Has shanek's arguments made you more or less Libertarian?

[DanishDynamite]

In honor of this board's top poster and our Libertarian extraordinaire, I've decided to make a poll.

The question is:

Has shanek's arguments made you more or less likely to vote Libertarian?

(I didn't include the full text in the title as I felt it was too long).

For my own part I can say that I have consistently voted for the party here in Denmark closest to the Libertarian party. To give an example of how this party (Liberal Venstre) is like the Libertarians I can say that the leader of the party (the current Prime Minister) wrote a book a few years back called "The Minimal Government" where he argued for radically reducing the size of the government.

Still, if shanek truely represents the Libertarian Party, I must say that I'm less inclined to vote for that party (given I was an American citizen) than if I had never heard shanek's arguments.

So, how do you feel?

[Edited to add]

Oops! Just to make everything clear:

A Yes vote means shanek's arguments have made it more likely to vote Libertarian.

A No vote means means shanek's arguments have made it less likely to vote Libertarian.

[Graham]

No offence but your poll makes no sense, as far as I can see.

:wink8:

Graham

[MoeFaux]

BAH! You didn't include the option of "I already vote Libertarian, I'm just as crazy as he is".

[Malachi151]

Dude, your poll makes no sense. What does yes and no mean? You should have said "More" and "Less".

At any rate his arguments are so irrational and off base that I don't consider them representative of anything so they have no impact on my already anti-Libertarian views. I would not inslut Libertarians by assuming that shane speaks for them though.

[Graham]

Unless you mean for people to answer "Yes - it is more or less likely that I will vote liberterian" or "No, it is not more or less likely"

Eh . . . I think . . .

[Ed]

Wellllll.

I tend to vote for candidates that have a libertarian take on things.

If a candidate said "I am of the Shanician Wing of the Libertarian Party" I'd have pause. I simply think that there is a role for government beyond what Shane contends.

[Nyarlathotep]

I don't quite know how to answer your poll, the question is "has Shanek made you more or less likely to vote Libertarian", but the poll choices are Yes and No. So do you mean "has he changed your mind in either direction" or does a Yes mean "more likely" and a No mean "less likely".

If the latter is the case, you need a "has had no effect either way" option.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Graham
No offence but your poll makes no sense, as far as I can see.

:wink8:

Graham You are correct! I just edited my post to correct things.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by MoeFaux
BAH! You didn't include the option of "I already vote Libertarian, I'm just as crazy as he is". Can't please everyone. :)

[Mendor]

I'd have to say that I'd be more likely to vote Libertarian now (if we had such a thing as a Libertarian Party in Scotland). It's still unlikely, just more likely now.

Certainly, before I started listening to shanek, I was despicable lefty socialistic Eurotrash* :p but I've ended up gravitating more to the centre economically, which he could maybe count as a small success. I've always been pretty liberal socially.

I'm still left-of-centre though, counting myself with the social democrats, so he has more work to do...

* dig not directed at shanek, who generally doesn't make such comments

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Dude, your poll makes no sense. What does yes and no mean? You should have said "More" and "Less".

At any rate his arguments are so irrational and off base that I don't consider them representative of anything so they have no impact on my already anti-Libertarian views. I would not inslut Libertarians by assuming that shane speaks for them though. I agree (at least with the first part). Hope my edit fixed things.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Malachi151

....so they have no impact on my already anti-Libertarian views.


:roll: :roll:

I guess all commu-fascists hate freedom.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Ed
Wellllll.

I tend to vote for candidates that have a libertarian take on things.

If a candidate said "I am of the Shanician Wing of the Libertarian Party" I'd have pause. I simply think that there is a role for government beyond what Shane contends. No waffling allowed. ;)

[AmateurScientist]

DD,

WTF? You been hitting the Danish this evening?

Fix your poll, man.

For the record, I was already a libertarian, but not a member of the party. I still am not a member. I did vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, in 2000, however.

I disagree with Shane on many topics concerning government's role and the practical applications of it.

I'm far more pragmatic than Shane appears to be. I find that I agree with George Will and the editors of The Wall Street Journal often.

If all I knew about libertarianism was what I could gather from Shane's arguments on this board, I probably would stay away. Does that answer your poll question?

AS

[Nyarlathotep]

I still can't vote. Shanek hasn't changedmy views in either direction. He ahs confirmed botht hte things I like and the things I don't like about the Libertarian party. That's a wash as far as I am concerned.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I don't quite know how to answer your poll, the question is "has Shanek made you more or less likely to vote Libertarian", but the poll choices are Yes and No. So do you mean "has he changed your mind in either direction" or does a Yes mean "more likely" and a No mean "less likely".

If the latter is the case, you need a "has had no effect either way" option. Indeed it makes no sense. I hope my edit corrected this.

[DanishDynamite]

AmateurScientist:DD,

WTF? You been hitting the Danish this evening? Indeed I have. Just came back from an evening out. :)
Fix your poll, man.Is that possible? How do I go about it?
For the record, I was already a libertarian, but not a member of the party. I still am not a member. I did vote for Harry Browne, the Libertarian Party candidate for President, in 2000, however.

I disagree with Shane on many topics concerning government's role and the practical applications of it.

I'm far more pragmatic than Shane appears to be. I find that I agree with George Will and the editors of The Wall Street Journal often.

If all I knew about libertarianism was what I could gather from Shane's arguments on this board, I probably would stay away. Does that answer your poll question?

AS Indeed it does. Sorry about the screw-up.

[Graham]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
You are correct! I just edited my post to correct things.

Thank you :P

Now I voted "No" 'cos Shane's arguments (and lately MoeFaux's) have made it increasingly clear to me that libertarianism is based on the (massively) flawed premise that people are basically rational.

In fact, I get quite the little giggle out of the fact that by believing that, libertarians are proving that very belief false.

Graham

[Victor Danilchenko]

I was already pretty close to libertarian position. However, speaking with Shane made me realize that Libertarians as a whole are not as likely as I thought to be reasonable utilitarian types (a-la Milton Friedman) with whom you can have an honest but reasonable disagreement.

So, while I am neither more nor less likely to vote libertarian now, I am less likely to vote Libertarian, since the more I learn about LP, the less I like their specific flavor of libertarianism.

[Graham]

Danish,

I think you need to ask a mod to fix the poll . . .

Graham

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I still can't vote. Shanek hasn't changedmy views in either direction. He ahs confirmed botht hte things I like and the things I don't like about the Libertarian party. That's a wash as far as I am concerned. Seems my poll is thoroughly screwed up. All I can suggest is either vote for planet X or don't vote at all. :)

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by Graham


Thank you :P

Now I voted "No" 'cos Shane's arguments (and lately MoeFaux's) have made it increasingly clear to me that libertarianism is based on the (massively) flawed premise that people are basically rational.

In fact, I get quite the little giggle out of the fact that by believing that, libertarians are proving that very belief false.

Graham

I believe that people are inherintly good. And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own. And I'm against altruism.

The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that?

[Mendor]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that? I was about to be cynical and suggest "the first bit", but then I realised I would be guilty of something I hate when other people do it - talking about "the people" and not including myself.

"Of course people aren't good... I'm good, well of course I'm good, but people aren't."

"A person is clever. People are dumb, panicky animals and you know it."

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I was already pretty close to libertarian position. However, speaking with Shane made me realize that Libertarians as a whole are not as likely as I thought to be reasonable utilitarian types (a-la Milton Friedman) with whom you can have an honest but reasonable disagreement.

So, while I am neither more nor less likely to vote libertarian now, I am less likely to vote Libertarian, since the more I learn about LP, the less I like their specific flavor of libertarianism. In which case you can actually vote. The choices refer to the Libertarian Party, not libertarian views.

[DavidJames]

"The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that?"

I want to think that and when I meet people, I do so believing that to be true. However, I pay attention to what's really going on in the world and it's clear that there are a sizeable number of people who are not good and would prefer to take advantage of other people at the first opportunity. shanek believes there are criminals in the streets and in government but somehow the free market either eliminates or otherwise neutralizes that same behavior in people making business decisions (with the help of UL type organizations). I think that's nonsense and don't believe his excuses, (it's governments fault), to the contrary.

Specific to the poll, I voted no. I believe shanek's arguments to be disingenuous often intellectually dishonest and/or naive.

[Graham]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I believe that people are inherintly good. And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own. And I'm against altruism.

The core of my belief is that people are good and can take care of themselves. What's so flawed about that?

Oh dear . . .

Rather than derail DanishDynamite's thread, I think we should move this to a new one in Religion & Philosophy (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28536)

Kindly do me the honour of your presence ;)

Graham

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I believe that people are inherintly good.

That, alas, is one of the reasons I can't quite call myself a libertarian. Libertarianism makes that assumption and I think it's a naive one. The only political philosophy that ever seemed, as far as I am concerned, to get a correct idea of how people act is the one espoused by Machiavelli. If someone could come up a political system that allowed for Libertarain ideals in the face of the fact that people are,as a rule, complete b@stards, I would sign up for it in a heartbeat.

[arcticpenguin]

I get tired of the same old thing over and over. You could be talking about which candy bar is your favorite and shanek would try to turn it into a discussion of Libertarian principles.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I get tired of the same old thing over and over. You could be talking about which candy bar is your favorite and shanek would try to turn it into a discussion of Libertarian principles.

That's because it's a well known fact that government flunkies like Mounds and ALmond Joy. Only some sort of freedom hater likes coconut in their candy bar. Only free market forces can keep coconut filled candy bars out of the market place, leaving more room for candy bars that people actully like, such as Snickers.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I get tired of the same old thing over and over. You could be talking about which candy bar is your favorite and shanek would try to turn it into a discussion of Libertarian principles.

He he. It's funny because it's true.

AS

[Segnosaur]

I voted no...

I do have some beliefs in Libertarian ideals... I think government intervention in the economy (in taxes, etc.) should be reduced, as I believe their impact on people's personal lives should be reduced (censorship, etc.)

And I do believe Shanek is a very intelligent, principled person.

However, I believe that the version of Libertarianism that he presents is far to extreme for my comfort level. In other cases, I've expressed concerns about some elements of the libertarian ideals (cases where I may have supported his platform had certain things been cleared up), only to be told more or less that my concerns don't matter.

A case in point: on the liberalization of drug laws: Although I can certainly appreciate the arguments in favour of legalization, one concern that I have is how non-users may get exposed to drugs when they don't wish to be (for example, 'lighting up' in public areas such as bus stops). The response was basically "the non-user can go to a different bus stop if you don't like it". Sorry, I don't find that an acceptable solution.... Perhaps there may enough reasons to legalize drugs, but I do think issues like that need to at least be acknowledged as a problem. (I hope I'm not distorting shanek's arguments on this issue.... the thread was a long time ago and I have no idea if its still active.)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
Now I voted "No" 'cos Shane's arguments (and lately MoeFaux's) have made it increasingly clear to me that libertarianism is based on the (massively) flawed premise that people are basically rational.

Except that I don't believe that people are basically rational. I believe that on a large scale human behavior falls under predictable trends, which is what some people misconstrue as "people are basically rational." But there's a big difference. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy I know of that takes these trends and patterns into account and achieves the maximum benefit to our lives without having to fight them, the way Socialism does.

As for the people who act irrationally, it's very simple: If their irrationality hurts themselves, let them live with the consequences of their actions. If their irrationality hurts others, they should be held liable.

In fact, I get quite the little giggle out of the fact that by believing that, libertarians are proving that very belief false.

Graham [/B][/QUOTE]

[shanek]

Originally posted by DavidJames
shanek believes there are criminals in the streets and in government but somehow the free market either eliminates or otherwise neutralizes that same behavior in people making business decisions (with the help of UL type organizations).

That just absolutely isn't true. I'm saying that people have ways of preventing and/or defending themselves against the initiation of force or fraud. Some of these ways involve government, some don't. But government has absolutely no justification in initiating force itself; that makes it no different from the criminals we want them to protect us from. And they certainly don't have any justification using their forceful measures against people who aren't committing these acts at all in the first place.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Libertarianism makes that assumption [that people are inherently good]

No, it doesn't, although some Libertarians of course believe this. Libertarianism does state, however, that you can't assume that someone is evil unless they actually try and do something evil.

The only political philosophy that ever seemed, as far as I am concerned, to get a correct idea of how people act is the one espoused by Machiavelli.

Hoo boy...

I say the belief that people are basically b@stards is exactly as rational or irrational as the belief that people are basically good.

[shanek]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I get tired of the same old thing over and over. You could be talking about which candy bar is your favorite and shanek would try to turn it into a discussion of Libertarian principles.

Now, when have I ever done so in a nonpolitical discussion?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
A case in point: on the liberalization of drug laws: Although I can certainly appreciate the arguments in favour of legalization, one concern that I have is how non-users may get exposed to drugs when they don't wish to be (for example, 'lighting up' in public areas such as bus stops).

It's not that your concern doesn't matter, it's that it's a separate issue. The issue of someone lighting up with a completely legal product (tobacco) exists now, anyway. The issue of someone lighting up at a bus stop, be it with tobacco or marijuana, is a valid issue that can be discussed, but I don't see what relevance it has at all to the legalization issue. Legalize drugs or not, one issue. What to do about all of these people lighting up at bus stops, regardless of their choice of drugs, separate issue.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


No, it doesn't, although some Libertarians of course believe this. Libertarianism does state, however, that you can't assume that someone is evil unless they actually try and do something evil.


That, I guess, is where we differ. I think assuming people to be 'evil' (though I don't quite like that word, I think amoral is closer to what I mean) is a safe bet.

My point is that I think Libertarianism would work exactly until enough people got together to force everyone else to do what they wanted and to take everyone elses stuff. And human nature being what it is, this would happen as inevitably as the sun will rise.

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek


Except that I don't believe that people are basically rational. I believe that on a large scale human behavior falls under predictable trends, which is what some people misconstrue as "people are basically rational." But there's a big difference. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy I know of that takes these trends and patterns into account and achieves the maximum benefit to our lives without having to fight them, the way Socialism does.

As for the people who act irrationally, it's very simple: If their irrationality hurts themselves, let them live with the consequences of their actions. If their irrationality hurts others, they should be held liable.

IMO, the majority of people act irrationally, therefore you are condemning the majority by the standards of the minority which, correct me if I am wrong, is in contradiction to the supposed principles of libertarianism.

But that is irrelevant - you view things simplistically, IMO, (as either/or) and you divide people strictly into one category or the other. Rational/irrational, linertarian/anti-libertarian, which is exactly the strategy of Stalinism and other such travesties of "inclusive philosophphy". It's "them" and "us"; which history would suggest which is the path to oppression, not freedom.

Graham

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
My point is that I think Libertarianism would work exactly until enough people got together to force everyone else to do what they wanted and to take everyone elses stuff.

No, that's anarchy again. Libertarianism puts several measures in place to stop this from happening.

But tell me this: Why do you think the government should not be prevented from doing exactly this? Because your comment sounds like a perfect description of government to me.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
IMO, the majority of people act irrationally, therefore you are condemning the majority by the standards of the minority which, correct me if I am wrong, is in contradiction to the supposed principles of libertarianism.

No, because we would only be holding liable those who actually cause harm to others. It doesn't matter how many of them there are.

Are you honestly saying that if 51% of the population became murderers that we should suddenly legalize murder then?

But that is irrelevant - you view things simplistically, IMO, (as either/or) and you divide people strictly into one category or the other.

No, I don't. And I wasn't the one who started the categorization, either; I've just been responding to it. When people act rationally, they should be left alone. When they act irrationally, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by shanek

When people act rationally, they should be left alone. When they act irrationally, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

That has never been the test of civil or criminal liability under the English Common Law or under American jurisprudence.

Civil law provides three basic degrees of culpability for assessing the degree of liability an actor may have to another. They are 1) simple negligence; 2) wantonness; and 3) intentional acts or omissions. There are also small areas of law in which strict liability is imposed, but they are certainly aberrations in legal principles.

Criminal culpability is usually divided into three categories as well: 1) criminal negligence (usually greater than simple negligence); 2) recklessness; and 3) intentional acts or omissions. There are also categories of strict liability crimes, such as running a red light, but they are also aberrations in legal principles of culpability.

Nowhere in the law is "irrational" the test for liablility.

AS

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek


No, that's anarchy again. Libertarianism puts several measures in place to stop this from happening.

But tell me this: Why do you think the government should not be prevented from doing exactly this? Because your comment sounds like a perfect description of government to me.

I know that is a perfect description government. It goes along with my point. No one yet has come up with a way around that fact, not even the Libertarians. The only difference is who is making you do what and how much of your possessions they intend to take for the privelige. Libertarianism sounds good, because they don't plan on forcing you to do much or taking much from you. Unfortunately, I worry that all this does is leave open a huge power vacuum for someone else (Big Business, I would think, since money=power) to take more of your posessions and force you to do more things. I think Libertarianism is just a bit TOO hands off to prevent that from happening.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I was already pretty close to libertarian position. However, speaking with Shane made me realize that Libertarians as a whole are not as likely as I thought to be reasonable utilitarian types (a-la Milton Friedman) with whom you can have an honest but reasonable disagreement.

So, while I am neither more nor less likely to vote libertarian now, I am less likely to vote Libertarian, since the more I learn about LP, the less I like their specific flavor of libertarianism.

(nods head in agreement)

[Graham]

Originally posted by shanek


No, because we would only be holding liable those who actually cause harm to others. It doesn't matter how many of them there are.

Are you honestly saying that if 51% of the population became murderers that we should suddenly legalize murder then?

The person who punishes the murderer is causing harm to the murderer (by imprisoning him or whatever).

By your reasoning, simply because the murderer is in the minority he is "in the wrong". By what objective standard do ytou judge the murderer as "wrong"?

No, I don't. And I wasn't the one who started the categorization, either; I've just been responding to it. When people act rationally, they should be left alone. When they act irrationally, they should be responsible for the consequences of their actions.

And who is to judge what is "rational" and "irrational"?

You? The Libertarian Party?

Graham

[QuarkChild]

I hope it's OK if I ignore this derailment and answer the original question.

Reading shanek's (and to a lesser extent, Moefaux's) posts have encouraged me think more about the assumptions that support our current government. For example, I'm not ready to think that income tax should be abolished, but thanks to shanek's remarks on the subject, I now wonder what role other sources of revenue could serve and how people decided what proportion of income tax should be collected by states instead of the federal government, for example. I'm too ignorant to have any definite opinions on the issue, but I think about it.

His posts also serve as a reminder that there are a lot of things wrong with our current laws (eg, the drug war.)

But I'm not voting Libertarian any time soon. If I'm going to throw away my vote, I'll throw it away on the Green party, not the Libertarians. :)

[Lord Emsworth]

Voting doesn't exist on Planet X.

The only thing that I have discovered is that I'm already pretty much - what was it called?

Edited to add:

Ah, Libertarian.

[Graham]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
I hope it's OK if I ignore this derailment and answer the original question.

Reading shanek's (and to a lesser extent, Moefaux's) posts have encouraged me think more about the assumptions that support our current government. For example, I'm not ready to think that income tax should be abolished, but thanks to shanek's remarks on the subject, I now wonder what role other sources of revenue could serve and how people decided what proportion of income tax should be collected by states instead of the federal government, for example. I'm too ignorant to have any definite opinions on the issue, but I think about it.

His posts also serve as a reminder that there are a lot of things wrong with our current laws (eg, the drug war.)

But I'm not voting Libertarian any time soon. If I'm going to throw away my vote, I'll throw it away on the Green party, not the Libertarians. :)

I second this.

Graham

[Whomp]

I'm too naive to vote.
I hear all these party ravings, and slams to all sides, and think to myself "I must be missing something".

As critical thinkers, don't you simply look at the merits of the legislation, or the candidate, and vote accordingly? Regardless of party?

I see people here spout vitriol about Democrats or Republicans.
If I copied and pasted the venom I find here into my own posts, but substituted the word "black" or "Jew" wherever I came across the name of a political party, the hue and cry would be deafening.


Whomp!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
No one yet has come up with a way around that fact, not even the Libertarians.

And we don't claim to. We just advocate only defensive and punitive measures directed at the people who are actually initiating force or fraud against others, as opposed to punishing everybody for the actions of a few.

Unfortunately, I worry that all this does is leave open a huge power vacuum for someone else (Big Business, I would think, since money=power) to take more of your posessions and force you to do more things.

Why? Libertarianism would put the power of YOUR life in YOUR hands. There wouldn't be a vacuum, because you would be occupying that space.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Graham
By your reasoning, simply because the murderer is in the minority he is "in the wrong". By what objective standard do ytou judge the murderer as "wrong"?

By the noninitiation of force principle. Murder is most certainly an initiation of force.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Whomp
As critical thinkers, don't you simply look at the merits of the legislation, or the candidate, and vote accordingly?

I base my evaluation of the merits on what will maximize liberty for everyone. Since the Libertarian Party is the embodiment of that idea, that's why I'm with them. I'm with the LP because right now their principles happend to fit with mine. If that ever changes, and my efforts to fix it from within the party prove fruitless, I'll dump them.

I'm no party shill. I've never voted a straight ticket in my life, even when I can vote straight Libertarian. I hate everything about straight-party voting and think it should be abolished. I even think party affiliation should be neither printed on the ballot nor a criteria for inclusion on the ballot.

In fact, political parties could disappear tomorrow and I'd be happy-as-Larry. But that isn't realistic. People have a right to assemble, and they're going to and form groups, including political parties. But having government recognize them is just ridiculous.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by shanek

Why? Libertarianism would put the power of YOUR life in YOUR hands. There wouldn't be a vacuum, because you would be occupying that space.

Libertarianism would be very good for preventing somoeone forcing me to act against my will by force of law or by threat of violence. Unfortunately, the power vacuum comes up because there are other means of coercion. I don't see how they can stop coercion of the "You will do what we say if you want to eat/have a roof over your head/know what's good for you" variety.

[EvilYeti]

Since according to jj I'm a lower-case libertarian, I would have to say shanek has done much to push me away from the LP. I'm father from it then I've ever been.

I will admit, however, that shanek is one of the most entertaining posters on the board. I have never in my life encountered someone who was perfectly wrong about everything. Its a riot to watch. The smug self-satisifaction he displays with his own ignorance is absolutely hysterical. Like in this thread for example, when AS demonstrated he has no idea how either civil or criminal liabilty work.

It's like watching someone arrogantly proclaim the sun orbits the earth because its plain to see it move across the sky during the day. Nevermind the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it looks like the sun goes around the earth , so therefore it is. No amount of argument or proof will ever shake the fool of his belief.

P.S. I bet the only "Yes" votes are folks that are already Libertarian or people confused by the wording of the poll.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Libertarianism would be very good for preventing somoeone forcing me to act against my will by force of law or by threat of violence. Unfortunately, the power vacuum comes up because there are other means of coercion.

But Libertarianism allows you to defend yourself from that coercion and to seek a redress of grievances through the legal system.

I don't see how they can stop coercion of the "You will do what we say if you want to eat/have a roof over your head/know what's good for you" variety.

You think mob rule is consistent with Libertarianism?

[MoeFaux]

Originally posted by QuarkChild
Reading shanek's (and to a lesser extent, Moefaux's) posts have encouraged me think more about the assumptions that support our current government. For example, I'm not ready to think that income tax should be abolished, but thanks to shanek's remarks on the subject, I now wonder what role other sources of revenue could serve and how people decided what proportion of income tax should be collected by states instead of the federal government, for example. I'm too ignorant to have any definite opinions on the issue, but I think about it.

His posts also serve as a reminder that there are a lot of things wrong with our current laws (eg, the drug war.)


YES! Thank you!
When I go around raving about Libertarianism and freedom and rights, I don't expect anyone to "convert". I just want people to think about it.
As I said in this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27556&perpage=40&highlight=whackjob&pagenumber=1) thread:

"I don't think any sane Libertarian believes that there will ever be a government that allows guns on airplanes or letting people do as they wish. It's mainly about the ideas. A Libertarian's perfect world is based on a world filled with sane, respecting folk who would never harm another person. Anyone over the age of 10 knows that the world we live in is not such a world. But it's gradual suggestions that change things, one step at a time.
It's ludicrous that people should receive government handouts. So the Libertarian says, "no government handouts", that idea gets mixed in with all the others, and we come out somewhere in the middle."

I just want the ideas to get mixed up. I want more information introduced so people have more to think about and make their own decisions on.
I want people to think. Even it means you think I'm nuts.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I get tired of the same old thing over and over. You could be talking about which candy bar is your favorite and shanek would try to turn it into a discussion of Libertarian principles.

At least he doesn't try to turn every thread into a discussion of Israel. :)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I was already pretty close to libertarian position. However, speaking with Shane made me realize that Libertarians as a whole are not as likely as I thought to be reasonable utilitarian types (a-la Milton Friedman) with whom you can have an honest but reasonable disagreement.

So, while I am neither more nor less likely to vote libertarian now, I am less likely to vote Libertarian, since the more I learn about LP, the less I like their specific flavor of libertarianism.
My sentiments exactly. While I agree with a number of traditional libertarian positions, especially regarding dealing with drugs, Shanek has scared me into thinking that many people behind the Libertarian Party are raving loonies. Truly, we need a third party (and a fourth, and fifth...) but this bunch of fanatics is not it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by MoeFaux

YES! Thank you!
When I go around raving about Libertarianism and freedom and rights, I don't expect anyone to "convert". I just want people to think about it.


Fine, but have you ever considered the damage your "ranting and raving" might be doing to the more moderate groups actually WORKING on fixing the problems with the government? As opposed to just complaining about it?

I'm a staunch anti-prohibitionist and I can say with absolute certainty the LP have done exactly zero to help the cause. Their only contribution is to serve as a strawman for the status quo. "These people want to make selling crack from vending machines legal!" they say! We don't, thats the Libertarian position. Not ours.

When you take such an extremist position you will more often end up hurting the cause instead of helping it. The LP does for liberty what AlQueda does for muslim tolerance. :rolleyes:

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
"These people want to make selling crack from vending machines legal!" they say! We don't, thats the Libertarian position. Not ours.

You have been asked before to produce official LP issue papers supporting this. You have been unable to do so. Why should anyone believe a single word you say? Perhaps this "harm" comes from lying trolls like yourself and not anything at all the LP says?

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Blatant propaganda and crackpot economic theories are certainly annoying, to say the very least; but what really infuriates me is the revisionist history that gets peddled to "justify" Libertarian positions. I voted "No."

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Tricky

My sentiments exactly. While I agree with a number of traditional libertarian positions, especially regarding dealing with drugs, Shanek has scared me into thinking that many people behind the Libertarian Party are raving loonies. Truly, we need a third party (and a fourth, and fifth...) but this bunch of fanatics is not it.

Libertarians are raving loones, my thread on the Freestate board proved that (of course shanek repeatdly stated that all their arguments made perfect sense). From that thread I was told that:

*All* stastics lie (of course because no stats support a Libertarian position)

The most "Libertarian" time in America was before the Civil War (when 15% of the population were slaves, Indians were being slaughtered left and right to steal their land, women and even men who did not own property could not vote)

History cannot teach us anything valuable about economics so if something looks like it proves the Libertarisn position wrong based on historical facts, thats just not important.

All the data on economics collected by the government is false and can't be trusted, like past unemployment rates, GDP, etc. Adjusting dollars for inflation is imperfect so trends of wages getting better as more labor laws were implimented can be trusted.

The fact that the standard of living and GDP went up dramatically with the start of WWII and kept going since then, at the same time government spending also made a giant leap and kept going up is just a coincidence, and in fact, all that government spending really just held us back from even greater progress. True that progress was never seen prior to WWII and the huge increase of the role of the government, but thats just coincidence.

Everyone in America, and around the world, has to succeed IN SPITE of government. Government, by definition never helps, it only hurts.

All monopolies are created by government, all safety problems are the fault of the government, minimum wages only hurt people, pretty much anything bad that's ever happened, its the government's fault.

Taxes are theft, period, and as such the only good situation will be when all taxes are eliminated.

Paying taxes for the use of public property and services is different then paying for private goods and services. Yes you have to pay rent, and if you don't pay rent then a man will "come to your door with a gun" and throw you out, BUT, you have a "choice" not to pay rent, and you have no "choice" not to pay taxes. Of course your only choice is to be homeless, and you do have the choice to leave America as well.

The fact that government programs like the GI Bill, Head Start, Federal Highways, the Police, the Military, NASA, the CDC, the creation of the Internet, etc have all been successful and filled needs that were not otherwise being met and no one prevented a "free-market" solution for these issues is not relevant. If the government didn't do it then someone would have (probably at the same time no less), and the fact that tax money was used to fund those programs means that its actually impossible for them to pay off and be beneficial, because by definition all government programs are nothing but a drain on the economy. As good as things are now, they would have been even better without all that.

The fact that property in America was origionally taken by force, essentially 100% of it was stolen and it was not evenly distributed, and people born now are born into an existing system where they may or may not automatically have access to propety rights is of little consequense, what is important is simply protecting the property rights of those people who currently do own the property.

Etc, etc, etc... if people can call that rational then no amount of reasing is ever going to make sense to them. Again, modern "L"ibertarianism is a new religion, and shanek is the David Koresh of that religion.

[Mike B.]

[i]but what really infuriates me is the revisionist history that gets peddled to "justify" Libertarian positions. I voted "No." [/B]

AMEN!!!

:mad:

[shanek]

Amazing...Absolutely f*cking amazing...As usual, most if not all of the arguments which are shown as reasons Libertarians are "loonies" are not things that the Libertarian Party claims in any way, shapw, or form.

Malachi, EvilYeti, and the others have been asked time and time again to post ONE SINGLE OFFICIAL LIBERTARIAN PARTY POSITION PAPER showing that these claims are actual Libertarian Party claims and not strawmen cooked up to make the LP look like "loonies." So far, none have been able to do so. And a thread started by someone else on the LP platform was deliberately derailed by these anti-libertarian bigots. The LAST thing they want to do is actually discuss these issues; they want to insult others and make them look small.

I'm reminded of something Delenn on Babylon 5 said to pundits using similar tactics: "You do not wish to know anything! You wish only to speak. That which you know, you ignore because it is inconvenient. That which you do not know, you invent."

So ask EvilYeti where slavery is mentioned as a desirable part of a free society in the LP Platform. He insists that it's in there.

Ask Malachi where the LP Platform advocates the taking of land by force. Because I can quote it saying just the opposite.

Ask Nyarlathotep where the LP Platform supports Mob rule.

They don't do that. They just take words like "irrational" out of their original context and use it to try and show that I don't know what I'm saying, when that complaint didn't have the first thing to do with what I'm talking about and everyone here knows it.

If you disagree with Libertarianism, fine. If you think it's basically the right idea but just goes too far, fine. If you like some of its ideas but not others, fine. But lying, namecalling, using words like "crackpot economic theories" to describe things you'll learn in any first-semester macroeconomics class, etc. just doesn't have any place on a board that's supposed to be about free thinking and skepticism, IMO.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The question is:

Has shanek's arguments made you more or less likely to vote Libertarian?


I said yes to the question because I exist as superposition of quantum
states. In this case he has raised both quantum state amplitudes of more
likely to vote libertarian and less likely to vote libertarian simultaneously.
Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
At least he doesn't try to turn every thread into a discussion of Israel. :)
Though some of hope he'd at least join in on one. :D
Originally posted by shanek
As for the people who act irrationally, it's very simple:
If their irrationality hurts themselves, let them live with
the consequences of their actions. If their irrationality
hurts others, they should be held liable.

Aha! You've beeen drinking in the Alpha Pub, haven't you? (http://www.alphapub.com/)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

You have been asked before to produce official LP issue papers supporting this. You have been unable to do so. Why should anyone believe a single word you say? Perhaps this "harm" comes from lying trolls like yourself and not anything at all the LP says?

As usual, you are perfectly ignorant of everything, including your own parties politics. Go read lp.org and get back to us when have an understanding of what it means to be a Libertarian.

The LP supports the "decriminalization" of all drugs (which is good) as well as the "deregulation" of all drug sales (which is bad). With no regulation, it becomes perfectly legal to sell recreational drugs from vending machines. In fact, in a Libertarian society, it would be ILLEGAL to prohibit it!

Of course, being the pinhead that you are, you will now claim that no one will do this, or free market pressures will make it uneconimcal to do so. Well, guess what, the reason you don't see cigarette vending machines anymore is due to government regulation, not the free market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The LP supports the "decriminalization" of all drugs (which is good) as well as the "deregulation" of all drug sales (which is bad). With no regulation, it becomes perfectly legal to sell recreational drugs from vending machines. In fact, in a Libertarian society, it would be ILLEGAL to prohibit it!

That is NOT what you claimed. You claimed the LP wants CRACK to be in vending machines.

Let's step into a parallel universe for a moment here, a universe where caffeine was criminalized along with other drugs.

Being in the hands of a criminal black market, bent on total addiction and with no regard for consumer safety, and wanting to magnify the effects caffeine has on the brain (which are very similar to cocaine and heroin), the dosages will get bigger and bigger. Only 10g of caffeine is a fatal (LD50) dosage. It wouldn't be long before caffeine, in the mind of the public, would be vilified as much as cocaine and even crack cocaine. And when we spoke of legalization and deregulation of drugs, EvilYeti would be saying, "You want hard caffeine to be sold in vending machines!"

But, of course, in the hands of the free market, hard caffeine isn't being sold in vending machines...even though caffeine is, in about 75% of the sodas you can buy.

"Crack" is not a product demanded by the free market. It was a creation of criminal drug dealers. Before cocaine and heroin were made illegal, anyone—even an 8-year-old—could walk into a drugstore and purchase it, no questions asked. And it wasn't really any more of a problem than caffeine is today. The only real difference is that caffeine addictions are more socially acceptable now than heroin addictions were then. People don't even care if kids are addicted to caffeine anymore.

Placed in the hands of the free market, harder forms of drugs such as crack cocaine would disappear. As with caffeine, the free market would dispense as safe a product as possible.

And the ONLY reason cigarette vending machines were made illegal was because of the idea that kids could get ahold of cigarettes that way. Of course, like I said, no one's worried about their kids' addiction to caffeine, and there's absolutely no evidence at all that it's stopped any kids from obtaining cigarettes or had any effect on the number of minors smoking.

EvilYeti knows all of this, of course, because I've told him before. But he prefers to lie and troll and twit because, for him, this isn't about a rational discussion; this is about inflating his ego and making him feel like a big man. Really, really sad.

[Lord Kenneth]

I may be partly libertarian.

I am libertarian on personal rights issues, that's for sure. But economically, I'm not so sure.

For example, I believe that taxing should be fair and should not be spent on stupid things-- instead of spending it on monuments and dead authors or whatever spend tax dollars on funding for cancer, NASA, science, defense, etc.

Foreign aid I'm not really sure about. Sure, it's our money, but they are still people-- and foreign aid may (or may not) help improve diplomatic relations.

[Lord Kenneth]

Also, I think it is important for the government to protect the average citizen from liars, conmen, etc with scientifically verifiable facts. Quacks get away too easily...

As well, I have a philosophy I think shanek might agree with... it's okay as long as all parties directly affected agree to it.

I am for the decriminalization of drugs, but if someone hurts someone as a result of being on those drugs then they should be severely punished.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

That is NOT what you claimed. You claimed the LP wants CRACK to be in vending machines.

No, I claimed the LP wants the sale of CRACK in vending machines to be LEGAL and restrictions on the sale of crack to be ILLEGAL. Do you deny this? Didn't think so.

Let's step into a parallel universe for a moment here, a universe where caffeine was criminalized along with other drugs.

No, why don't we stay in this universe and use real data from science and history. Rather then making up more Libertarian nonsense.

Being in the hands of a criminal black market, bent on total addiction and with no regard for consumer safety, and wanting to magnify the effects caffeine has on the brain (which are very similar to cocaine and heroin), the dosages will get bigger and bigger. Only 10g of caffeine is a fatal (LD50) dosage.

Thats the most retarded argument I ever heard in my life. An adult will overdose on caffeine around 1 gram and become violently ill, making further overdose impossible. You are comparing apples and oranges.

But, of course, in the hands of the free market, hard caffeine isn't being sold in vending machines...even though caffeine is, in about 75% of the sodas you can buy.

Execpt, as always, you are wrong. Most truckers reststops sell caffeine and ephedra stimulants in a pill form from vending machines. Seen it many times myself.

"Crack" is not a product demanded by the free market. It was a creation of criminal drug dealers.

Uh, in a Libertarian society the only difference will be those drug dealers will not be criminals anymore. Crack is a product CREATED by the free market of drug trade (being that its unregulated). It's more economical to sell rock then powder cocaine. Thats not going to change if cocaine is decriminalized and deregulated. If cocaine is decriminalized and REGULATED then users could only legally buy the safer powder form. Of course they could still buy it illegally or rock it up themselves, but most won't bother. Druggies are lazy people.

Before cocaine and heroin were made illegal, anyone—even an 8-year-old—could walk into a drugstore and purchase it, no questions asked. And it wasn't really any more of a problem than caffeine is today.

Big surprise, more revisionist history from shanek. Cocaine addiction was HUGE problem at the turn of the century, leading to a peak of 5,000 cocaine related deaths in 1912. This was largely due to the unregulated sale of cocaine in various "health tonics" creating huge numbers of unwitting addicts. The ensuing public outcry caused the government to formally outlaw its sale.

The only real difference is that caffeine addictions are more socially acceptable now than heroin addictions were then. People don't even care if kids are addicted to caffeine anymore.

No, the only real difference is that caffeine, cocaine and heroin are all VERY different drugs!
Are you saying you would be comfortable with a world where kids are addicted to cocaine and heroin, as well as caffeine?

Placed in the hands of the free market, harder forms of drugs such as crack cocaine would disappear. As with caffeine, the free market would dispense as safe a product as possible.

Like when the free market produced tonics containing morphine, cocaine and arsenic? Where do you come up with this crap?
And of course you make your crystal ball claims of special knowledge again, with a prediction of how the free market will behave.

EvilYeti knows all of this, of course, because I've told him before. But he prefers to lie and troll and twit because, for him, this isn't about a rational discussion; this is about inflating his ego and making him feel like a big man. Really, really sad.

Shanek, does it bother you at all that you are pushing the MAJORITY of this board AWAY from Libertarianism?

Isn't it sad that you are a total, abject failure? If you never joined this board it would be MORE Libertarian than it is now!

Why don't you cut your losses and leave?

[LeFevre]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Since according to jj I'm a lower-case libertarian, I would have to say shanek has done much to push me away from the LP. I'm father from it then I've ever been.

I will admit, however, that shanek is one of the most entertaining posters on the board. I have never in my life encountered someone who was perfectly wrong about everything. Its a riot to watch. The smug self-satisifaction he displays with his own ignorance is absolutely hysterical. Like in this thread for example, when AS demonstrated he has no idea how either civil or criminal liabilty work.

It's like watching someone arrogantly proclaim the sun orbits the earth because its plain to see it move across the sky during the day. Nevermind the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it looks like the sun goes around the earth , so therefore it is. No amount of argument or proof will ever shake the fool of his belief.

P.S. I bet the only "Yes" votes are folks that are already Libertarian or people confused by the wording of the poll.

You really have a thing for Shane dont you?

I have never in my life encountered someone who was perfectly wrong about everything.
:eek:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Foreign aid I'm not really sure about. Sure, it's our money, but they are still people-- and foreign aid may (or may not) help improve diplomatic relations.

Well, it might improve diplomatic relations with the country in question (although Afghanistan, Iraq, and others have pretty much disproved that point), but it certainly will do the opposite with any enemies they might have.

As it's our money, it should be up to us, individually, whether or not we want to contribute to the aid of foreign countries. The Libertarian position here is that no one, not even government, has a right to take your money at the point of a gun and give it to anyone else. A burglar isn't justified when he gives the loot to charity.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
I am for the decriminalization of drugs, but if someone hurts someone as a result of being on those drugs then they should be severely punished.

I'm absolutely in total 100% agreement.

[Gem]

Well, it might improve diplomatic relations with the country in question (although Afghanistan, Iraq, and others have pretty much disproved that point), but it certainly will do the opposite with any enemies they might have.

Though it worked wonders with Germany and Japan. And I doubt private charities would have filled in the gap.


As it's our money, it should be up to us, individually, whether or not we want to contribute to the aid of foreign countries. The Libertarian position here is that no one, not even government, has a right to take your money at the point of a gun and give it to anyone else.

Ok, think if all of a sudden, all foreign aid to AIDS, famine, etc is cut off.

A burglar isn't justified when he gives the loot to charity.

Then I guess you don't like Robin Hood. ;)

Gem

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by Gem
Ok, think if all of a sudden, all foreign aid to AIDS, famine, etc is cut off.


And I believe that help stopping the spread of disease in other countries helps stop the disease from spreading elsewhere, including here.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
No, why don't we stay in this universe

Don't want to consider the real facts, huh? Don't want to consider that caffeine, available in vending machines now, might be much, much worse than cocaine were it prohibited?

Thats the most retarded argument I ever heard in my life. An adult will overdose on caffeine around 1 gram and become violently ill, making further overdose impossible.

This, by you, is "real data"? For your information, it has happened in households that keep caffeine around for their own recipes have experienced their children dying from getting ahold of the stuff. And there are several reported adult fatalities, too, including two cases of sudden death upon walking into an emergency room. (Source: Shum S, Seale C, Hathaway D, et al., "Acute caffeine ingestion fatalities: management issues." Vet Hum Toxicol 1997; 39: 228-230)

Execpt, as always, you are wrong. Most truckers reststops sell caffeine and ephedra stimulants in a pill form from vending machines.

NOT in toxic levels. Yes, there is caffeine in No-Doze and other stimulants, as well as in medicine to treat migrane headaches. NONE of this contradicts what I said.

Uh, in a Libertarian society the only difference will be those drug dealers will not be criminals anymore. Crack is a product CREATED by the free market of drug trade (being that its unregulated).

A black market is NOT, by any stretch, a free market. You just love making yourself look idiotic, don't you?

Big surprise, more revisionist history from shanek.

I don't think so.

The addiction rate of cocaine and heroin, according to the Drug Policy Alliance (prediction: EvilYeti will respond with nothing more than his usual unfounded accusations of bias against the source) was 1.3% when it was legal, 1.3% when it was made illegal, 1.3% when the Drug War started, and 1.3% after it escalated. Making it illegal changed NOTHING, except that now there are no checks on strength and purity.

This was largely due to the unregulated sale of cocaine in various "health tonics" creating huge numbers of unwitting addicts.

The best information on thse shows that the amount of cocaine in these tonics was less than 1/400th of a grain per ounce of syrup, which was usually mixed 1-to-3 with water or soda. Technically, it wasn't even cocaine, it was ecogine, and the total amount comprised no more than .02ppm. It was figured that in an entire year's supply of the syrups there was no more than six-hundredths of an ounce. This was according to Dr. W.C. Heath, the chemist responsible for Coca-Cola's chemical makeup who was also charged with comparing his company's product with the competitors.

And I notice you don't mention the source for the 5,000 figure: the US Government, in a propaganda campaign trying to whip up support for its drug criminalization measure.

[Lord Kenneth]

Why is it that marijuana is illegal and alcocol isn't, EvilYeti?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Though it worked wonders with Germany and Japan.

Which was really the Allies fixing a situation they screwed up royally to begin with.

Then I guess you don't like Robin Hood. ;)

Robin Hood took money taken by the government in taxes. He did not take it from people who had rightfully earned it.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
Why is it that marijuana is illegal and alcocol isn't, EvilYeti?

Purely historical and political reasons.

I presume you are familiar with the Temperance Movement and how it led to the passage of the Eighteen Amendment, and its repeal by the Twenty-First Amendment 13 years later. Alcohol prohibition was discovered to be a dismal failure at halting alcohol use. It also spawned the spread of gang influence and government corruption, and the attendant gang turf wars and violence.

For the contrasting history of marijuana's prohibition in the 20th Century, Google for "Harry Anslinger" and you should get many links which explain his role as the nation's first "drug czar" and the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. You should get a sense of how prejudice towards Mexican immigrants played a large role in the criminalization of marijuana in the U.S. At that time, Mexico was the principle source of marijuana, and lots of Mexicans smoked or ate it. Criminalizing and demonizing it provided an easy way to corral them and deport or imprison them. A tremendous propaganda campaign followed to demonize marijuana in the public psyche. It worked beautifully for a generation or so, until jazz and early rock musicians and students spread the word that the campaign was based on nothing but lies. Unfortunately, the propaganda campaign of spreading disinformation about marijuana and its effects continues today. In a nutshell, that's why it remains illegal.

AS

[Lord Kenneth]

AS, you weren't supposed to answer that for him. I knew the answer (well, not nearly as specific as you got into) but I knew the basics. I wanted to see EY's excuse.

But, your post was informative anyway.

[Gem]

Which was really the Allies fixing a situation they screwed up royally to begin with.

Wait, you think the Allies screwed up reconstruction of these countries?

Gem

[AmateurScientist]

Danish,

I just have to ask. Are you kicking yourself for starting this thread?

:D

AS

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Don't want to consider the real facts, huh? Don't want to consider that caffeine, available in vending machines now, might be much, much worse than cocaine were it prohibited?

Taking cocaine makes you feel good. Taken more makes you feel better. Take too much and you die.
Caffeine, on the other hand, makes you feel a little stimulated, take more and you feel like you are going to die (I've OD'ed on caffeine, its not pleasant).
They are different drugs with different mechanisms. Ask anyone who has tried both.

This, by you, is "real data"? For your information, it has happened in households that keep caffeine around for their own recipes have experienced their children dying from getting ahold of the stuff. And there are several reported adult fatalities, too, including two cases of sudden death upon walking into an emergency room. (Source: Shum S, Seale C, Hathaway D, et al., "Acute caffeine ingestion fatalities: management issues." Vet Hum Toxicol 1997; 39: 228-230)

Who the hell keeps pure chemical caffeine around for recipies? Do you mean chocolate? I'm talking specifically about adults and recreational usage.
Do you have any idea of how much of a caffeinated product you would have to consume to get a fatal dose? How about 51 liters of Mountain Dew!

NOT in toxic levels. Yes, there is caffeine in No-Doze and other stimulants, as well as in medicine to treat migrane headaches. NONE of this contradicts what I said.

You said you can't buy concentrated caffeine from vending machines. I exactly contradicted what you said.
A few crack rocks won't kill you either, probably. Which is what your drug dealing pals would sell from vending machines if the Libs ran the country.

A black market is NOT, by any stretch, a free market. You just love making yourself look idiotic, don't you?

I'll ask you that question, as I started considering black markets as free markets after reading this article.

THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY (http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj15n2-3-3.html)

Are you suggesting the Cato institute is idiotic?

The addiction rate of cocaine and heroin, according to the Drug Policy Alliance (prediction: EvilYeti will respond with nothing more than his usual unfounded accusations of bias against the source) was 1.3% when it was legal, 1.3% when it was made illegal, 1.3% when the Drug War started, and 1.3% after it escalated.

Except you are forgetting that I'm an anti-prohibitionist so I'm not going to dispute that the current policy doesn't work. All I will say about your source is that no one really knows exactly what % of the country was addicted 100 years ago. We do know that it was enough to cause a public outcry that resulted in legislation.

Making it illegal changed NOTHING, except that now there are no checks on strength and purity.

Uh, and who do you think would mandate and enforce those checks? Private industry? If they did there wouldn't have been a need for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906! Which the LP opposes btw. What an awful world we live in, where the evil Gummint prevents private industry from selling poisonous food and adulterated, misbranded drugs.

The best information on thse shows that the amount of cocaine in these tonics was less than 1/400th of a grain per ounce of syrup, which was usually mixed 1-to-3 with water or soda. Technically, it wasn't even cocaine, it was ecogine, and the total amount comprised no more than .02ppm. It was figured that in an entire year's supply of the syrups there was no more than six-hundredths of an ounce. This was according to Dr. W.C. Heath, the chemist responsible for Coca-Cola's chemical makeup who was also charged with comparing his company's product with the competitors.

You are such an utterly pathetic, transparent liar. You are not describing patent medicines, you are describing the formula for CocaCola AFTER most of the cocaine was removed! What the hell does that have to do with anything?
No one knows for sure how much cocaine was in the original formula, but...

...it has been estimated that the original formula had enough cocaine in it that five glasses of the product would approximate the dose taken by modern-day addicts
Sources: “For God, Country and Coca-Cola” by Mark Pendergrast; “The Sparkling Story of Coca-Cola” by Gyvel Young-Witzel

Thats alot more then what you claimed!

And I notice you don't mention the source for the 5,000 figure: the US Government, in a propaganda campaign trying to whip up support for its drug criminalization measure.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy" that's responsible for every fact that makes the LP look bad. How silly of me.

Do you realize how bad such paranoid statements make you look to a skeptical community?

Of course you don't, which is why you push more people away from the LP than I ever could. Keep up the good work! :D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth
AS, you weren't supposed to answer that for him. I knew the answer (well, not nearly as specific as you got into) but I knew the basics. I wanted to see EY's excuse.

But, your post was informative anyway.

What excuse? What the hell are you talking about? I'm an anti-prohibitionist!

Anyways, AS is right as anyone with a subscription to HighTimes will tell you. Its not rocket science.

You should try reading books sometime, instead of just throwing them at your mother.

[Lord Kenneth]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


What excuse? What the hell are you talking about? I'm an anti-prohibitionist!

Anyways, AS is right as anyone with a subscription to HighTimes will tell you. Its not rocket science.

You should try reading books sometime, instead of just throwing them at your mother.


Whoooooosh!

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Lord Kenneth


Whoooooosh!

You missed, remember your mom is old and slow, so you don't have to lead her so much.

[Jude]

Do you make an effort to be as condescending as possible, EvilYeti?

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jude
Do you make an effort to be as condescending as possible, EvilYeti?

Only to snot-nosed teenage miscreants.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by EvilYeti


Only to snot-nosed teenage miscreants.

Hehe, its always funny because people who are not familiar with some of the poster here, esp shanek, will come into a thread and see people cutting on them and then get all defensive of them, of course what they don't know is that you've given this person a chance like 100 times in the past and that at a certian point total stupidity just has to be reconed with :p

As for drugs, I'm in favor of legalizing all of them, but only under a program where they would become perscription drugs, be heavily regulated and heavily taxed.

As for foreign aid, foreign aid is the biggest misconception in American history. 95% of foreign aid is not "aid", as in free carity, its money that is given with strings attached in order to promote American interests, whcih is fine or not fine depending on the situations, but the point is that for virtually all foreign aid Americans get a direct benefit for the money spent, soits really NOT charity, its bribery that is paying to promote "American interests". Like I said you can see that however you want, but just keep in mind that you ARE getting something in return directly when foreign aid is used most of the time.

Unfortunately much of that time what we get in return that is spposedly in "America's interest" are things that are bad in the long run, such as keeping military dictators in power and supplying them with weapons to brutalize their population and break unions. Yes this helps us immediately economically by keeping a supply of cheap workers to make cheap products for sale in America so that wealthy investors can get even more rich, but it also hurts American jobs and is bad for humanity and gives America a bad reputation and promotes terrorism.

In cases where money is given with no strings attached, which is very rare, its still in America's interests becuase its an attempt to help keep some situation from getting worse and causing global problems that woudl eventually impact America.

“Now let us assume that we lose Indochina. If Indochina goes, several things happen right away. The Malayan peninsula would be scarcely defensible- and tin and tungsten we so greatly value from that area would cease coming… All of that weakening position around there is very ominous for the United States, because finally if we lost all that, how would the free world [sic] hold the rich empire of Indonesia? So you see, somewhere along the line, this must be blocked. That is what the French are doing…

So, when the United States votes $400 million to help that war, we are not voting for a giveaway program. We are voting for the cheapest way that we can to prevent the occurrence of something that would be of the most terrible significance for the United States of America- our security, our power and ability to get certain things from the riches of South East Asia.” - 1953 President Eisenhower

That's a pretty good summary of "foreign aid".

[Jude]

Hehe, its always funny because people who are not familiar with some of the poster here, esp shanek, will come into a thread and see people cutting on them and then get all defensive of them, of course what they don't know is that you've given this person a chance like 100 times in the past and that at a certian point total stupidity just has to be reconed with

I am familiar with shanek and I am familiar with Lord Kenneth. EvilYeti is still a big fat jerk.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Gem
Wait, you think the Allies screwed up reconstruction of these countries?

Honestly? You don't think the Treaty of Versailles was a major screwup almost unprecedented in history? You don't think the hyperinflation they subjected Germany to, and conspiring to keep them out of the League of Nations, had anything to do with the rising sentiment against the allies which allowed Hitler and his ideas to come to power?

If Hitler had come about in 1910 saying these things, he would have been laughed out of the room.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by Jude


I am familiar with shanek and I am familiar with Lord Kenneth. EvilYeti is still a big fat jerk.

:cry:

[Gem]

Honestly? You don't think the Treaty of Versailles was a major screwup almost unprecedented in history? You don't think the hyperinflation they subjected Germany to, and conspiring to keep them out of the League of Nations, had anything to do with the rising sentiment against the allies which allowed Hitler and his ideas to come to power?

Oh, I get it. You're right about that, really screwed up there, and the bombing of civilians didn't help either.

But what I meant was that this sort of "foreign aid," whether our fault or not, should be given to those who need it. For example, do many people give money to charity to an Ethiopa famine? Should we forsaken needy people simply because it's not our fault?

Gem

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by shanek


Honestly? You don't think the Treaty of Versailles was a major screwup almost unprecedented in history? You don't think the hyperinflation they subjected Germany to, and conspiring to keep them out of the League of Nations, had anything to do with the rising sentiment against the allies which allowed Hitler and his ideas to come to power?

If Hitler had come about in 1910 saying these things, he would have been laughed out of the room.

What about the Marshall Plan at the end of World War II?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Taking cocaine makes you feel good. Taken more makes you feel better. Take too much and you die. Caffeine, on the other hand, makes you feel a little stimulated, take more and you feel like you are going to die (I've OD'ed on caffeine, its not pleasant).
They are different drugs with different mechanisms.

Caffeine stimulates the same part of the brain as does cocaine and heroin. You CAN get a caffeine buzz just like the ones you get with cocaine and heroin. Any source on the effects of caffeine on the brain will confirm this.

Who the hell keeps pure chemical caffeine around for recipies?

Some people do. But go on with your flat denial; I'm sure it beats having to deal with your ego facing the possibility that it's wrong.

Do you mean chocolate?

No. There's no caffeine in chocolate. That's a myth.

Do you have any idea of how much of a caffeinated product you would have to consume to get a fatal dose? How about 51 liters of Mountain Dew!

Which brings be right back to the fact that it's a legal product delivered in safe levels by the free market. Thank you for supporting my point!

You said you can't buy concentrated caffeine from vending machines.

Not in levels sufficient enough to induce an overdose.

I'll ask you that question, as I started considering black markets as free markets after reading this article.

THE ARGUMENT FOR FREE MARKETS: MORALITY VS. EFFICIENCY

Are you suggesting the Cato institute is idiotic?

Either your a liar or you don't understand Williams's point (probably both; we already know you're a liar). He's talking about the resiliency of a market to keep going even when the government tries to stifle it.

We do know that it was enough to cause a public outcry that resulted in legislation.

The public outcry was due to government propaganda and misinformation.

Uh, and who do you think would mandate and enforce those checks? Private industry?

Yes, just like they're doing now with caffeine.

If they did there wouldn't have been a need for the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906!

This has been refuted so many times it's pathetic. "Oh, there must have been a need for it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed!" Give me a break...

You are such an utterly pathetic, transparent liar. You are not describing patent medicines, you are describing the formula for CocaCola AFTER most of the cocaine was removed! What the hell does that have to do with anything?

YOU were the one who gave the date of 1912, liar. YOU were the one who said that 5,000 people died of overdoses because of the "health tonics" in that year, liar.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy" that's responsible for every fact that makes the LP look bad. How silly of me.

Do you realize how bad such paranoid statements make you look to a skeptical community?

Uh-huh. I'm sure you think Reefer Madness and Cocaine Fiends are both 100% accurate dramatizations?

[davefoc]

I was a moderate libertarian before Shanek and I haven't changed my views much since being a regular reader of Shanek.

I don't think Shanek has made it more or less likely that I would vote for a candidate in the Libertarian Party. In general, I vote Repbublican and have only voted Libertarian a few times to show a little support. I am not with the Libertarian party on foreign policy issues, and am often more moderate on economic and social issues than I perceive the Libertarian Party positon to be.

One of the philosophical divides between libertarians I think is whether they see greater individual freedom as by itself the ultimate goal or greater individual freedom as the tool that allows for greater prosperity and happiness. When one believes the latter one can be aware of the great advantages that accrue when individuals have economic freedom while still having an eye towards some of the problems for individuals when they have that freedom. When one believes the former one can sometimes be a bit close minded to some of the problems with great individual freedom in my view.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Caffeine stimulates the same part of the brain as does cocaine and heroin. You CAN get a caffeine buzz just like the ones you get with cocaine and heroin. Any source on the effects of caffeine on the brain will confirm this.

Ask anyone who has done all three if the buzz is anywhere NEAR the same. I can say with a high degree of confidence that the effects of caffeine and cocaine are VERY different.

Some people do. But go on with your flat denial; I'm sure it beats having to deal with your ego facing the possibility that it's wrong.

I do ALOT of cooking and in my entire life I have never ONCE seen a recipie that called for chemically pure caffeine. If you have evidence to the contrary, please present it.

No. There's no caffeine in chocolate. That's a myth.

Gee, big surprise, shanek the retard is wrong again, about everything, as usual.
Unsweetened baking chocolate has 47 mg of caffeine per ounce. I know you have trouble with numbers, so I'll clue you in that 47 is bigger than 0. Look it up.

Which brings be right back to the fact that it's a legal product delivered in safe levels by the free market. Thank you for supporting my point!

Except it has nothing to do with my original point, which is that Libertarians want to make selling crack from vending machines legal.

Not in levels sufficient enough to induce an overdose.

And a few small crack rocks probably won't cause an overdose either.
Why won't you admit you are in favor of the unregulated distribution of crack cocaine? Why do you keep blowing smoke? Are you smoking crack right now?

Either your a liar or you don't understand Williams's point (probably both; we already know you're a liar). He's talking about the resiliency of a market to keep going even when the government tries to stifle it.

Or the much more likely case that you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can read the article and draw the conclusion that William does not make a distinction between free and black markets, other than one is legal and the other is not.

The public outcry was due to government propaganda and misinformation.

Provide evidence, from prior to 1906, or shut your pie hole. Your baseless assertions don't count.

This has been refuted so many times it's pathetic. "Oh, there must have been a need for it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed!" Give me a break...

Refuted by who? I assume the same folks that have refuted the holocaust and the moon landings. Why don't you provide EVIDENCE instead of empty assertions? Oh yeah, you don't have any. Silly me.

YOU were the one who gave the date of 1912, liar. YOU were the one who said that 5,000 people died of overdoses because of the "health tonics" in that year, liar.

F*ck you, retard. I said 5,000 people died that year from cocaine related health problems, many of which became addicted through the patent medicine industry. I said nothing about CocaCola. You brought that up, you gibbering mongoloid idiot.
Why can't you get anything right, ever?
Why do you lie constantly, about everything?

Uh-huh. I'm sure you think Reefer Madness and Cocaine Fiends are both 100% accurate dramatizations?

Uh, do I have to remind you, again, that I'm an anti-prohibitionist? Or that those films were made much later, AFTER the Pure Food and Drug act?

I'll ask again, doesn't it bother you that you are pushing the MAJORITY of the forum AWAY from the LP? That this forum would be more Libertarian if you NEVER POSTED HERE? Doesn't that make you a total abject failure?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
No. There's no caffeine in chocolate. That's a myth.
From the Hershey's website (http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition_consumer/caffeine.shtml)
Source --------- Serving Size ---------- Milligrams of Caffeine

Milk chocolate bar ------------------- 1 oz. ----- 6

Unsweetened baking chocolate ---1 oz. --- 47

Hot cocoa ----------------------------- 5 oz. ---- 8

Chocolate milk ----------------------- 8 oz. ------ 2
************
What other "myths" are you going to dispel today, Shane?

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Ask anyone who has done all three if the buzz is anywhere NEAR the same. I can say with a high degree of confidence that the effects of caffeine and cocaine are VERY different.

You'll pardon me if I take the word of the medical experts over theirs. Especially considering how hard it is today to get caffeine in a form that gives this to you as easily as cocaine.

I do ALOT of cooking and in my entire life I have never ONCE seen a recipie that called for chemically pure caffeine.

I'm not responsible for your own ignorance. If you ever made your own Coca-cola-like drink, you would see that listed as one of the ingredients. Recipes for this are all over the place on the internet. Do a f*cking Google search and learn something for once.

Gee, big surprise, shanek the retard is wrong again, about everything, as usual.
Unsweetened baking chocolate has 47 mg of caffeine per ounce. I know you have trouble with numbers, so I'll clue you in that 47 is bigger than 0. Look it up.

That isn't caffeine. That's theobromine. Similar in chemistry, but a different molecule.

Except it has nothing to do with my original point, which is that Libertarians want to make selling crack from vending machines legal.

I was responding to your argument. It's not my fault that you swung this subthread off-topic to avoid the fact that you LIED, as I showed.

Or the much more likely case that you have no idea what you are talking about. Anyone can read the article and draw the conclusion that William does not make a distinction between free and black markets, other than one is legal and the other is not.

He most certainly does, liar!

The Vision of Black Markets

We should always keep in mind the resiliency of markets. Despite the efforts of socialist regimes, markets tend to survive to one degree or another; they are an irrepressible part of human nature. As Adam Smith ([1776] 1976: 17) wrote, "It is the necessary ... certain propensity in human nature ... to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another.'' During the 70 years of the Soviet experiment, with massive attempts to suppress markets (including jail, banishment, and death), markets in one form or another survived. The conditions for the formation of markets are always present and explain their resiliency. Those conditions are: (1) private ownership of property, (2) interaction between people who place different valuations on goods, and (3) individual will and self-interest.

Those conditions give rise to markets be they legal or illegal (black) markets. According to some estimates, up to 84 percent of the Soviet people purchased goods and services through the black market or fartsovshiki. The fartsovshiki was also a source of additional employment, and hence income, for as many as 20 million Soviet citizens (Galuszka 1989). According to Automotive News (1985), 60 percent of Soviet citizens used black-market mechanics for auto repairs and another 30 percent purchased gasoline and parts from black-market distributors.

Soviet officials could never eliminate black markets and one doubts that they wanted to. After all, the Soviet system may have survived as long as it did because some of its more uglier consequences were mitigated by the presence of black markets. Given the periodic shortages of life's necessities such as food and clothing, there may have been uncontrollable social disorder if Soviet citizens had to do without rather than have a black-market outlet to which they could turn to for relief.

The Soviet experience proves that man is by nature a capitalist. The transition from socialism to capitalism requires only that human nature be permitted to flourish.

Since when was the Soviet Union a free market? He is clearly saying that a market for demanded goods will exist no matter what the government does to try and stop it.

Provide evidence, from prior to 1906,

Why should I provide evidence from prior to 1906 to rebut something you said happened in 1912?

F*ck you, retard. I said 5,000 people died that year from cocaine related health problems,

And I pointed out that that figure came from government propaganda. NOW you want me to show evidence from prior to 1906 rebutting that!

Uh, do I have to remind you, again, that I'm an anti-prohibitionist? Or that those films were made much later, AFTER the Pure Food and Drug act?

Are you saying those films ARE government propaganda, spreading misinformation about drugs to support their own programs? If so, how does that not mean that you're claiming a "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy"? Or is it a "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy" when it contradicts what you want but the truth when it agrees with you?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky
What other "myths" are you going to dispel today, Shane?

Again, that's theobromine, not caffeine.

http://www.agmc.org/yourhw/apr01/yh10.asp

The most common myth about chocolate is that it contains a lot of caffeine. A substance called theobromine is found in chocolate and has sometimes been confused with caffeine. Theobromine is related to caffeine but eating a lot of chocolate isn't going to keep you awake. You would have to eat more than a pound of chocolate to get the same caffeine effect from one cup of coffee.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek


Again, that's theobromine, not caffeine.

http://www.agmc.org/yourhw/apr01/yh10.asp


Originally posted by shanek

Again, that's theobromine, not caffeine.

http://www.agmc.org/yourhw/apr01/yh10.asp

point 1: You are telling us then that the Hershey's company is lying about their own product? Also the FDA (http://www.modimes.org/pnhec/159_816.asp)?

Point 2: Your link (to an obscure "health and wellness" site, not a food and drug site) does not say there is no caffeine in chocolate. It says The most common myth about chocolate is that it contains a lot of caffeine. They did not say that it was a myth that it contained caffeine, just "a lot" of it.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No. There's no caffeine in chocolate. That's a myth.




According to Hershey:

The level of caffeine in chocolate (6 mg per 1 oz milk chocolate) is extremely low when compared to the level in coffee, tea and some soft drinks. The small amount of caffeine present in chocolate is naturally occurring in the cocoa bean, unlike the caffeine in soft drinks which is added during the manufacturing process.

Although it is possible to remove the small amount of naturally occurring caffeine from chocolate, it would be extremely difficult and expensive. We continue to evaluate the procedures needed to extract caffeine, but at the present time we do not plan to manufacture caffeine-free chocolate.

http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition_consumer/caffeine.shtml



As opposed to Theobromine
Theobromine is a methylxanthine, in the same class of compounds as caffeine and theophylline. Theobromine and the other methylxanthines occur naturally in many plants found throughout the world. Examples include cocoa, tea and coffee plants. Theobromine is the predominant methylxanthine found in cocoa beans. Theophylline is the predominant methylxanthine in tea. Caffeine is the predominant methylxanthine in coffee.

Hershey does not add theobromine to its chocolate products. Rather, theobromine occurs naturally in cocoa beans and is present in all chocolate products. The amount of theobromine in the finished product depends on the type of chocolate used and the serving size. Milk chocolate contains less theobromine than semi-sweet or dark chocolate. Theobromine has a mild diuretic action (increases urine production) similar to caffeine, but does not stimulate the central nervous system like caffeine.

Currently there are no theobromine-free chocolate products available to consumers



http://www.hersheys.com/nutrition_consumer/theobromine.shtml

[shanek]

Amazing...absolutely f*cking amazing...

http://www.mrkland.com/fun/xocoatl/caffeine.htm

There is no scientific substantiation that Chocolate contains caffeine, and a great deal of evidence that it does not. The Biochemist, (Apr/May 1993, p 15) did chemical composition tests where they specifically distinguished between Caffeine and Theobromine. They found regularly up to 1.3% by weight Theobromine in Chocolate. They also found other pharmacologically active compounds including up to 2.20% Phenylethylamine up to 1.54% Tele- methylhistamine and occasionally up to 5.82% Serotonin. They could not detect any Caffeine at all. (Full results are on the Science Page (http://www.mrkland.com/fun/xocoatl/science.htm#chem).) I have yet to see a dependable chemical reference that includes Caffeine in Chocolate. (The Merck Index, 12th Edition says that a very small amount of Caffeine is found in the hulls of of the Cacao seeds, the hulls are discarded before processing.)

I've brought this up before in other threads...and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU had a problem with this until I used it in a thread about Libertarianism.

F*cking pathetic.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
This has been refuted so many times it's pathetic. "Oh, there must have been a need for it, otherwise it wouldn't have passed!" Give me a break...

Just for clarification, are you saying that the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act was unnecessary and/or unjustified?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
I've brought this up before in other threads...and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU had a problem with this until I used it in a thread about Libertarianism.

F*cking pathetic.
I've never seen it before until now. I only brought it out because it is one of the silliest and most easily disprovable of your comments. Hershey's would love to market a caffeine free chocolate, but they admit it would be too expensive. The FDA says it has caffeine. The MDA posts amounts of caffeine in chocolate. Is this part of some vast international conspiricy to fool us into thinking we are getting caffeine?

And then, when shown you are wrong, do you admit it? No, instead you lapse into profanity. This falls exactly in line with the point of this thread. You seize on some minor point and defend your obviously wrong statements with the ferocity of a mama bear. Your irrational behavior is hurting the image Libertarian Party because you make them look like a bunch of nutcases.

By the way, are you going to run for office again? I would love to see one of your campaign speeches.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Amazing...absolutely f*cking amazing...

http://www.mrkland.com/fun/xocoatl/caffeine.htm



I've brought this up before in other threads...and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU had a problem with this until I used it in a thread about Libertarianism.

So? I never remember seeing this before. I don't read all your threads because I find you annoying as you can't control yourself and are prone to insult. Plus I'm usually convinced about half way through one way or the other (usually that you are wrong), so I skip the rest. Sorry that authority contrary to yours bothers you. Maybe you should stop taking things personally.

MARS Inc. agrees with Hershey, and not your link:

Chocolate contains both caffeine and theobromine (a metabolite of caffeine), which are chemically related compounds from the methylxanthine group. Caffeine is found in coffee, and to a lesser extent, in tea, cola and chocolate products. In fact, the caffeine in chocolate is negligible ‚ 1.3 oz. of DOVE® Milk Chocolate and 1.3 oz. of DOVE® Dark Chocolate have approximately 4 mg. and 22 mg. of caffeine, respectively (1), compared to 120 mg. of caffeine in the average cup of coffee. In contrast, it is theobromine that is found in the greatest quantities in chocolate (table 2).


Here's an odd link that disagrees with you :

http://www.acs.ohio-state.edu/units/research/archive/mmhorsy1.htm


COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Chocolate may be a harmless treat for humans, but it could land a competitive racehorse into trouble with officials.

Researchers at Ohio State University found that three horses fed a vending-pack of M&M’s® chocolate-coated peanuts every day for eight days showed detectable concentrations of the stimulants caffeine and theobromine -- substances that are banned for horses that compete in races.

“We would advise that trainers avoid feeding chocolate to racehorses,” said Richard Sams, professor of veterinary medicine at Ohio State.


It appears horses fed chocolate end up with caffeine in their bloodstream.




F*cking pathetic.


At least you aren't being a jerk about it or anything.

[shanek]

Okay, people, fine...if you want to take the word of marketroids and government bureaucrats over scientific experts that's one thing...But accusing me of making conspiracy theories just because I found a very reliable scientific source which in 1993 did what was probably the first real in-depth chemical analysis of it, and found no caffeine whatsoever, just smacks of exactly the bigotry on this forum I've been complaining about. You people try to shove everyone who doesn't agree with you into the categories of the woo-woos.

I suppose it never occured to any of you that the bureaucracies inherent in government and large corporations like Hershey and M&M/Mars might be a little slow on the uptake in completely rebuilding their fundamental understandings of the chemical nature of chocolate? That a relatively recent discovery, only ten years old, might take awhile to filter down to the regulations and the common marketing verbiage?

If you think chocolate contains caffeine, then debunk the freakin' study that The Biochemist published...or point to other studies that may have been done and found caffeine after all. But, as I've said repeatedly on this forum, and quoting Carl Sagan, "Arguments from authority are worthless." And that is exactly what you all are doing.

And what's strange is how many of you defend authoritative arguments in the face of competing objective evidence while at the same time accusing the woo-woos of doing exactly the same thing.

Take a good, long, hard look at yourselves, people.

[Malachi151]

It's all a big giant government conspiracy!!!!!:wink8:

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
It's all a big giant government conspiracy!!!!!

Lol...far from it; I don't think the government even has the aptitude to run a conspiracy if it tried. They couldn't keep Watergate a secret. They couldn't keep an affair with an intern a secret. Government fails so miserably at practically everything it does...how on Earth could it run something as involved and as complex as a conspiracy?

No, the problems of government come not from conspiracy, but from sheer ineptitude.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, people, fine...if you want to take the word of marketroids and government bureaucrats over scientific experts that's one thing...But accusing me of making conspiracy theories just because I found a very reliable scientific source which in 1993 did what was probably the first real in-depth chemical analysis of it, and found no caffeine whatsoever, just smacks of exactly the bigotry on this forum I've been complaining about. You people try to shove everyone who doesn't agree with you into the categories of the woo-woos. Persecution complex much?
I suppose it never occured to any of you that the bureaucracies inherent in government and large corporations like Hershey and M&M/Mars might be a little slow on the uptake in completely rebuilding their fundamental understandings of the chemical nature of chocolate? That a relatively recent discovery, only ten years old, might take awhile to filter down to the regulations and the common marketing verbiage? Sure. It's possible. Also possible that your link and the test it refers to were performed by maniacs. I looked for some backup to your link. I found none.

Forgive me if I don't take your word for it. You pretty much shot your credibility with me when some of the legal claims you have made turned out to be complete howlers, so I'm going to be real skeptical about any claims you make. You have talked straight out your butt when dealing with law, so I'm not going to assume you aren't on other topics. I have no expert knowledge on this topic, but I'd be really crazy to go by your say so that this study is credible.

And before you protest the above, from this thread. (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27556&perpage=40&highlight=dicta&pagenumber=6)

That was statewd (sic) in dicta, which is a side opinion made so that people like you don't misconstrue what the main opinion was talking about.

Which is of course, not what "dicta" means, not even close. But that is another story.

If you think chocolate contains caffeine, then debunk the freakin' study that The Biochemist published...or point to other studies that may have been done and found caffeine after all. But, as I've said repeatedly on this forum, and quoting Carl Sagan, "Arguments from authority are worthless." And that is exactly what you all are doing. As opposed to your "argument from authority" because you are claiming your "authority" has greater credentials. So, I guess you are right in that your argument is worthless. Apparently nobody believes your "biochemist" for some reason. Makes me suspicious. Just like when that other scientist back in the 80's claimed to have pulled off cold fusion.

Plus, if chocolate doesn't have caffeine, how did it turn up in the horses?

And what's strange is how many of you defend authoritative arguments in the face of competing objective evidence while at the same time accusing the woo-woos of doing exactly the same thing. It is called weighing the evidence, looking at motives. Why, if it were at all credible that chocolate doesn't have caffeine, wouldnt Hershey, Mars, et all not be all over that fact and use it in marketing? Makes me very skeptical of the test you cite.



Take a good, long, hard look at yourselves, people.

Drama queen much?

You are basically accusing us of not mindlessly accepting as absolute truth a ten year old study that has been ignored by those who would have a pretty good financial windfall were it true. At this point it seems more likely than not that the study you cite is incorrect. I'm not saying it is, just that it is a reasonable conclusion to not believe it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Suddenly
[many complete irrelevancies for no other purpose than personally smearing me deleted]

As opposed to your "argument from authority" because you are claiming your "authority" has greater credentials.

No, mine is NOT an "argument from authority" because my argument is NOT "Because XXXX says so," which is all yours amounts to. Rather, it's because an intensive chemical study of the substances found no caffeine.

You are basically accusing us of not mindlessly accepting as absolute truth a ten year old study

No; I'm accusing you of not even CONSIDERING it. Big difference.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Originally posted by shanek
Rather, it's because an intensive chemical study of the substances found no caffeine.
Handwaving--as is your earlier statement that this "was probably the first real in-depth chemical analysis of it." Have you seen the actual study? Or are you just relying on "Mr. K's" reportage?

Prog Clin Biol Res. 1984;158:149-78.
Methylxanthine composition and consumption patterns of cocoa and chocolate products.
Shively CA, Tarka SM Jr.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6396642&dopt=Abstract

Cacao is the major natural source of the xanthine base theobromine. Small amounts of caffeine are present in the bean along with trace amounts of theophylline. The methylxanthine content of beans varies with the varietal type, and is influenced by the fermentation process. Chocolate liquor is a semifinished product commonly called "baking" or "cooking" chocolate. The average theobromine and caffeine content of liquors has been reported at 1.2% and 0.21%, respectively. Cocoa powder, which is prepared after removal of the cocoa butter, contains about 1.9% theobromine and 0.21% caffeine. Chocolate beverages comprise the most widely studied category of chocolate products. Hot cocoa provides 62 mg/serving of theobromine and 4 mg/serving of caffeine when prepared from commercial instant mixes. Instant cold chocolate milk mixes supply an average of 58 mg/serving of theobromine and 5 mg/serving of caffeine. The methylxanthine content of chocolate foods has received only slight attention in the literature. The methylxanthine content of sweet chocolate ranges from 0.359 to 0.628% for theobromine and 0.017 to 0.125% for caffeine.
J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1978 Nov;61(6):1424-7.
High pressure liquid chromatographic determination of theobromine and caffeine in cocoa and chocolate products.
Kreiser WR, Martin RA Jr.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=730647&dopt=Abstract

A method was developed for determining theobromine and caeffine in cocoa and chocolate products by high pressure liquid chromatography. After a simple hot water extraction, both theobromine and caffeine were separated by using a reverse phase C18 column and a mobile phase of methanol-water-acetic acid (20 + 79 + 1). Theobromine and caffeine were quantitated at 280 nm; average recoveries were 98.7 and 95.0%; and coefficients of variation were 2.31 and 3.91%, respectively.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by shanek


No, mine is NOT an "argument from authority" because my argument is NOT "Because XXXX says so," which is all yours amounts to. Rather, it's because an intensive chemical study of the substances found no caffeine. ?? You aren't saying it is true because "biochemist" said it is true? You aren't relying on authority? Huh? Do you have a basis beyond "so and so says so" for believing that such a study even occurred, much less was "intensive" or "reliable" or even done by people that had a clue?



No; I'm accusing you of not even CONSIDERING it. Big difference.

You are again wrong. I considered it. Lets look at the whole passage I wrote, bolding the part you took out of context: You are basically accusing us of not mindlessly accepting as absolute truth a ten year old study that has been ignored by those who would have a pretty good financial windfall were it true. At this point it seems more likely than not that the study you cite is incorrect. I'm not saying it is, just that it is a reasonable conclusion to not believe it.

I considered it, looked at other factors, and decided I was suspicious of the study.

Why do you argue in such a dishonest fashion? My whole post was explaining why I didn't think the study was reliable. Then you take a statement out of context and claim I'm "not even CONSIDERING it" (and putting "considering" in caps no less).

Why?

[Jessica Blue]

I suppose it never occured to any of you that the bureaucracies inherent in government and large corporations like Hershey and M&M/Mars might be a little slow on the uptake in completely rebuilding their fundamental understandings of the chemical nature of chocolate?

Oh, I think the big chocolate manufacturers understand the chemical nature of chocolate very well. That's why new breeds of chocolate bar are being created with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction. Caffeine infused soft drinks have been so successful that Cadbury decided to make the Viking bar ... the latest caffeine-packed product made from guarana. It has a warning *not recommended for children under fifteen* hidden under the flap...but you really have to go out of your way to spot it.

According to my source, the Australian Institute for Sport, which has a vital interest in caffeine levels...

A 60 gram Milk Chocolate bar can contain 5-15 mgs of caffeine

60 gram Dark chocolate bar contains 10-50 "

A 60 gram Viking bar contains 58 mgs of caffeine.

http://www.ais.org.au/nutrition/SuppFSCaff.htm

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue


Oh, I think the big chocolate manufacturers understand the chemical nature of chocolate very well. That's why new breeds of chocolate bar are being created with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction. Caffeine infused soft drinks have been so successful that Cadbury decided to make the Viking bar ... the latest caffeine-packed product made from guarana. It has a warning *not recommended for children under fifteen* hidden under the flap...but you really have to go out of your way to spot it.

According to my source, the Australian Institute for Sport, which has a vital interest in caffeine levels...

A 60 gram Milk Chocolate bar can contain 5-15 mgs of caffeine

60 gram Dark chocolate bar contains 10-50 "

A 60 gram Viking bar contains 58 mgs of caffeine.

http://www.ais.org.au/nutrition/SuppFSCaff.htm



Liar.

If that's true then it must be the government forcing them to do it, or else its enabled by the government monoply protection.

If it is true you can be sure that it will fail the the free market will see to it that only the healthiest foods choices are successful.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
Oh, I think the big chocolate manufacturers understand the chemical nature of chocolate very well. That's why new breeds of chocolate bar are being created with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction.

That may be the case; I don't know that.

But again, be careful of sources confusing caffeine with other similar substances.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, people, fine...if you want to take the word of marketroids and government bureaucrats over scientific experts that's one thing...But accusing me of making conspiracy theories just because I found a very reliable scientific source which in 1993 did what was probably the first real in-depth chemical analysis of it, and found no caffeine whatsoever, just smacks of exactly the bigotry on this forum I've been complaining about. You people try to shove everyone who doesn't agree with you into the categories of the woo-woos.

Well, it's kind of hard not to. After all, you match the description (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html) so well.

From "The Woo Woo Credo"
30. Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position.

And of course
From "The Woo Woo Credo"
22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.
... or perhaps too bigoted. Or perhaps they are just "F*cking pathetic"

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

Are you saying those films ARE government propaganda, spreading misinformation about drugs to support their own programs? If so, how does that not mean that you're claiming a "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy"? Or is it a "Grand Gubbmint Conspiracy" when it contradicts what you want but the truth when it agrees with you?

Though I think shanek has been humiliated enough in this thread, I'll address this.

The two films he mentioned, "Reefer Madness" and "Cocaine Fiends" were both PRIVATELY produced. The "Gubbmint" had nothing to do with them, rather it's a good example of private industry capitalizing on the fears of the nation.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
Danish,

I just have to ask. Are you kicking yourself for starting this thread?

:D

AS Only after realizing I messed up the poll choices. :)

I think the thread is quite interesting. For example, I never knew chocolate contained caffeine. ;)

The result of the poll is also interesting as it indicates that a majority here feel the same as I, i.e that shanek isn't exactly helping the Libertarian Party by his "take no prisoners" stance. It is of course possible that this stance actually reflects the stance of the LP in which case we should thank shanek for revealing exactly what this party is really about.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky


Well, it's kind of hard not to. After all, you match the description (http://www.watchingyou.com/woowoo.html) so well.

Well, it's kind of hard not to. After all, you match the description so well.

quote:From "The Woo Woo Credo"
30. Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position

Ex-squeeze me? That's what the OTHERS are doing to ME!!!

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
The two films he mentioned, "Reefer Madness" and "Cocaine Fiends" were both PRIVATELY produced. The "Gubbmint" had nothing to do with them, rather it's a good example of private industry capitalizing on the fears of the nation.

That is absolutely untrue. The government commissioned BOTH movies. In fact, if the movies had been completely private, the Hayes Office wouldn't have allowed them to be released.

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The result of the poll is also interesting as it indicates that a majority here feel the same as I, i.e that shanek isn't exactly helping the Libertarian Party by his "take no prisoners" stance. It is of course possible that this stance actually reflects the stance of the LP in which case we should thank shanek for revealing exactly what this party is really about.

Really? I think it's showing quite clearly the lengths people will go to in order to avoid considering what it is I'm really saying and falling back on their old tactics of focusing on irrelevant minutae rather than discussing the actual principles involved.

[DanishDynamite]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
The result of the poll is also interesting as it indicates that a majority here feel the same as I, i.e that shanek isn't exactly helping the Libertarian Party by his "take no prisoners" stance. It is of course possible that this stance actually reflects the stance of the LP in which case we should thank shanek for revealing exactly what this party is really about.

Originally posted by shanek
Really? I think it's showing quite clearly the lengths people will go to in order to avoid considering what it is I'm really saying and falling back on their old tactics of focusing on irrelevant minutae rather than discussing the actual principles involved. And how does the poll show this?

[shanek]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
And how does the poll show this?

The poll itself doesn't, but the discussion makes it plain.

EvilYeti, Malachi, Jessica Blue, MKJ, etc., these are the usual people who jump at any chance to rebut Libertarian ideas. MoeFaux and others are obviously big supporters of libertarianism. All of which is fine, but if you look at the ones like davefoc, Nyarlathotep, Mendor, and others who haven't chimed in much at all in the other threads, who probably represent the most open-minded posters, I think the story being told is that, while I'm not getting any mass converts by any stretch of the imagination, neither am I driving people away from the LP as EvilYeti claims. Those people are thinking, and reconsidering their opinions. Sometimes they go one way, sometimes they go the other, but that's free thinkers for ya. But they're listening, learning, considering, and thinking. How could I ask for anything more?

[DanishDynamite]

shanek:The poll itself doesn'tWe are in agreement then.

[Martin]

I don't know about Shane's arguments on libertarianism, but thanks to his efforts I'm pretty damn sure there's caffeine in chocolate :D

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

That is absolutely untrue. The government commissioned BOTH movies. In fact, if the movies had been completely private, the Hayes Office wouldn't have allowed them to be released.

No, that is a total bald-faced lie. Like everything else you claim.

"Reefer Madness" was originally titled "Tell Your Children" and financed by a small church group, not the government. It was later purchased by the exploitation film maven Dwain Esper, who re-released it under the "Reerfer Madness" title. Mr. Esper was not employed by the government and was in fact a petty criminal, who would often steal films out of projection booths to show elsewhere.

Anyone who's interested can read more here (http://www.reefer-madness-movie.com/history.html)

I researched this film years ago and the primary sources (i.e. people involved in the making of the film) agree 100% with the above synopsis.

[Mendor]

Originally posted by shanek
All of which is fine, but if you look at the ones like davefoc, Nyarlathotep, Mendor, and others who haven't chimed in much at all in the other threads, who probably represent the most open-minded posters,Thanks for the compliment, but I have to confess that the only reason you brought me closer to the Libertarian position, was by making me aware of it at all. In Scotland at least, things like state schools, socialised medicine, etc. are faits accomplis (and I do still think that should be the case, I'm just now more open to alternative suggestions). There is nothing approaching a Libertarian philosophy here; the Conservatives, closest in economics to the LP, are, shall we say, not terribly socially liberal.

Realise, though, that I rarely fully agree with your stances (lefty social democrat remember); I just listen to the alternative point of view, and have occasionally been swayed towards it.

I have to say, though, that when you resort to obscenity, or insist on things like there being no caffeine in chocolate despite screeds of rebuttals, you don't endear me to the LP.

p.s. bring Kryten back.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Only after realizing I messed up the poll choices. :)

You really botched that IMHO, I almost voted "Yes" thinking that meant "Yes, shanek has pushed me away from the LP". I wouldn't be surprised if a number of the votes are erroneous.

I think the thread is quite interesting. For example, I never knew chocolate contained caffeine. ;)

Neither did shanek, apparently. Whats even more interesting (but not surprsing to me in the least), is that shanek STILL doesn't know chocolate contains caffeine. Despite the mounds of evidence presented to him. Quite telling, don't you think?

The result of the poll is also interesting as it indicates that a majority here feel the same as I, i.e that shanek isn't exactly helping the Libertarian Party by his "take no prisoners" stance. It is of course possible that this stance actually reflects the stance of the LP in which case we should thank shanek for revealing exactly what this party is really about.

Shanek's a good Libertarian the way Osama BinLadin is a good muslim. For better or worse, he follows the teaching of his religion absolutely literally.

If you read the actual LP platform, not the fluff pieces on their front page, you will see where shanek gets his looniness from. I couldn't figure out at first, for example, where shanek got the insane idea that private industry doesn't pollute, only the Gubbmint does. That is, until I read the same thing at the LP site under their environmental platform. I've since gone on to read the whole thing and its obvious it's shaneks bible. Most of his nonsense originates there.

[subgenius]

My vote: No change in my degree of Libertarianism.
His posts are usually quite piquant (my word of the day).
I think most Americans believe in most of that which Libertarianism espouses.
The devil is in the details.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by Tricky

Hershey's would love to market a caffeine free chocolate, but they admit it would be too expensive. The FDA says it has caffeine. The MDA posts amounts of caffeine in chocolate. Is this part of some vast international conspiricy to fool us into thinking we are getting caffeine?


I'd trust that there's someone at the FDA that can do extractions and/or run an HPLC. I've seen student analytical chemistry experiments that extract both from materials then separate and characterize them.

For that matter, I'm sure there's an analytical chemist or three at Hershey's that can do the same thing ... :)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
I'd trust that there's someone at the FDA that can do extractions and/or run an HPLC. I've seen student analytical chemistry experiments that extract both from materials then separate and characterize them.

For that matter, I'm sure there's an analytical chemist or three at Hershey's that can do the same thing ... :)

They probably could...but have they? And what were the results?

And why would chocolate companies "love to market a caffeine free chocolate" (according to Tricky) yet make chocolates "with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction" (according to Jessica)? Bit of a contradiction there.

And besides, if these other sources are correct there's such a miniscule amount of caffeine in chocolate it's hardly worth worrying about. So you're not getting much caffeine at all, certainly not enough to make whatever extraction process you might come up with worth the effort.

The explanation goes to what I said initially: caffeine and its addiction are socially acceptable, and to many if not most people even desirable. But for all the caffeine soda makers add to their products, and whatever caffeine chocolate makers may be adding to theirs, it still doesn't amount to anything resembling dangerous doses, thanks to free market companies and their desire not to sicken or kill their customers.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Is this just piling on? Sometimes I don't know when to stop.Kirk-Othmer Enyclopedia of Chemical Technology, 4th ed. John Wiley & Sons, 1993. Vol. 6 pp.192-193

Theobromine and Caffeine

Chocolate and cocoa products, like coffee, tea, and cola beverages, contain alkaloids (qv) (1). The predominant alkaloid in cocoa and chocolate products is theobromine [83-67-0], though caffeine [58-08-2] is also present in smaller amounts. Concentrations of both alkaloids vary depending on the origin of the beans. Published values for the theobromine and caffeine content of chocolate vary widely because of natural differences in cocoa beans and differences in analytical methodology. This latter problem has been alleviated by the recent introduction of high pressure liquid chromatography (hplc) which has greatly improved the accuracy of analyses. Hplc values for theobromine and caffeine in a number of chocolate liquor samples have been published (32) (Table 8). Of the 12 varieties tested, the ratio of theobromine to caffeine varied widely from 2.5:1 for New Guinea liquor to 23.2:1 for that obtained from Fernando Po. Total alkaloid content, however, remained fairly constant, ranging from 1.15 to 1.89%.

The theobromine and caffeine conents of several finished chocolate products as determined by hplc at Hershey's laboratories are presented in Table 9.


Table 8 (Partial)
Variations in Theobromine and Caffeine Content of Various Chocolate Liquors

Country Theobromine, % Caffeine, %
New Guinea 0.818 0.329
New Guinea 0.926 0.330
Malaysia 1.050 0.252
Malaysia 1.010 0.228
Bahia 1.210 0.183
Main Lagos 1.730 0.159
Light Lagos 1.230 0.137
Sanchez 1.570 0.177
Sanchez (small) 1.250 0.261
Fernando Po 1.470 0.064
Tabascan 1.410 0.113
Trinidad 1.240 0.233
average 1.240 0.206
maximum 1.730 0.330
minimum 0.818 0.064


Table 9
Theobromine and Caffeine Content of Finished Chocolate Products

Product Theobromine, % Caffeine, %
baking chocolate 1.386 0.164
chocolate flavor syrup 0.242 0.019
cocoa, 15% fat 2.589 0.247
dark sweet chocolate 0.474 0.076
milk chocolate 0.197 0.022

(32) W.R. Kreiser and R.A. Martin, J. Assoc. Off. Analy. Chem. 61(6), (1978)

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek

They probably could...but have they? And what were the results?

They have, see Mr. Jeeves post above.

And why would chocolate companies "love to market a caffeine free chocolate" (according to Tricky) yet make chocolates "with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction" (according to Jessica)? Bit of a contradiction there.

I would assume the same reason you can buy high caffeine sodas, like Jolt and RedBull as well as caffeine free sodas. There's a market for all of them. You might want to read about economics sometime, its very interesting and informative subject.

And besides, if these other sources are correct there's such a miniscule amount of caffeine in chocolate it's hardly worth worrying about. So you're not getting much caffeine at all, certainly not enough to make whatever extraction process you might come up with worth the effort.

Thats funny, I seem to remember you saying:
Originally posted by shanek
There's no caffeine in chocolate. That's a myth.

Are you now admitting you were wrong? I also remember you lashing out quite profanely at the forum for calling you on the above statement. Don't you think an apology is in order?

The explanation goes to what I said initially: caffeine and its addiction are socially acceptable, and to many if not most people even desirable. But for all the caffeine soda makers add to their products, and whatever caffeine chocolate makers may be adding to theirs, it still doesn't amount to anything resembling dangerous doses, thanks to free market companies and their desire not to sicken or kill their customers.
And as I've said, many times now, the amount of caffeine needed to kill you is much, much more than the amount necessary to make you violently ill. This is why its a very safe drug.
Contrast with cocaine and crack, where after one is addicted the fatal dose becomes dangerously close to what the junkie needs to get high.
I agree that drug prohibition makes dangerous drugs more dangerous, due to alduterants and unregulated potency. I disagree, strongly, that the best solution is to decriminalize drugs and just hope the free market sorts everything out. If that happened nothing would change, other than the existing dealers could sell their poision without fear of prosecution. The drugs would still be cut, adulterated and of unknown potency. Contrast with a system like whats in England, where addicts can get a prescribed dose of heroin, clean and of known potency with a supply of clean needles.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek


They probably could...but have they? And what were the results?



Where do you think the numbers for caffeine that Hershey and the FDA record come from? They didn't just pull them out of the air. They got it from their analytical chemists.


And why would chocolate companies "love to market a caffeine free chocolate" (according to Tricky) yet make chocolates "with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction" (according to Jessica)? Bit of a contradiction there.


I didn't make that point, and someone else has already addressed it anyhow. There's a market for "caffeine free" drinks, as well as drinks with added caffeine (Heck, for an example of added-caffeine drinks and candies, see www.thinkgeek.com ). If it's easy to address the whole market, why not do it?


And besides, if these other sources are correct there's such a miniscule amount of caffeine in chocolate it's hardly worth worrying about.


Got an abstract for that 1993 article you referenced earlier? I'm curious as to exactly what the authors were trying to accomplish and the techniques they used.


So you're not getting much caffeine at all, certainly not enough to make whatever extraction process you might come up with worth the effort.


Hershey's has actually made that point on their website, it seems. :)

[Jessica Blue]

But for all the caffeine soda makers add to their products, and whatever caffeine chocolate makers may be adding to theirs, it still doesn't amount to anything resembling dangerous doses, thanks to free market companies and their desire not to sicken or kill their customers.

How noble of them, not wanting to kill their customers with massive doses of caffeine...that really is commendable. It's pretty intelligent too, because that way they wont sicken or kill their profits.

thanks to free market companies and their desire not to sicken or kill their customers

Let's look at that sentence again. Free market companies will look after peoples healthy interests because it's more economically viable...is that the idea? But hang on...the tobacco companies didn't mind people dying and failed to warn the public of their lethal product, nor did the asbestos industry mind continuing to sell its lethal product for a long time after it knew it caused the fatal lung disease, mesothemiola...where was the free-markets good health policy here? There are plentiful examples of toxic products which, though they made people sick were no bar to the pursuit of profit.

Without necessary regulations, there ARE free-market companies which will harm people if they can get away it. They will act for short-term profit, degrade environments in areas they dont themselves live in or in countries where there are inadequate pollution controls. Without regulations they will deny, plead ignorance or keep a lid on harmful effects for as long as they can in order to make more profit. Yes, people can always sue a company which makes them sick, but a lot of people might die before then...regulation can prevent harm. A world where the free-market is its own conscience would return us to a very vulnerable state.

[Suddenly]

The thread title is "Has shanek's arguments made you more or less Libertarian"

I guess they have. I voted for Harry Browne the last two elections, and I can say with some certainty that I'll never vote "Libertarian" again now that I've had the chance to think about it. There is part of me that wants to go over to the community forum and post the above in the "stupidest thing I've ever done" thread.

How much of that is really shanek's fault is anybody's guess. I'd like to think I'm a pretty level headed person, but his tactics go beyond the pale IMO, and I don't see how that isn't going to darkly influence my opinion of Libertarianism. Shanek argues so poorly that the absurdities of the Libertarian (as opposed to libertarian principles in general) position become obvious. It might have been different had we had a more reasonable and skilled presenter of the Libertarian point of view, as it may not have become so obvious so quickly to me. An example:

One of the most common tactics of the LP is to take a common assertion like "freedom is good" and imply that since the LP is for freedom, if you aren't with the LP you must not like freedom, like in an earlier post when Shanek said:

Guys, here's really the nutshell of it:

A Libertarian is someone who believes that the initiation of force or fraud is [i]never[i] justified. If you aren't a Libertarian, then you must mean that the initiation of force or fraud is, at least sometimes, justified in some way.

So, what are these ways? When is it all right to initiate force or fraud against someone else? And how do you set up a system where only those particular initiations are committed and none others are?


See? If you aren't a Libertarian that means you like force or fraud. Nevermind that "initiation of force" is a completely malleable concept depending on the context.

I'd always kind of liked the "non-initiation of force" concept, but when I decided to push the parameters of it in that thread shanek's responses were both bizzarely hostile as well as missing the point. I came away convinced that a simple principle such as "do not initiate force" is about as useful a practical philosophy as is "be excellent to each other."

Nice as a platitude, but not really going to cut it in the real world. Too many variables. Almost as if the Democrats renamed themselves the "Don't Be A Jerk Party" and declared they would follow the overriding principle (printed on their membership card, just like the LP does) that "I promise to not be a jerk."

Then they claim that anyone not a member "must think it OK to be a jerk."

It is pretty clear that virtually no one thinks that force should be used for no justifyable reason. The debate starts when we try to decide when force is justified. The LP claims to have a simple answer. "Do not initiate force." Thus, the definition of initiate becomes crucial. Problem is that once you add in all the exceptions and twisting of language appled to the "non-initiation" priciple, it winds up being a "reasonableness principle" just like everyone else uses.

Consider the following by shanek on the topic of whether it is initiation of force to drive drunk: Because he's putting others in a dangerous situation that they didn't agree to be in. Other drivers on the road are now at a much greater risk of an accident, even a fatal accident, than they ordinarily would have been.

Every Libertarian I know considers drunk driving to be a violation of the non-initiation of force principle.

Thus, an act that makes coming into unwanted contact with others more likely is in and of itself an initiation of force. The obvious question is when does the act cross the barrier from "a private matter" to a "dangerous act?"

What about high-heeled shoes? They make it more likely the wearer will lose his/her balance and have to grab my shoulder for support, thus initiating force. No? How can this be determined without some kind of "reasonableness" analysis? There is an increase in risk of contact (or even injury - I've got a problem with my shoulder) just as with the drunk driver. The difference is that the drunk driver will likely cause a worse accident than a stumbling person with unfortunate shoes. So, a prohibition of the first is reasonable, the second is not. So much for simple solutions.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
And why would chocolate companies "love to market a caffeine free chocolate" (according to Tricky) yet make chocolates "with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction" (according to Jessica)? Bit of a contradiction there.
I often drink a caffenated soda in the morning, but anytime after noon I avoid caffeine because it keeps me awake at night. So in one person, you have a market for both products.

The caffeine-free soda market is quite large, so it makes sense that a caffeine-free candy market would be so too, if it were economically viable. I'd buy it if it tasted just as good and cost not much more than caffenated chocolate. For a "free market" kind of guy, I cannot imagine you would think that the market could support only regular or unleaded chocolate. Your little barb must have just been an attempt to discredit my statement. But others have already addressed this point better than I.

Originally posted by shanek
And besides, if these other sources are correct there's such a miniscule amount of caffeine in chocolate it's hardly worth worrying about. So you're not getting much caffeine at all, certainly not enough to make whatever extraction process you might come up with worth the effort.
Which is exactly what the Hershey company says. I suppose this is as close as we are ever going to get to an admission that you might be incorrect on this point. Had you said "there is some evidence that there is no caffeine in chocolate" rather than stridently calling it "a myth", think I probably wouldn't have created this long diversion on such a minor point. I was just trying to illustrate an example where you make a statement that we are all expected to accept as truth (because you have a link!), then defend it tooth and nail, rather than admit you might be mistaken.

That is the whole point of this thread. That way of arguing turns people off to your message. As I have said, I am somewhat libertarian in many of my beliefs, but I would never vote for a person for any office who behaved as you do. Do your party a favor and calm down.

Originally posted by shanek
The explanation goes to what I said initially: caffeine and its addiction are socially acceptable, and to many if not most people even desirable. But for all the caffeine soda makers add to their products, and whatever caffeine chocolate makers may be adding to theirs, it still doesn't amount to anything resembling dangerous doses, thanks to free market companies and their desire not to sicken or kill their customers.
And I have no problem with that statement. I don't even consider caffeine a dangerous drug, even in fairly high doses, apart from it's effect on blood pressure. But as others have pointed out, some companies will allow dangerous products in the name of profit. Tobacco has been mentioned. To go to the opposite extreme, homeopathy has the potential to be dangerous too by deluding a person into thinking they are treating their illness. Yet this industry thrives. Perhaps you are suggesting that the free market should be Darwinian. Let the stupid people die, eh? I'm not quite so apathetic about it.

[davefoc]

Jessica Blue,
Two really good points. I'd like to take a shot at giving my version of a libertarian response to both.

Cigarettes
Libertarians do not believe that companies should be allowed to lie about their products. Libertarians, I think generally, believe that companies that have mislead people about the dangers inherent with their products should be liable for the consequences of those actions.

So I think a common libertarian view is that cigarette companies that sold cigarettes without informing customers of the serious health risks with their product should be held liable for that. If the misleading advertising was made in the face of clear cut evidence to the contrary most libertarians would think that punitive damages in addition to liablility for damages would be reasonable. Even if the companies were unaware of the risk, but their product caused damage I think most people with a libertarian view think the companies should be held somewhat liable for there actions. My own view is that not only should the cigarette companies have been held liable for those actions but the executives that authorized the misleading advertising should have served jail time.

Asbestos
I think roughly the same logic applies to the asbestos issue as to the cigarette issue. But there are some significant differences in the details. I am not sure to what degree that the manufacturers of asbestos products actually knew of the risks to their workers. If they knew they should have been penalizes heavily, there is no contradiction here with regard to the libertarian view.

One thing that seems to have happened with the asbestos issue is that an entire industry has been formed that bleeds people for incidental use of asbestos in the face of very little evidence of actual damage. Massive amounts of money are spent on asbestos abatement where no actual damage can be shown. Many asbestos products were made in such a way that the asbestos was contained and do not contaminate the air. I don't think these issues directly argue for or against libertarianism though. It is to be expected that as societies become more well off and more sophisticated they will have more abilities to detect smaller risks which they will be more concerned about, unfortunately sometimes those damages will be vastly exaggerated by unscrupulous lawyers for their own benefit.

If you want to see a pro government/ anti government argument here at all, it is that the socialist countries that have been far slower to respond to problems caused by their industries. When the government is both running businesses and monitoring businesses the conflict often leads to massive human and ecological disasters.

[davefoc]

Tricky mentioned homeopathy and libertarianism.

To me this is just an example of a larger troubling issue. What should the government do with regards to restricting the ability of companies to advertise and sell products with claims that are wildly unlikely to be true?

I don't know the answer here, but there are significant problems with whatever the government decides and I don't think reliance on pure libertarian philosophical logic provides any better answer than any other kind of thought to this issue.

On the one hand I think that Shanek would argue strongly that the sale of homeopathic products shouldn't be restricted. OK, but what about the advertising? The claims are bogus, but who is to be the arbiter of that. How much power should the government have to restrict bogus claims. Our society is awash in them and many of the claims are for things that people cherish, from religion to chiropracty to fuel saving gadgets.

We could use the courts to attack some of these. Maybe Shanek would like that kind of a solution. For instance class action law suits against homeopatic manufacuters. I don't think this a problem with a simple solution and maybe just muddling through with a mix of law suits, regulations and lots of victims is the best we can do.

[Jessica Blue]

Libertarians do not believe that companies should be allowed to lie about their products. Libertarians, I think generally, believe that companies that have mislead people about the dangers inherent with their products should be liable for the consequences of those actions.

Davefoc, I didn't think that Libertarians would condone companies lying and wreaking havoc with peoples health. The argument I am making, is that left to its own devices, the free-market tends not to put the welfare of people before profit.


I am not sure to what degree that the manufacturers of asbestos products actually knew of the risks to their workers.

They knew the risks as early as 1948.


If you want to see a pro government/ anti government argument here at all, it is that the socialist countries that have been far slower to respond to problems caused by their industries. When the government is both running businesses and monitoring businesses the conflict often leads to massive human and ecological disasters.

Can you give me some specific examples? Which socialist countries? Anyway I'm not advocating a screaming socialist state, just some reasonable restraints and regulations on industry. I do believe individualism is important, but I also believe the community has some claim too and that there are some things capitalism just does not do well.

[xouper]

Tricky: Perhaps you are suggesting that the free market should be Darwinian. Let the stupid people die, eh? I'm not quite so apathetic about it. I can appreciate your feelings on the matter. I would hope your compassion for my well-being would not extend to passing a law preventing me from skydiving, despite that it may kill me, as it has some of my friends.

I'm not sure I would agree to characterise as inherently apathetic those who favor personal liberty, with the result that sometimes stupid peolpe die. I certainly wouldn't think you were apathetic for letting me risk death skydiving. In my case, for example, my preference for everyone's personal liberties is a higher moral priority than compassion for people who accidentally kill themselves because there was no law preventing them from doing so. That doesn't mean I don't have any compasion.

For example, most skydiving accidents are the result of stupidity or bad judgment (no lame jokes about fools and birdsh!t, please :)), but I would not favor outlawing skydiving, despite my compasion for "saving" stupid people from themselves. Skydiving is perhaps an extreme example, but I think it demonstrates that there is a line where even the most unapathetic person should not cross in trying to save stupid people from themselves.

[/two cents]

[P.S.A.]

"Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine."

Just one reason Shanek's arguments (and asinine libertarians elsewhere, see Philly G's trolls on Atrio's boards for instance) make me hate Libertarianism with a passion. The Cartridge box comment is the next one. But that's a personal opinion. So here's a reasoned political one.

I've never yet heard a convincing theory of the worth of labour from a Libertarian. just an almost Marxist assumption that it exists objectively.
Let us say that the Government completely disappears, and with it it's tax demands upon your wage packet. Do you get that extra money? Not if your employers don't wish to give it to you, you do not. They could just say "Sorry, the money we give to you isn't going to change." You could say that extra money is your money by right, but why? How do you prove you've done $x amount of work? Especially when someone else can do the exact same job as you but for a different wage, dependent upon contract or location or union affiliation? And how is your labour more 'yours' say, than the labour of a slaves two hundred years ago?

There's no way out of this question via self-employment either; you may say "Right, my time has this value, which I define myself"... but your time is valued only by what the market will bear. And in the town of Psaville, libertarians are worthless. No trade for you here I'm afraid, no matter how many hours you put into reading your Libertarian literature. Try in the next town over, maybe Tony-Town will want your goods.

There is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to assume they have a 'right' or that there is a 'value' to anything. Rights and value are social constructs, and exist only in so much as the minds of many men accept them, and are prepared to protect them. Libertarians may make appeals to the free market; but I've yet to see any rational reason as to why that assumes a sense of entitlement to anything for the individual from it. Social philosophers have been struggling with the concept of labours worth for generations. Libertarians just seem content to demand, without thinking...

"Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine."

But it's not. Not if I don't agree. And especially if I've got a cartridge box too.

[Malachi151]

There is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to assume they have a 'right' or that there is a 'value' to anything. Rights and value are social constructs, and exist only in so much as the minds of many men accept them, and are prepared to protect them.

Exactly.

I agree that one fo the downfalls of Libertarians is that they think there is some objective value or that there are objective "rights".

Again, the whole predication of the idea of "rights" in America is founded on BS, because it was stated that our "rights" are endowed by a "Creator".

This is where America, the "bastion of Democracy and human rights" is WAY behind the REAL WORLD in terms of understanding humanity and rights.

Firt of all there is no creator, but the way that our Bill of Rights is written is makes teh assumption that there are OBJECTIVE rights that are defined universally somewhere and that somehow our founders knew what these OBJECTIVE rights are.

Its a load of crap. There is no such real thing as rights. They are not objective, they are not universal, they are not something that we posess.

Rights are purely a social contract between people. Things that we agree are nto up for democratic override.

We have a right to free speech, that means that we have agreed among ourselves that even if someone says something that 99% of the people in the country disagree with that we have agreed that a democratic majority cannot "vote" to take away his or her ability to say such things.

Rights are areas that are off limits to democratic rule, they are powers that we have given, as a society, to every individual.

Rights are whatever we decide they are. We have decided "democratically" (sort of) what rights we have, they can be changed at any time, and they are different from location to location and they are only as useful as other people's willingness to abide by them.

Rights are not like blue eyes or blond hair. If I go to Mexico, Iraq, China, or Australia I still have the same exact color eyes and same color hair, but I do not have the same rights. If "god" gave us all rights then everyone in the world would have the same rights, but we don't.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by MoeFaux


I believe that people are inherintly good. And I believe that people should be able to make decisions on their own. And I'm against altruism.
How can you believe that people are inherently good, and be against altruism? What the heck is wrong with altruism?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Malachi151
Its a load of crap. There is no such real thing as rights. They are not objective, they are not universal, they are not something that we posess.

Rights are purely a social contract between people. Things that we agree are nto up for democratic override.

I could not agree more. The biggest problem I have with the "God given rights" crowd is the "God gives me the right to do X" argument that then follows. Where does it stop?

Further, I can claim all the rights that I want, but until codified in some governing document the majority can agree on, I have no guarantee of those rights. Sure, I can tell everyone I have a "right" to marry my sister or smoke crack, but until that "right" is codified, it's nothing more than a personal decision that my society - as a member of a society - may choose to grant or deny me.

As much as I wish it were so, until it's in the social contract, a "right" does not exist.

That alone is reason enough for me to reject Libertarianism.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti
Are you now admitting you were wrong?[/]

I'm admitting I could be wrong. I did use the word "if." Of course, in your bigotry and personal quest to discredit everything I say you obviously just blew past that little word...

[b]And as I've said, many times now, the amount of caffeine needed to kill you is much, much more than the amount necessary to make you violently ill. This is why its a very safe drug.
Contrast with cocaine and crack, where after one is addicted the fatal dose becomes dangerously close to what the junkie needs to get high.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that the criminalization of cocaine is what led to this. When it was legal, people did get sick much longer before they overdosed. That effect was shortened by the intense concentrations of the drugs when sold through the illegal black market. Only 10g of caffeine is a fatal (LD50) dosage; it would be nothing to put that in a single pill that you could swallow and die.

I disagree, strongly, that the best solution is to decriminalize drugs and just hope the free market sorts everything out. If that happened nothing would change, other than the existing dealers could sell their poision without fear of prosecution.

Of course, because you think the black market is a free market.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Jessica Blue
But hang on...the tobacco companies didn't mind people dying

Geez, people! How many times are you going to make me rebut this insanity? The cigarette companies, even before any intervention by government, have worked to make cigarettes as safe as possible. The catch is, people want nicotine cigarettes, and they can only be made so safe. There are nicotine-free cigarettes you can buy, but there just isn't much of a market for them. They're mostly used by actors who need to smoke for a role but don't want to become addicted.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky

I often drink a caffenated soda in the morning, but anytime after noon I avoid caffeine because it keeps me awake at night. So in one person, you have a market for both products.

But again, there's a lot more caffeine in soda than there is in chocolate. If these other sources posted by MKJ are true (and I haven't fully checked them out yet, which is why I haven't commented on them) then it's still just a very tiny amount.

Also, it's a lot easier to make a caffeine-free soda: Just don't put the smegging caffeine in. But caffeine must be extracted from the chocolate. And as the case with decaffeinated coffee or tea, you can't get all of the caffeine out anyway. There's always going to be a small amount.

I cannot imagine you would think that the market could support only regular or unleaded chocolate.

That wasn't my claim. I was pointing out a big inconsistency in the opposing argument.

I was just trying to illustrate an example where you make a statement that we are all expected to accept as truth (because you have a link!), then defend it tooth and nail, rather than admit you might be mistaken.

Well, geez, pardon me for requiring evidence as least as good as the evidence that convinced me in the first place! :rolleyes:

To go to the opposite extreme, homeopathy has the potential to be dangerous too by deluding a person into thinking they are treating their illness. Yet this industry thrives.

But it thrives based on fraud. And the Libertarian principle does not allow for the initiation of force or fraud. It's amazing that, no matter how many times I state that, people just don't seem to get it...

[shanek]

Originally posted by davefoc
So I think a common libertarian view is that cigarette companies that sold cigarettes without informing customers of the serious health risks with their product should be held liable for that. If the misleading advertising was made in the face of clear cut evidence to the contrary most libertarians would think that punitive damages in addition to liablility for damages would be reasonable.

Sure, but if you look at the lawsuits I mentioned that isn't actually what happened.

If you want to see a pro government/ anti government argument here at all, it is that the socialist countries that have been far slower to respond to problems caused by their industries. When the government is both running businesses and monitoring businesses the conflict often leads to massive human and ecological disasters.

Very, very well said.

[shanek]

Originally posted by davefoc
To me this is just an example of a larger troubling issue. What should the government do with regards to restricting the ability of companies to advertise and sell products with claims that are wildly unlikely to be true?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "wildly unlikely," and who gets to make that determination.

I don't think this a problem with a simple solution and maybe just muddling through with a mix of law suits, regulations and lots of victims is the best we can do.

Unfortunately, rather than restricting their ability to perpetuate this fraud, the government is actually enabling them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
"Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine. Mine."

Just one reason Shanek's arguments (and asinine libertarians elsewhere, see Philly G's trolls on Atrio's boards for instance) make me hate Libertarianism with a passion.

:rolleyes:

It's from Finding Nemo. Look at the avatar.

The Cartridge box comment is the next one.

And how is Bierce's humorous comment fallacious? You just call it "asinine" and move on...but you don't say why you think it's untrue.

I've never yet heard a convincing theory of the worth of labour from a Libertarian.

I've explained this several times in different threads. Basic economics shows how the market will settle on an equilibrium wage where the number of qualified applicants seeking a job equals the number of jobs the company can provide at that wage level. If they charge less, they won't get enough applicants. If they charge more, they'll get a glut of them.

Let us say that the Government completely disappears, and with it it's tax demands upon your wage packet. Do you get that extra money? Not if your employers don't wish to give it to you, you do not. They could just say "Sorry, the money we give to you isn't going to change."

They could, but they'd be idiotic given the above equation. Even though the actual money being paid to you doesn't change, the overall rate and benefits does. It goes down, and the business finds that it can't attract enough people to fill the positions.

When a business hires, they don't consider just how much they're going to pay you in wages or salary. They're going to consider the totality of what you cost the company: Your wages, your benefits, taxes they have to pay on you, your cubicle space, your computer, your office supplies...the whole gamut. Things they wouldn't have to pay for if they hadn't hired you and decided to have one less employee. That total amount is what they have to spend on you. That's the demand side of the equation. Effectively, what you get paid is whatever is left over after all the other stuff is covered.

but your time is valued only by what the market will bear.

The same is true of regular employment. Either way, you're paid what your market skills will bear.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Malachi151
If I go to Mexico, Iraq, China, or Australia I still have the same exact color eyes and same color hair, but I do not have the same rights.

Yes, you do. Just because some people are using force to prevent you from exercising them doesn't mean you don't have them.

There are only three things that can happen to your rights, short of the free exercise of them:

1: WAIVER. I can voluntarily give up my rights. If I sign a contract with you agreeing to give you a certain amount of a certain good or service, I am bound to that at that point. If I try to get out of it, you can take me to court and get damages.

2: FORFEIT. If I try to take away your rights, then you get to defend yourself and seek a redress of grievances against me. If I steal from you, or try to kill you, or even successfully kill you, I can be arrested and thrown in jail. Note that I don't give up all of my rights; I still have the right to be treated humanely and protected from cruel and unusual punishment, for example. And I have all the rights of due process and appeal because we want proof beyond all reasonable doubt that I committed these acts. But I have forfeited many of my rights.

3. OPPRESSION. A kidnapper oppresses my rights. The difference is, the kidnapper in doing so forfeits many of his and I can defend myself and get the police to throw him in jail. But when a government committs oppression, like it has with José Padilla, well, as the saying goes, "Who watches the watchmen?"

But no matter what happens to these rights, they are the same no matter what, by simple virtue of the fact that you are a human being with free will.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
But no matter what happens to these rights, they are the same no matter what, by simple virtue of the fact that you are a human being with free will.
You're a natural rights kinda guy?

[Diezel]

Just dropping in for a second, no time to really get involved...

I think some people have a really misconstrued perception about "natural rights".

Forget the nonsense about the Creator, that was comprimise built into a document. The Natural Rights that this country was founded on were those espoused by the 18th century Philosophes, most notably Voltaire.

In a paraphrased form, yes, they are objective. They never really discussed where they came from (many or most of the Philosophes of the Enlightenment were atheists), but their reasoning behind declaring them objective was simple - denying these rights of any human goes against the wishes of that human.

Being a human being, we have an internal need to live free, speak free, etc.... This is easily seen in many, many examples. These basics needs, born into us, are the basis for Natural Rights, because (and a bad summary), it is "unnatrual" to make someone go against these needs.

Again, that was a quick and dirty explanation. But don't confuse Natural Rights, or "objective", with a creator.

And before anyone starts in with the "what about sex? That is a basic need, shouldn't we be allowed to rape?" - No, not at all what I'm talking about. Read Voltaire.

[edited for some spelling and grammer mistakes]

[Tricky]

Originally posted by shanek
But again, there's a lot more caffeine in soda than there is in chocolate. If these other sources posted by MKJ are true (and I haven't fully checked them out yet, which is why I haven't commented on them) then it's still just a very tiny amount.

Also, it's a lot easier to make a caffeine-free soda: Just don't put the smegging caffeine in. But caffeine must be extracted from the chocolate. And as the case with decaffeinated coffee or tea, you can't get all of the caffeine out anyway. There's always going to be a small amount.
Totally irrelevant. My comment was to show that there would be a market for both caffeine-enhanced and caffeine-free products. This is simple misdirection.

Originally posted by shanek
That wasn't my claim. I was pointing out a big inconsistency in the opposing argument.
You said:

"And why would chocolate companies "love to market a caffeine free chocolate" (according to Tricky) yet make chocolates "with added caffeine for extra zing and addiction" (according to Jessica)? Bit of a contradiction there. The only way this could possibly be interpreted is that you cannot understand why a company would not make both caffeine-enriched and caffeine free products, a ludicrous statement. There is absolutely no inconstancy in arguing that a chocolate company would love to have caffeine free chocolate if it were economically viable. Why do you insist on digging your hole deeper?

Originally posted by shanek
Well, geez, pardon me for requiring evidence as least as good as the evidence that convinced me in the first place! :rolleyes:
Just because the company websites and FDA print only the conclusions rather than the technical details, that does not mean they are wrong. Scientific papers often put forth statements which are later proved wrong or irreproducible. A single paper years old is not good enough evidence to outweigh the work of numerous investigators, some of which would have a great stake in showing that chocolate is caffeine free. (As you point out, they could always add it in if they wanted to market "zingy" chocolate.) Sorry. Your evidence simply isn't that good.

Originally posted by shanek
But it thrives based on fraud. And the Libertarian principle does not allow for the initiation of force or fraud. It's amazing that, no matter how many times I state that, people just don't seem to get it...
If chocolate companies claimed there was no caffeine in chocolate, that would be fraud. Would you also support the right of cigarette companies to state that nicotene is not addictive because there have been a number of papers that have made exactly this claim?

[Diezel]

I had a little more time and I hated the way I ended my last post ("Read Voltaire".) I hate when people tell me to read something, not taking the actual time to do the research and show you what they are talking about.

Plus, I was a bit off. While I did mention the Philosophes, I mentioned Voltaire. Actually, it was Thomas Locke that spoke the most of Natural Rights and Natural Law. Voltaire was the biggest advocate of religious tolerance. When spoke of in the context of the American Constitution, Voltaire and Locke are usually mentioned in the same breath and you can easily mix the two.

Well, that's my defense and I'm sticking to it. :D

Anway, here is a much better summary of Locke than I gave:


In the Two Treatises , Locke argued that government and authority was based on natural law. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believed that natural law dictated that all human beings were fundamentally equal; he derived this argument from his theories of human development. Since every human being walked into the world with the same capacities as every other human being, that meant that inequality was an unnatural result of the environments that individuals are forced to live in, a belief that still underlies the Western notion of human development. Human beings have a natural inclination to preserve their equality and independence, since these are natural aspects of humanness. For Locke, humans enter into social contracts only to help adjudicate disputes between individuals or groups. Absolute power, then, is an unnatural development in human history.


To understand what he means by "Since every human being walked into the world with the same capacities as every other human being...", you will have to read the whole article at http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/ENLIGHT/PREPHIL.HTM .

Actually, for anyone interested in this subject, this is a really good set of articles about the Enlightenment. Most interesting is the piece on Thomas Hobbes and how, while agreeing on the basic nature of humans with the rest of the Enlightenment thinkers, Hobbes comes to the conclusion that human beings must obey authority without question.

Look at his reasoning and some of the reasoning you have seen in this thread about this subject. Seem familiar? ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Tricky

Totally irrelevant. My comment was to show that there would be a market for both caffeine-enhanced and caffeine-free products.

Which is something I never directly nor implicitly denied.

The only way this could possibly be interpreted is that you cannot understand why a company would not make both caffeine-enriched and caffeine free products, a ludicrous statement.

No, that isn't the only way that could possibly be interpreted in the context of the argument I was rebutting. "Context," people. It means everything.

There is absolutely no inconstancy in arguing that a chocolate company would love to have caffeine free chocolate if it were economically viable.

But that wasn't the claim. Jessica was saying that there's so little caffeine that they're needing to add in caffeine to have an effect...you were saying that chocolate makers should have an incentive to remove the caffeine to rid people of the effects. The inconsistency has nothing to do with diversity of the free market. It has to do with whether or not however much caffeine may or may not be in chocolate naturally has any kind of an effect. You said it does. She says it doesn't. That's the inconsistency.

[Victor Danilchenko]

Suddenly

Great post. That is exactly the problem I have had with Shane as well. I am liberal but with a strong libertarian streak, and I am on general principle sympathetic to third parties, simply because I want to see a more diverse political landscape. Shane's service to LP cause, however, is very questionable -- precisely because he refuses to recognize the hidden biases implicitly present each time he talks about non-initiation of force, individual rights, etc. His hidden biases are constructed in such a way as to allow him to draw from the factual evidence exactly the conclusions he desires.

Though I feel a great deal of sympathy for libertarianism in general, I find myself more and more antipathetic to LP -- and that is largely due to Shane's efforts. The more I have been learning about LP, the more I become convinced that its adherents are more like Shane and less like Milton Friedman ideologically -- philosophically naive, blind to their own biases, just another ideological special-interest group interested in pushing their predetermined conclusions, rather than in actually solving the problems facing our society; just another group convinced that their particular biases are the solution to the world's problems.

It was so f*cking frustrating to try to get Shane to see that 'non-initiation of force', in his rendition, is simply a Potemkin village concealing his predetermined biases... Love your 'jerk party' example, by the way.

[P.S.A.]

Diesel Two quick points, as I don't have time to write more;

1.) It's incorrect to state that Hobbes said men were created unequal. Quite the opposite. His theory depends upon that equality, at least within the context of the State of Nature and the equal ability all have to harm one another.

2.) Locke is one Philospher I was thinking of with regards to the concept of the worth of labour... in his case, the famous "Mixing" argument. There have been other arguments made; I'm going to ignore Shanek's feeble justifications, but what do you think of Locke's arguments? Do you think the additive quality of labour allows you to draw the conclusions about a natural law of Property that Locke does?

[Jessica Blue]

Geez, people! How many times are you going to make me rebut this insanity? The cigarette companies, even before any intervention by government, have worked to make cigarettes as safe as possible.

That Maybe so, but they didn't warn people voluntarily did they? They continued an aggressive advertising campaign long after they knew the full evils of their product. They had to be compelled to put warnings on their packets and stop the advertising. Even in the seventies and early eighties they were still publically trying to play down the health implications.

This means any concerns the tobacco companies may have had about public health didnot overide their lust for profit.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by P.S.A.
Diesel Two quick points, as I don't have time to write more;

1.) It's incorrect to state that Hobbes said men were created unequal. Quite the opposite. His theory depends upon that equality, at least within the context of the State of Nature and the equal ability all have to harm one another.

Actually, I never said Hobbes said men were created unequal, but the opposite. I pointed out that Hobbes and Locke agreed that all men were created equal, yet came to two very different conclusions on what that meant in terms of government. Their difference comes from where they equality lies (Hobbes=selfishness, Locke=reason).

I'm sorry if I didn't convey that sentiment properly.

2.) Locke is one Philospher I was thinking of with regards to the concept of the worth of labour... in his case, the famous "Mixing" argument. There have been other arguments made; I'm going to ignore Shanek's feeble justifications, but what do you think of Locke's arguments? Do you think the additive quality of labour allows you to draw the conclusions about a natural law of Property that Locke does?

Honestly, I haven't studied Locke's view on labor or the mixing argument in a long time and can only recall it in passing now. Let me take some time to study it a little further and make a more educated response. I'd hate to give an answer of the top of my head, based on some shoddy recollection of the argument.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Diezel


Actually, I never said Hobbes said men were created unequal, but the opposite. I pointed out that Hobbes and Locke agreed that all men were created equal, yet came to two very different conclusions on what that meant in terms of government. Their difference comes from where they equality lies (Hobbes=selfishness, Locke=reason).

It's interesting to note that Hobbes was a monarchist, which appears to have had some influence over his conclusions on government. Locke's theory of government can be seen in part as a critique of Hobbes' assertion of the absolute right of the monarchy:
Although there is little direct reference to Hobbes, Locke seems to have had Hobbes in mind when he argued that the doctrine of absolute monarchy leaves sovereign and subjects in the state of nature towards one another.

Source: Internet Encyclopaedia of Government (http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/l/locke.htm#Two%20Treatises%20of%20Government)

[jj]

Originally posted by Jude


I am familiar with shanek and I am familiar with Lord Kenneth. EvilYeti is still a big fat jerk.

He's not fat, Jude.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
That isn't caffeine. That's theobromine. Similar in chemistry, but a different molecule.


You really do live in a fantasy world, Shanek, both caffeine and theobromine are in chocolate. Ditto for tea.

You have the most stunningly offensive combination of ignorance and self-righteous arrogance I've seen in a long time.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
Amazing...absolutely f*cking amazing...

http://www.mrkland.com/fun/xocoatl/caffeine.htm



I've brought this up before in other threads...and not a SINGLE ONE OF YOU had a problem with this until I used it in a thread about Libertarianism.

F*cking pathetic.
Yes, you are quite that.

Simply put, most of us don't read your claptrap most of the time, and only start when you get into a flame war with somebody like Yeti who won't put up with your nonsense.

The assays are very clear, sir, there is caffeine in chocolate. Not as much as in tea or coffee, but it is there.

Yes, there is also theobromine. So? That doesn't exclude caffeine.

[jj]

Originally posted by shanek
Okay, people, fine...if you want to take the word of marketroids and government bureaucrats over scientific experts that's one thing...

Really? Well, I've seen the scientific experts quoted as to chocolate having caffeine. I've seen your second-hand quotes about it not having caffeine, and now I see your paranoia leap to the surface.

Get help. You need it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by jj
Simply put, most of us don't read your claptrap most of the time,

I've noticed...of course, it doesn't stop any of you from commenting about the things you obviously haven't read...

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


I've noticed...of course, it doesn't stop any of you from commenting about the things you obviously haven't read...

Question for you.

If the blue bar is twice as big as the red bar in the above poll, doesn't that mean you are a total, abject failure? That the sum total of your nealy 9k posts has been to drive twice many people AWAY from Libertarianism as towards it?

That strikes me as comically pathetic.

[davefoc]

EvilYeti,
Another view of the same data:

Influencing 27% of the people to be more likely to vote Libertarian says something very positive about the validity of Shanek's views and his ability to argue for them.

A good number of the people who said they weren't affected by Shanek's arguments probably already agreed with him to some degree.

Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

So a good chunk of the people who said they were unaffected by Shanek's posts were not going to change their views no matter what Shanek said.

Overall, it looks like Shanek has been far more influential than just about anyother poster based on this poll.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by davefoc

Influencing 27% of the people to be more likely to vote Libertarian says something very positive about the validity of Shanek's views and his ability to argue for them.

Except I'm not at all convinced that those 16 (currently) folks were all fencesitters prior to encountering shanek. I suspect a majority are from folks whom are already Libertarians and voted dishonestly. I only counted a handful of acutall responses describing how

A good number of the people who said they weren't affected by Shanek's arguments probably already agreed with him to some degree.

You mean the Planet X votes?

Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

I've seen very little evidence of that. I have seen shanek berate the ENTIRE FORUM in a profrane manner for daring to point out that chocolate has caffiene in it. The fact of the matter is that shanek so ignorant of even simple, trivial facts and concepts that whatever point he is trying to make gets lost in the noise.

So a good chunk of the people who said they were unaffected by Shanek's posts were not going to change their views no matter what Shanek said.

I used to share some Libertarian-type views and thought the LP was doing some good work (not with drug prohibition however). Once I encountered shaneks lunacy I read the fine print on the LP website and realized most of the nonsense he spews originates, verbatim, from there.

Overall, it looks like Shanek has been far more influential than just about anyother poster based on this poll.

Look at it this way, if shanek was a doctor and trying to treat sick people, he would have made 16 folks better, 31 folks worse and had no effect on 8 (at the time of this posting). The end result is a net increase of 15 sick people. That is no success by any measure.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: If the blue bar is twice as big as the red bar in the above poll, doesn't that mean you are a total, abject failure? That the sum total of your nealy 9k posts has been to drive twice many people AWAY from Libertarianism as towards it? That strikes me as comically pathetic.As a scientist, on what basis do you claim that this poll is scientifically valid?

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by davefoc
EvilYeti,
Another view of the same data:

Influencing 27% of the people to be more likely to vote Libertarian says something very positive about the validity of Shanek's views and his ability to argue for them.



Not necessarily. A good number of the people who said they were "more likely" to vote Libertarian based on his posts ... probably already agreed with him. People support whoever's on "their side", you see.

I might turn your other argument around and say:

"Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, libertarians and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of abolishing all those hated government programs."

See, you can say ANYTHING with poor statistics. :)

[Victor Danilchenko]

What pisses me off is that I actually like libertarianism, even if I don't fully agree with it (although I don't like LP-ism); and so I am upset and angered by the job shane is doing. For the sake of preserving his own sense of being right -- which he even isn't! -- he is driving people away from understanding an important political agenda.

What he is doing is innoculating people to taking libertarianism seriously; after running into shanek, even more people will be willing to dismiss out of hand any position or argument labelled as 'libertarian'.

WMT1 is the same way, only worse; but he is a complete loon, and AFAICT, everyone is ignoring him. Shane is just decent enough to not have people put him on ignore list wholesale -- but not decent enough to actually to libertarianism justice.

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by davefoc

[...]

Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.
Really? People who don't agree with shanek are stupid socialists? There's absolutely no possible explanation that you could think of?
Overall, it looks like Shanek has been far more influential than just about anyother poster based on this poll.
But he's the only poster in this poll!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Occasional Chemist
See, you can say ANYTHING with poor statistics. :)

IOW, we can't tell one smegging thing from the poll results and must rely on the replies given by people to give us an indicator of the true results.

I stand by my previous assessment.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Really? People who don't agree with shanek are stupid socialists? There's absolutely no possible explanation that you could think of?

He didn't say that. He said a percentage, not all of them. And judging by their behavior in other threads I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with him.

[Occasional Chemist]

Originally posted by shanek

IOW, we can't tell one smegging thing from the poll results (...)


Right. If anyone really cared enough, they could post a poll with more sensible choices and we might be able to draw conclusions that are a little better than the ones we're batting about now.

... and even then, it might still be up for debate. :)

(edit: stupid spelling mistake)

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek
He didn't say that. He said a percentage, not all of them.
No; he was talking about a percentage of people who weren't affected by your arguments not a percentage of people who don't agree with you.

And judging by their behavior in other threads I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with him.
Same argument, same fallacy as davefoc. I'd use the irony meter icon, except it's way overused on this forum.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
As a scientist, on what basis do you claim that this poll is scientifically valid?

As a scientist, on what basis do you claim that this poll isn't scientifically valid?

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK

No; he was talking about a percentage of people who weren't affected by your arguments not a percentage of people who don't agree with you.

Let's review his claim:

A good number of the people who said they weren't affected by Shanek's arguments probably already agreed with him to some degree.

Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

So a good chunk of the people who said they were unaffected by Shanek's posts were not going to change their views no matter what Shanek said.

He mentions two percentages: People who already agreed with me, and people who were going to disagree with me no matter what. Does he say these people represent all of the unchanged opinions? No—just a "good chunk," not "all."

Same argument, same fallacy as davefoc. I'd use the irony meter icon, except it's way overused on this forum.

Ignoring the blatant bias of some of the posters here does nothing for your credibility.

[xouper]

xouper: As a scientist, on what basis do you claim that this poll is scientifically valid?

EvilYeti: As a scientist, on what basis do you claim that this poll isn't scientifically valid?I haven't made any claim about the validity of the poll. But you have. And I am asking if you can back up that claim. It was YOUR claim, and as you are so fond of saying, it's not up to someone else to disprove YOUR claim.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by xouper
I haven't made any claim about the validity of the poll. But you have. And I am asking if you can back up that claim. It was YOUR claim, and as you are so fond of saying, it's not up to someone else to disprove YOUR claim.
I haven't made any claim about the invalidity of the poll. But you have. And I am asking if you can back up that claim. It was YOUR, claim, and as you are so fond of saying, it's not up to someone else to disprove YOUR claim.

[shanek]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

I haven't made any claim about the invalidity of the poll. But you have.

Where did Xouper make such a claim? YOU made the opposite claim, and failed to support it.

[EvilYeti]

Originally posted by shanek


Where did Xouper make such a claim? YOU made the opposite claim, and failed to support it.

Where did EvilYeti make such a claim? YOU made the opposite claim, and failed to support it.

[xouper]

EvilYeti: Where did EvilYeti make such a claim? YOU made the opposite claim, and failed to support it.It looks like EvilYeti has (inadvertantly?) let some brat kid post here using his account. How cute.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Let's review his claim:
A good number of the people who said they weren't affected by Shanek's arguments probably already agreed with him to some degree.

Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

So a good chunk of the people who said they were unaffected by Shanek's posts were not going to change their views no matter what Shanek said

He mentions two percentages: People who already agreed with me, and people who were going to disagree with me no matter what. Does he say these people represent all of the unchanged opinions? No—just a "good chunk," not "all."
I'm not claiming he does. You're attempting to refute a position I haven't taken. I'm questioning the analysis that some posters prefer to "call (you) names, because it's easier than thinking about (your) ideas" because they "don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand", because they are "head in the ground, socialists and the like". Any one of those statements might be true, but it's the conflation of all of them that I'm challenging.
Ignoring the blatant bias of some of the posters here does nothing for your credibility.
I've no idea where to start with that doozy; but as it's irrelevant, I'll ignore it.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
I'm not claiming he does. You're attempting to refute a position I haven't taken.

You originally said:

Really? People who don't agree with shanek are stupid socialists? There's absolutely no possible explanation that you could think of?

That's what I've been taking issue with. Did you misspeak?

I'm questioning the analysis that some posters prefer to "call (you) names, because it's easier than thinking about (your) ideas" because they "don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand", because they are "head in the ground, socialists and the like". Any one of those statements might be true, but it's the conflation of all of them that I'm challenging.

Where did he state that all of these qualities were in every poster that disagreed with me? Some of them do prefer to call names, others obviously don't understand supply and demand, and still others are obviously die-hard socialists who are never truly going to consider whether or not their position is wrong. Again, I think this is obvious from any reading of these threads, and trying to deny it just makes one look idiotic.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


You originally said:
Really? People who don't agree with shanek are stupid socialists? There's absolutely no possible explanation that you could think of?

That's what I've been taking issue with. Did you misspeak?
No, that's precisely what I said. I'll allow that the brevity of my post might lead to a genuine misunderstandings, but as I've since expanded on my intentions with that post, I'm beginning to wonder about your intention is here.
Where did he state that all of these qualities were in every poster that disagreed with me?
He didn't; I haven't suggest that he did, and I've already stated I'm not suggesting that he did.
Some of them do prefer to call names, others obviously don't understand supply and demand, and still others are obviously die-hard socialists who are never truly going to consider whether or not their position is wrong.
Strangely enough, this is what I say in the quote you're responding to here. To repeat myself again, I'm taking issue with the way he conflates all these as properties of a certain percentage of people who aren't affected by your views.
Again, I think this is obvious from any reading of these threads, and trying to deny it just makes one look idiotic.
Still irrelevant. Anyway, taking someone to task for a position they haven't adopted also makes one look idiotic, and whilst the first few exchanges may have been the result of a genuine misunderstanding, to continue on that line after clarification has been made also makes one appear intransigent and deliberately antagonistic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
That's what I've been taking issue with. Did you misspeak?
No, that's precisely what I said. I'll allow that the brevity of my post might lead to a genuine misunderstandings, but as I've since expanded on my intentions with that post, I'm beginning to wonder about your intention is here.[/b][/quote]

My intention here is the clarification of what you said and the acknowledgement that no one is trying to just shoehorn people into categories to avoid what they're trying to say.

To repeat myself again, I'm taking issue with the way he conflates all these as properties of a certain percentage of people who aren't affected by your views.

But as I pointed out, my reading of his posts is that he hasn't done that. He has pointed out different aspects of some of the people who disagree with me in order to point out that their decision is not based on anything logical or rational and that they would have this position regardless of anything I have done. That seems very reasonable and obvious to me.

[davefoc]

Hi folks, I've kind of enjoyed this thread. Although there was a certain ignominy associated with seeing my misspelling of supply repeated over and over.

I thought I'd just explain some of my thoughts and biases when I wrote what I wrote.

1. I kind of like shanek and it pissed me off a bit to see EY attack him, so I was letting off a little steam.
2. I really didn't think one could determine much from the poll so writing something where I let a few of my biases go unchecked was kind of my way of making the point that with so little reliable information one can pretty much make what one wants to out of it. I think this point was made by shanek and a few others.
3. I do understand that shanek can be a bit of a horse's ass every now and then with his don't give an inch approach, but I kind of like that, especially when he balances it with moments of introspection or acknowledgement of an opposing point.
4. I am approximately a moderate libertarian with regards to economics and taking a shot at what I perceive as the simplistic reasoning of some of economic liberals and socialists floating around this forum wasn't a bad thing either.

As to some of the attacks against Shanek, I thought they were funny and hoped that there was a kind of good natured over the top banter going on here with regard to them and that they weren't meant too seriously. I did look up the reefer madness movie trying to find out a little bit more about the origin. I never found anything definitive but I did find a few places that referred to it as being funded by the treasury department so if Shanek was wrong about the source of funding for the movie at least he had company.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek

My intention here is the clarification of what you said
I'm sorry, is this the five minute argument or the full half hour?You might wish to consider that the analytical tools you use in that respect may lead people to presume your intention is otherwise.
and the acknowledgement that no one is trying to just shoehorn people into categories to avoid what they're trying to say.

But as I pointed out, my reading of his posts is that he hasn't done that.
Since I haven't claimed he has, I've no idea of the relevancy of this point.

He has pointed out different aspects of some of the people who disagree with me
But the aspects he outlines he conflates as the distinctive properties of a homogenous group, and that's what I'm challenging! Not that some of the people who disagree with you exhibit one or more of these properties, but that all the people in this group (the "other percentage") exhibit all these properties as a correlate of their behaviour to you:
Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

in order to point out that their decision is not based on anything logical or rational and that they would have this position regardless of anything I have done. That seems very reasonable and obvious to me.
It's reasonable and obvious they're all ignorant, head-in-the-ground socialist and the like? :eek:

My feeling is that this (non-) argument is well and truly dead, and any further flogging it is futile. Please refer to davefoc's recent post on the matter (above), particularly points 2 and 4.

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
You might wish to consider that the analytical tools you use in that respect may lead people to presume your intention is otherwise.

If that is the case, it is unintended, and if it has resulted in any slight against your character, then I apologize.

\Since I haven't claimed he has, I've no idea of the relevancy of this point.

I was referring to this claim of yours:

I'm taking issue with the way he conflates all these as properties of a certain percentage of people who aren't affected by your views.

But the aspects he outlines he conflates as the distinctive properties of a homogenous group,

That's just the point—I don't see where he stated or implied that the group was homogeneous.

It's reasonable and obvious they're all ignorant, head-in-the-ground socialist and the like? :eek:

Again, there's that word "all"! Where did that come from? I didn't say "all," and neither to my readin has davefoc; we've been talking about a percentage, a portion of them. Not all.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


If that is the case, it is unintended, and if it has resulted in any slight against your character, then I apologize.
There's no need to apologise; you haven't slighted me in any manner. My point in that respect was that if you appear to be argumentative and intransigent, it's likely that posters will modify their behaviour towards you to accomodate that.
I was referring to this claim of yours:
I'm taking issue with the way he conflates all these as properties of a certain percentage of people who aren't affected by your views.

In what way does that imply that davefoc is "trying to just shoehorn people into categories to avoid what they're trying to say"? If you like, I'm challenging the shoe-horning (that a certain percentage are ignorant socialists and the like, &c &c) as a logical fallacy; not his intention in making that claim.

That's just the point—I don't see where he stated or implied that the group was homogeneous.
The bit that goes:
Another percentage are completely dedicated, head in the ground, socialists and the like who don't have a clue as to the realities of the law of suppy and demand and the unintended consequences of their favorite government programs. They are completely unaffected by Shanek's arguments because rather than listen to anything he has to say they just call him names, because it's easier than thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought.

Note that he doesn't say that the people in this percentage are a heterogenous group who may exhibit one or more of these properties, but that all the people in this group exhibit all these properties as an explanation of the way they behave towards you.

And he admits it in his last post. It's this bit here:
Originally posted by davefoc
2. I really didn't think one could determine much from the poll so writing something where I let a few of my biases go unchecked was kind of my way of making the point that with so little reliable information one can pretty much make what one wants to out of it. I think this point was made by shanek and a few others.
[...]
4. I am approximately a moderate libertarian with regards to economics and taking a shot at what I perceive as the simplistic reasoning of some of economic liberals and socialists floating around this forum wasn't a bad thing either.
My italics
Again, there's that word "all"! Where did that come from? I didn't say "all," and neither to my readin has davefoc; we've been talking about a percentage, a portion of them. Not all.
Exactly–all the people in that percentage, which is what I've been banging on about!

Edited for clarity and slioppy cut'n'paste

[shanek]

Originally posted by BillyTK
Exactly–all the people in that percentage, which is what I've been banging on about!

Wait a minute...everything else you said aside for the moment, are you really criticizing him for saying that the people who just call me names are the ones who just call me names?

The percentage he defined as the ones that do that. So it stands to reason that all in that percentage apply! If they didn't, they wouldn't be in that percentage!

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by shanek


Wait a minute...everything else you said aside for the moment, are you really criticizing him for saying that the people who just call me names are the ones who just call me names?
We're getting there... but I'm not challenging him for saying people call you names. I'm challenging for the the properties he attributes to this percentage as the explanation of their motive for calling you names, that they are ignorant, head-in-the-ground socialists who prefer to call you names than listen to your ideas. I'm not suggesting that davefoc considers this group exclusive (i.e. that this group are the only people who call you names), but rather the logical progression of the properties he asserts; that "head-in-the-ground socialists and the like" are ignorant of "the law of suppy and demand" (sic) and therefore prefer to call you names rather than "thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought" (sic). As I've said before, posters may show any one (or more) of these properties, but to attibute all these properties as homogenous to this particular group is fallacious reasoning. It's fallacious because it assumes a logical relationship between each property where there clearly is none.

For instance, in your first response to me, you said: "And judging by their behavior in other threads I don't see how any reasonable person could disagree with him." and I pointed out you were committing the same logical fallacy as davefoc, because your statement presumes a logical relationship between being reasonable and agreeing with davefoc. My being reasonable is not dependent on agreement with davefoc, and my agreement with davefoc doesn't define my reasonableness(?made-up word?). You also introduce a red herring as the evidential basis to support your claim ('cos we're not discussing poster behaviour, we're discussing motivations attributed to that behaviour) but as that's not entirely relevant to the point I'm making, I'll let it go (see, I am reasonable!).

The percentage he defined as the ones that do that. So it stands to reason that all in that percentage apply! If they didn't, they wouldn't be in that percentage!
This appears to be a circular argument, but that could be a parsing error on my part. Anyway, bearing in mind that to be eligible for membership of that set, a poster must be shown to call you names because they are unwilling to think about your ideas because they know nothing of supply/demand relations because they are "head-in-the-ground socialists and the like", how many people do you think will be in it?

And why are we still having this argument when davefoc has clearly said that "I let a few of my biases go unchecked [as a] kind of my way of making the point that with so little reliable information one can pretty much make what one wants to out of it," and was "taking a shot at what I perceive as the simplistic reasoning of some of economic liberals and socialists"?

[davefoc]

BillyTK and Shanek,
I just reread a considerable portion of this thread thinking that I might have something to say about the discussion of what I said.

Hmm, I'm still not quite sure what each of your views is but I can tell you what I meant to say.

The set of people that weren't affected by Shaneks arguments consisted of:
1. Socialists and economic liberals whose views are unlikely to be changed because of their simplistics economic theories that they defend by attempting to ridicule those with opposing views rather than actually listening to and thinking about opposing views.
2. Others

I don't think from this that you can infer that I think that all socialists are stupid or even that there aren't objective, learned socialists who also weren't moved by Shanek's arguments.

It is possible to infer from the above that I think that some socialists and economic liberals are close minded when it comes to views that challenge their own and that they substitute ridicule for logic to sustain those views.

I noticed that BillyTK gave me two sic's. OK, I can see a sic for the law of suppy and demand but for "thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought". Not the best line I ever wrote, but did I deserve a sic for it? Why? Because all ideas require thought, because it was awkward, because it doesn't make sense exactly, all true, but wasn't the second sic just a little harsh?

[BillyTK]

Hi davefoc,

Thanks for your timely response.

BillyTK and Shanek,
I just reread a considerable portion of this thread thinking that I might have something to say about the discussion of what I said.

Hmm, I'm still not quite sure what each of your views is but I can tell you what I meant to say.

The set of people that weren't affected by Shaneks arguments consisted of:
1. Socialists and economic liberals whose views are unlikely to be changed because of their simplistics economic theories that they defend by attempting to ridicule those with opposing views rather than actually listening to and thinking about opposing views.
2. Others

I don't think from this that you can infer that I think that all socialists are stupid or even that there aren't objective, learned socialists who also weren't moved by Shanek's arguments.
True, I was careful to point out that I didn't think you considered this to be the case, nor that this was the only reason that people would disagree with shanek.

It is possible to infer from the above that I think that some socialists and economic liberals are close minded when it comes to views that challenge their own and that they substitute ridicule for logic to sustain those views.
This is kind of where I come in. Your viewpoint as you set out here seems reasonable (except to note that this not an exclusive trait to socialists and liberals, however, I'm not suggesting that you intentiond to imply this in your view here). What I first noticed with your original analysis of people who were unaffected by shanek's view was an implicit continuum ranging from people who broadly agreed with him through to the ignorant socialists, of whom I've been banging on about for these past few posts. I found these problematic in that the properties you attributed to this group as an explanation of their behaviour read more as a matter of assertion than a logical chain of inference (see black cats and otters who are fish). Hence my comment of, "Really? People who don't agree with shanek are stupid socialists? There's absolutely no possible explanation that you could think of?". And that's it really...

I noticed that BillyTK gave me two sic's. OK, I can see a sic for the law of suppy and demand but for "thinking about ideas that would otherwise require thought". Not the best line I ever wrote, but did I deserve a sic for it? Why? Because all ideas require thought, because it was awkward, because it doesn't make sense exactly, all true, but wasn't the second sic just a little harsh?
Was it undeserved though? Okay, I admit I was being excessively harsh, but I was feeling sic (sic [sic]) at the time. :D