So

were the gangs who " protected, " for a forced fee, the caravans going to

market. The Danes who regularly invited themselves into England, and

remained as unwanted guests until paid off, called it Dannegeld; for a

long time that remained the basis of English property taxes.

The conquering Romans introduced the idea that what they collected from

subject peoples was merely just payment for maintaining " law and order. "

For a long time the Norman conquerors collected catch-as-catch-can

tribute from the English, but when by natural processes an amalgam of

the two peoples resulted in a nation, the collections were regularized

in custom and law and were called taxes.

It took centuries to obliterate the idea that these exactions served but

to keep a privileged class in comfort and to finance their internecine

wars; in fact, that purpose was never denied or obscured until

constitutionalism diffused political power.

All that is long passed, unless we have the temerity to compare such

ancient skullduggery with reparations, extraterritoriality, charges for

maintaining armies of occupation, absconding with property, grabbing of

natural resources, control of arteries of trade and other modern

techniques of conquest.

It may be argued that even if taxation had an unsavory beginning it

could have straightened itself out and become a decent and useful

citizen. So, we must apply ourselves to the theory and practices of

taxation to prove that it is in fact the kind of thing above described. "

Abolish the FDA!!

http://tinyurl.com/25nu8

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 00:45:55 -0500

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

>>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?

Well for starters any investigation must be free of:

1. prejudicial conjectures

2. unargued philosophical bias

3. presuppositions which do not comport with one another

4. logical fallacies, and behavior which betrays one's professed beliefs

I'm suggesting to you, and have in the past, that your remarks outside

of nutrition have a number of these faults. And so before we could even

begin discussing how one would draw _accurate_ conclusions about human

nature, we would have to expose and lay this stuff aside.

And as I said before, not only do I have neither the time or inclination

to discuss such stuff, this list is not the place to do it. In light of

that I snipped your next few paragraphs although I was tempted to answer

them and tease them apart because I think you are *fundamentally* incorrect,

spectacularly so at several points, but alas it would lead us even

further off-topic.

<snip>

>>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.

No , your point does not stand, and yes if you wish to continue

*this* discussion you will have to dig it up. Although, I fear, like

Heidi's comments about the atonement, that interacting on this point

would take us way far afield as well.

Taking the Bible seriously and being a biblical literalist are not one

and the same thing. You clearly do not know the difference and so you

are just as clearly not capable of making the charge. Nor do I feel any

need to draw out the differences for you. Suffice it to say there are

many folks who take the Bible seriously who are not " biblical

literalists. "

>>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.

Right. And I say the Bible is not full of internal contradictions. And

since you produced no evidence to back up your assertion, I will produce

none to back up mine. Okay, but thanks for your theological and literary

commentary.

>>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.

Actually I haven't said any such thing on this list. Perhaps you are

reading your own inferences into my brief comments about epistemology

and, in my view, the atheists inability to provide a *justification* for

the necessary preconditions of intelligibility. In that thread I did

distinguish betwen the God of the Bible (which is just another way of

saying the God of Christianity) as over and opposed to any other gods,

That was in answer to at some point near the end of that thread.

If I am reading your posts correctly, your problem is not with " biblical

literalists " of which you have no clue, but rather people who take the

Bible seriously. Fine. Objection noted.

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

>judgements are based on values, which are neither correct nor

>incorrect.

The gospel according to (Idol that is, not St. )

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