Re: POLITICS - money and health - Church compulsion

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 13:31:03 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

>Technically you are correct but did you ever listen to a PPP preaching H &

>D?

Hi Judith,

I am not correct by a technicality. Church attendance and membership is

voluntary. If you know otherwise please point it out to me.

I don't know who PPP is but I assume H & D refer to hellfire and

damnation? Anyway, I'm not aware that anyone is being compelled to

listen to any preacher under penalty of the " gun. " Are you?

>What about the " missionaries " who have destroyed so many viable societies

> " in the name of God " ?

If the missionaries went in with guns a blazing they were thugs. If they

enlisted the support of gov't guns to get their message across they were

thugs. As it stands today, more Christians died in the twentieth century

because of their faith than in the first 19 centuries combined. An ugly

rarely reported fact.

Thus I'm not sure who you have in mind but it seems to me states around

the world have been doing their fare share of destroying those who

profess a belief in Christianity, *especially* missionaries.

On the other hand, especially in the West, there have been times the

Church (broadly defined) has taken on a civil role and engaged in all

kind of " governmental " compulsion.

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]

In a message dated 2/9/04 7:18:35 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> This is a list about Price's groups as well as NT, isn't it?

Some of them, though all were collectivist to a point.

All of Price's

> cultures were egalitarian to my knowledge.

They certainly weren't-- not as anthropologists would classify them. The

cattle-herders and agriculturists couldn't have been egalitarian, and it's

possible that even some of the hunter-gatherers were ranked societies.

Am not advocating anything FOR

> anyone, which is the biggest difference between what you advocate and what

> I

> say

Actually, if that's true, then we advocate the same exact thing.

.. Biggest difference between egalitarian cultures and whatever moral code

> comes along with your political stance,

No moral code whatsoever comes along with my political stance, except the

opposition to use force to enforce a moral code. Libertarianism allows you to

live by your moral code with the people with whom you choose to associate, and

the same for me. If you want to engage in reciprocity-based interaction and

eschew markets, you can, so long as you don't make me do so. If I want to

engage in the sale of my labor or product, I can, so long as I don't make you do

so.

other than how you express it, is

> that no egalitarian culture imposed it's will upon any other entire culture

> in order for others to be just like them.

They certainly imposed their will on individuals in order to expropriate the

fruits of their effort, and used psychological coercion. I wasn't making a

criticism of them though; I was pointing out that everything you were saying

about churches was true of them, in terms of kinds of force that were

non-physical. If a church uses the power of the state or other violent means to

enforce

its will on other cultures you could differentiate between it and an

egalitarian society on that basis-- but in terms of psychological coercion it is

the

same.

Can you understand this in context

> to your saying " That's exactly why Libertarianism is appropriate for

> Native

> Americans. " and my saying " Why does a come on over, conversion spiel not

> surprise me? " In other words, you are advocating how someone else should be,

> with the manner in which you say it alone. Is that clear?

Yes, now it is. You aren't understanding what I'm saying. Libertarianism

doesn't require anything of Native Americans. It requires the state to let

Native Americans live in the manner of their own choosing. Libertarianism

allows

to own seven yachts and to sell them or buy as he chooses, allows Suze

and I to settle linguistic disputes with our post-incident insurance with the

Mike Linguistic Insurance Incorporated, allows the average Joe to buy

power from a power company, and allows Native Americans to collectively own

land if they so choose, and to settle disputes in traditional ways without

interference from the rest of us.

The crux of Libertarianism is that all these ways of life can coexist side by

side. Libertarianism doesn't say you must engage in market transactions. It

says you *can* if you choose to. It doesn't say I must engage in egalitarian

ways of life. It says I *can* if I choose to.

That's not advocating a way of life for Native Americans. It's giving Native

Americans the right to live however they want, including in their traditional

tribal ways.

Obviously they cannot do that wherever they want while everyone else does

whatever they want wherever they want. So private property must be a basis for

the distribution of land and resources. But there's no reason that that

property can't be owned COLLECTIVELY, so that a tribe, or whathaveyou, could

collectively own large tracts of land that they would manage and use in an

egalitarian manner amongst themselves.

>

> >Heidi thinks that

> >people just violated human nature and only " cared about the group. "

>

> I agree with Heidi 100%. Call it female instinct. I honestly don't think

> humans are meant to break human nature unless an ethic to appropriate

> behavior is not clear or there is dysfunction in the group that conveys it

> and is the example of it. You need completely healthy people first and

> foremost.

Yet you and Heidi both make claims about human nature that are contradicted

by every society we've ever observed. You seem to subscribe to the notion of

the " noble savage " which is a fallacy. Pre-modern man was no less corrupt or

evil, and no more generous and loving, than modern man.

>

>

> >But, in

> >fact, anthropology reveals that the sharing of hunted game occurred

> largely by

> >the positive incentive of prestige (=more wives) or the negative incentive

> of

> >ostracism, and inability to defend themselves from confiscation:

>

> That's male ape behavior to Boehm in Hierarchy in the Forest where there are

> alphas and distinct hierarchy.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. It's the behavior observed by

anthropologists among hunter-gatherers.

>

> >

> > " A possible exception is the distribuion of meat by bands of foragers, who

> >pool the risks of hunting large game (with its big but unpredictable

> windfalls)

> >by sharing their catch.[56] Even here, the ethic is far from unstinting

> >generosity, and the sharing is described as having " an edge of

> hostility. " [57]

> >Hunters generally have no easy way of keeping their catch from others, so

> they

> >don't so much share their catch as stand by while others confiscate it.

> Their

> >hunting effort is treated as a public good, and they are punished by

> gossip and

> >ostracism if they resist the confiscation, are rewarded by prestige (which

> >earns them sexual partners) if they tolerate it, and may be entitled to

> payback

> >when the tables turn. " Pinker, _Blank Slate_, p 258

>

> Decided to put off Blank Slate after reading reviews of Hierarchy in the

> Forest as it was more specific to what I was looking for. Your totally

> opposing stance to what I post, as always, was once again expected.

It's a good book. I haven't read _Hierarchy in the Forest_. I have no idea

what you mean to say in your last line. It doesn't really matter what either

of us say. Either hunter-gatherers were peaceful loving groups that never

harmed each other and never asserted their individuality, or they weren't. And

the data clearly shows they weren't.

As to Price's groups, the only reliable data about them are the tooth decay

statistics, and to some degree facial structure data. Degenerative diseases

probably has some merit, but isn't as reliable as the other data. His

observance about their behavior is pretty unreliable, since he didn't spend

enough time

with them, but he clearly noted that many of the groups he studied were at

frequent war with one another.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/9/04 7:31:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> don't recally quite saying that ... I have said that people tend to act in

> a group as the group acts. (watch teenage girls sometime ... all wearing

> the same fasion). I do agree a lot of it is about status, about fitting in,

> about the fact we are basically herd animals. For guys more of it

> is about status and domination, which is part of the problem. The

> males in a herd compete for females ... the females compete less

> and cooperate more.

> As for only " caring only about the group " I'm not sure what that

> refers to. In tribal cultures the individuals tend to think less in

> terms of themselves and more in terms of the tribe, but that

> is different than thinking " only about the group " .

Fair enough. I remembered you saying what I attributed, but I'm not prepared

to back it up so I'll assume the above is your position.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> It's worth noting that the egalitarian societies you advocate used exactly

> such psychological compulsion to oppress their own members.

This is a list about Price's groups as well as NT, isn't it? All of Price's

cultures were egalitarian to my knowledge. Am not advocating anything FOR

anyone, which is the biggest difference between what you advocate and what I

say. Biggest difference between egalitarian cultures and whatever moral code

comes along with your political stance, other than how you express it, is

that no egalitarian culture imposed it's will upon any other entire culture

in order for others to be just like them. Can you understand this in context

to your saying " That's exactly why Libertarianism is appropriate for Native

Americans. " and my saying " Why does a come on over, conversion spiel not

surprise me? " In other words, you are advocating how someone else should be,

with the manner in which you say it alone. Is that clear?

>Heidi thinks that

> people just violated human nature and only " cared about the group. "

I agree with Heidi 100%. Call it female instinct. I honestly don't think

humans are meant to break human nature unless an ethic to appropriate

behavior is not clear or there is dysfunction in the group that conveys it

and is the example of it. You need completely healthy people first and

foremost.

>But, in

> fact, anthropology reveals that the sharing of hunted game occurred

largely by

> the positive incentive of prestige (=more wives) or the negative incentive

of

> ostracism, and inability to defend themselves from confiscation:

That's male ape behavior to Boehm in Hierarchy in the Forest where there are

alphas and distinct hierarchy.

>

> " A possible exception is the distribuion of meat by bands of foragers, who

> pool the risks of hunting large game (with its big but unpredictable

windfalls)

> by sharing their catch.[56] Even here, the ethic is far from unstinting

> generosity, and the sharing is described as having " an edge of

hostility. " [57]

> Hunters generally have no easy way of keeping their catch from others, so

they

> don't so much share their catch as stand by while others confiscate it.

Their

> hunting effort is treated as a public good, and they are punished by

gossip and

> ostracism if they resist the confiscation, are rewarded by prestige (which

> earns them sexual partners) if they tolerate it, and may be entitled to

payback

> when the tables turn. " Pinker, _Blank Slate_, p 258

Decided to put off Blank Slate after reading reviews of Hierarchy in the

Forest as it was more specific to what I was looking for. Your totally

opposing stance to what I post, as always, was once again expected.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

>>Technically you are correct but did you ever listen to a PPP preaching H &

>>D?

If a preacher THREATENS IN A LOUD VOICE that everyone who doesn't

do XYZ WILL BURN IN H*** !!!! isn't that the same as threatening

violence? Is threatening violence the same as doing it? Certainly a lot

of kids and other people take that threat very seriously.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>It's worth noting that the egalitarian societies you advocate used exactly

>such psychological compulsion to oppress their own members. Heidi thinks that

>people just violated human nature and only " cared about the group. "

I don't recally quite saying that ... I have said that people tend to act in

a group as the group acts. (watch teenage girls sometime ... all wearing

the same fasion). I do agree a lot of it is about status, about fitting in,

about the fact we are basically herd animals. For guys more of it

is about status and domination, which is part of the problem. The

males in a herd compete for females ... the females compete less

and cooperate more.

As for only " caring only about the group " I'm not sure what that

refers to. In tribal cultures the individuals tend to think less in

terms of themselves and more in terms of the tribe, but that

is different than thinking " only about the group " .

-- Heidi

>

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> Libertarianism allows to own seven yachts and to sell them or

> buy as he chooses....

Seven? What the heck am I supposed to do with the other ten? Hide them

in the dry dock at my luxurious beachfront home?

[Guest guest]

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

> > Libertarianism allows to own seven yachts and to sell

them or

> > buy as he chooses....

>

> Seven? What the heck am I supposed to do with the other ten? Hide

them

> in the dry dock at my luxurious beachfront home?

>

>

@@@@@@@@@

yeah, you really blew it... How do you think you have a

chance of getting him to allocate one of his yachts for your pot

habit if you can't even keep the basic facts about his fleet

straight??? Man, I'm gonna start writing pro-Libertarian posts and

then I'll be getting my yacht AND your's... hehehehe....

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 16:05:14 -0500

" Judith Alta " <jaltak@...> wrote:

>,

>

>A PPP is a Pulpit Pounding Preacher. You are right on the H & D. These guys

>can scare some people so much that they do not dare NOT go to church. And

>that is just as much force as if they hauled them out of their homes at

>gunpoint and took them to church.

Judith,

with all due respect, this is laughable. It is not the same thing. It is

not at all dealing with the subject of my post.

>

>I am going to say the following only once. You may reply on list, but I

>will not respond as I do not wish to start a religious war. You may discuss

>it privately with me if you wish.

No thanks!

>

>Christianity has done its share of forcing people into its path to deity.

>They burned and destroyed the worship places of the non-believers. They set

>their holy days to coincide with ours so they could tell us we were

>worshiping their " One True God. "

Well I'm tempted to ask who " ours " is in the above paragraph, but on

second thought I won't.

>Christianity is not the poor downtrodden path you, and they, would like us

>to believe.

Well what I said was the number of Christians who have lost their lives for

their faith was more in this century than the previous 19 centuries

combined. I don't know who " they " is. In fact from the years 1918 - 1948,

more Christians lost their lives than did in the first 300 years of the

Church. The numbers are staggering, even when handled quite conservatively.

My point was to illustrate the abusive nature of the state. While I

could have used many examples, given that I was initially responding to

" church compulsion " I used Christian martyers in my post. I could have

easily talked about many non-Christian groups who have suffered at the

hands of the state as well.

It was also to point out that a Church which used the power of the gun

would be acting as a civil gov't no matter what they called themselves.

How I wish the state would *just* pound their " pulpit " with no real

enforcement power, which is what churches have to do. If you would care

to counter that point rather than respond with your own personal

prejudices, I would be happy to listen.

>

>I bowed out of the Bible based path many years ago. I took a good look at

>it and decided there had to be a better way. I was tired of being told that

>I was a no good, worthless sinner who had no hope unless I bowed down to the

> " kind and loving " god that tortures his faithful to prove that they are,

>indeed, faithful. The constant stressing that all are guilty. That all must

>expect to suffer on earth so they may have glory in heaven.

What does this have to do with my post?

>

>The Bible makes it very plain that no one knows who will make it into

>heaven. But today the people are told that if they abide by impossible rules

>they are guaranteed to get into heaven when they die.

Ahh I see. There is you with your interpretation and the other blind

preachers with their interpretation misleading the flock. Okay, but what

in the heck does this have to do with my post?

>

>Jesus had many good things to say. But few of those who claim to follow him

>to day practice his teachings. There are none more judgmental and less

>tolerant than those who claim to be Christian.

>

Do you understand how judgmental you are being in what you just said?

>No, not all Christians are like that. But large numbers are. They know that

>they are right! They know have THE one true religion, and all others even

>those in other Christian denominations, are to be pitied for following the

>wrong path.

Thanks for the sermon. You must have a particular group in mind since

you say that even Christians in other denominations are condemned. But

again, I fail to see the relation to my post.

>Enough,

Lets hope so.

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 Mon, 09 Feb 2004 16:16:45 -0800

Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...> wrote:

>

>>>Technically you are correct but did you ever listen to a PPP preaching H &

>>>D?

>

>If a preacher THREATENS IN A LOUD VOICE that everyone who doesn't

>do XYZ WILL BURN IN H*** !!!! isn't that the same as threatening

>violence?

NO! <g>

>Is threatening violence the same as doing it?

NO! <g>

The real question is this: is a person who claims to speak in the name

of God, i.e a preacher, initiating force or aggression against another

person when he says that God will send that person to hell if they don't

do what they, according to him, are supposed to do?

NO! <weg>

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]

Have you never heard of mental anguish?

Judith Alta

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

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

[snip

The real question is this: is a person who claims to speak in the name

of God, i.e a preacher, initiating force or aggression against another

person when he says that God will send that person to hell if they don't

do what they, according to him, are supposed to do?

NO! <weg>

Liking

http://tinyurl.com/3d8n5

[Guest guest]

Judith and

I think this is one of those guy/girl differences. I HAVE

seen men totally dominate and cow their wives without

actually using violence, and in some cult groups the

effect of psychological domination is well documented.

Actually, that is one of the big holes I see in the whole

" economic " approach to explaining society ... it ignores

psychology, for the most part, as a motivation.

Fear is a great motivator, and so is the afterlife. You

can convince a person to blow themselves up (commit

violence on themselves) with the promise of an

afterlife, and you can threaten people by taking away

their afterlife ... in effect, this becomes another sort

of currency that isn't controlled by the government,

and another sort of violence that isn't controlled

by the government.

Actually I'd say that as an economic force, the " control

of the afterlife " is actually a bigger motive in more American's

lives. Few Americans are really afraid the government will

kill them (even murderers rarely get killed) or put in jail

(most of us in the middle class never set foot in a jail).

But a huge chunk of America is afraid of going to Hell.

If it is a real force that motivates real people, how can

you ignore it, just because it isn't physical force?

Seems your division is rather arbitrary.

-- Heidi Jean

>Have you never heard of mental anguish?

>

>Judith Alta

>

> The real question is this: is a person who claims to speak in the name

>of God, i.e a preacher, initiating force or aggression against another

>person when he says that God will send that person to hell if they don't

>do what they, according to him, are supposed to do?

>

>NO! <weg>

>

>