Differences in political views.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2013, 06:45 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(08-09-2013 06:33 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(07-09-2013 07:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Up until that point, at least in the US, all transportation was private. It was not considered a role of government. In the 140 years from the country's founding, with zero government involvement, the country went from having zero infrastructure to, in 1916, having a long-haul rail system with 65,000 railroad passenger cars most air-conditioned some traveling at speeds over 100 mph on 254,000 miles of track.
Quote:Those are all facts I can substantiate if you doubt any of them.

Well, then what do you mean by "zero government involvement" with regard to building the infrastructure?

State-owned versus private/corporate-owned is one thing, but zero role by the state is another.

True.

I had in mind similar qualifications.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 07:08 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:Well, then what do you mean by "zero government involvement" with regard to building the infrastructure? State-owned versus private/corporate-owned is one thing, but zero role by the state is another.

I don't care if it's a government or a private corporation. They're all just groups of people. Both forms can be democratic, or not democratic. Both can be good, or evil. The tick box you check on the formation docs is irrelevant.

The ONLY thing I care about is that violence (ie physical force) is not used to make everybody pay for one system that, in hindsight, may be a terrible choice. And, worst case, if you're going to use force, do it at the state or local level.

So, it would have been fine for a city to build a metro system. Just fund if through bonds, that are purchased voluntary, and/or fares that people pay. That way, if it's a terrible system, and someone has a much better way to get you around faster, cheaper, and safer, they'll have a fighting chance. For example, at this moment, California is trying to build the most expensive high speed train ever ($70 billion!) which will also be one the slowest “high speed” trains ever, and it won't even go into major cities. You'll have to drive an hour north of LA to Fresno to catch it, and it won't even go to San Fran. It's the stupidest plan. But it being funded through force (every American MUST pay for it).

Elon Musk says he can build a vac-tube from downtown LA to downtown SF for 1/10 the cost ($7 billion), that will travel 5x as fast and make it a 20 minute commute from downtown LA to downtown SF. That would be AWESOME! What a huge win for the people of California. They pay 1/10 the price, and get 10x more. And since he did the impossible with space travel and with Tesla, I want to see him get a crack at it.

Sadly, it will never come to be. Because Americans MUST pay for the $70 billion system no matter how stupid it is, you know the lobbyists that the construction companies hired to get that asinine plan approved are NEVER going to part with that $70 billion contract. It doesn't matter if the people of California will get something that's completely useless—they all have to pay no matter what. Theoretically they could use the power of their vote to change Congressmen. But, if that system actually worked, well then we wouldn't be forking $70 billion over to corporate leeches for such a useless project. Also, it makes it impossible for Elon to compete. If 2 guys are competing for your business, and 1 has a gun and the other doesn't, guess who gets your business? What investor would put $7 billion for Elon's vac tube, knowing that his target customer is going to be forced to pay for his competitor's system anyway?

What makes the whole thing even worse is that it's being partially funded at the Federal level. This makes it possible to transfer such a massive amount of wealth to those construction companies because the burden is spread across the whole country so people don't notice and feel far removed and disengaged from it. This is, of course, completely illegal. All Federal officials are sworn to uphold the US Constitution which makes it clear the Federal government has only 9 responsibilities – all of them related to defending the public – and that anything out of those 9 must be handled by the states alone, and the Supreme Court has the sworn duty to void any laws that deviate from that system.

And the reason for that is precisely to avoid this kind of a mess. If the $70 billion burden was born solely by Californians, it would be such a big burden that it would cause protests and people would start leaving. They may head up north, where Oregon could say “Elon, come up to Oregon and build your vac-tube here. We won't get in your way.” And if Elon couldn't raise the money but Oregons really wanted it, worst case Oregon could be a guarantor, issuing bonds to pay for it. Then, even if California went through with the $70 billion low-speed train, Californians would look north to Oregon and realized they got royally fucked, and other states would learn from California's dumb mistake. Alas, since it's at the Federal level, Oregon and every other state too is on the hook for California's stupid train. And, if we have other rail projects, the Federal government will give them to the same lobbyist's companies. So the same stupid, wasteful system will just spread, and innovators never have a chance to get their foot in the door.

Where I beat my head of a wall is that when our Founders were drafting the Constitution, they discussed these problems, they saw that human progress was held back for thousands of years because of this. They saw that the more local the spending decisions are, the more bang you get for your buck. At the family level, ever dollar spent is watched like a hawk to be sure you're getting value. At the small town level, a little waste creeps in, but it's small enough to manage. In big cities, like LA or NY, waste is pretty rampant. At the State level, they're already throwing money away on stuff that doesn't work. At the Federal level, it is just SOOO big, and the decisions are made thousands of miles away from the people who are writing the checks. These problems were well known, and a bunch of very smart men came up with a pretty good solution. We're just ignoring them because it's so easy to always say 'Let the Federal government pay for it', since with 300 million people paying for it, it feels like your spending someone else's money. Which you are. But they're spending yours too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2013, 08:39 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:Sometimes I think they speak more of the violence than freedom, just like churchmen often speak more of the fire and brimstone than holiness.

I don't think that's fair because we define violence as the absence of freedom, and freedom/liberty as the absence of violence. We speak of violence only because it's what blocking our path to freedom, but whether we say freedom is the goal or violence is the obstacle is immaterial imo since they're synonymous to me.

Quote:The problem with TVP is, it's not a self-contained community. It's a design of global infrastructure


Isn't that a major flaw if you need the whole world to switch over simultaneously? In all of human history has that ever been accomplished? We can't even get the US and North Korea to talk to each other, let alone simultaneously convert to a common political system.

Quote:
Quote:Getting 51% of the population to agree that maybe our whole concept of money is wrong and we should all support TVP, that's never going to happen.
It could happen.
Then I need to return again to Prague to study the Czech public. However, if you think Americans are like that, well, please come to the US for a rude awakening. Only a very tiny percentage of the population would take the time to study TVP and get their head around all the completely foreign concepts. Remember, it's human nature to reject anything wildly different or outside your comfort zone. That's what held humans back for thousands of years—everybody who came up with a great idea got burned or beheaded for not conforming. Most people are busy raising their kids and they stick with what they know and just hit the 'Democrat' or 'Republican' button on the voting machine, and that's the extent of it. Libertarians have been screaming off the rooftops about how the current monetary policy was designed by the banks, for the banks, and is owned by the banks (yes, the various Federal Reserve Regional Banks are owned by the big banks), and that, gosh, surprisingly it only benefits the banks and the politicians who use violence to grant them a complete monopoly, and the victims are primarily the poor, which is why the gains in equality reversed course precisely when the monetary system was implemented. And the evidence is there in black and white, it's not seriously disputed, and it's a pretty easy concept to understand. But still, nobody cares or pays any attention to it.
I think your only chance is to find a way to start out small, prove that it works, build a base of outspoken advocates, and let it spread organically.
Quote:most money in America belong to 0,1 % of the richest bankers.
Of course. If you had a printing press to print as much as you wanted, wouldn't you have a lot of money too? The past couple years the Federal Reserve has been giving the banks up to $7 TRILLION in newly printed money as “loans”, that actually have negative interest rates, and gosh, what a surprise, this past quarter set a new all-time historic record for how much profit big banks could generate. And this isn't even disputed. And Americans don't care. Sorry, but you're never going to get them to care about TVP unless you prove it works.
Quote:Monetary system is like chains. If a slaver binds me by chain and forces me to work, or I'll starve, it's bad.
Agreed 1 million %. But it's only chains because of the legal tender laws that require you to be locked in prison if you try to use any alternative currency or other medium of exchange. Were the central banks not granted these super-human powers to wield the club, if we had a choice to pick the monetary system we wanted to use, we wouldn't be slaves.
Quote:What if humans as an economic unit are obsolete, except as automation engineers?
It's funny because I had this same discussion with a Chinese communist in another thread, and we both agree that communism will be a good solution when that happens because the only effort will be on using goods and services—not producing them.
Quote:They seem to say that new jobs will be created as always, but statistics just don't support that.
I don't say that. I think it's impossible to know what life will be like 1,000 years in the future. However, I do know that over 100 years ago some very smart men said everything that could be invented had been invented and that by the 20th century machines would do all the work. It didn't happen, which only convinced me that we just don't know and we need a flexible system that can adapt.
Quote:I still think corporations can get super-human power all on their own, all they need is to buy out all the competitors and innovators and lock their inventions away. Some are like small nations, controlling lives of tens of thousands of employees.
I read Friedman's discussion about how every one of the monopolies we've seen in the world in recent history, except DeBeers, has come from government privilege (ie force). Many of the biggest conglomerates, like Samsung, are government partnerships. Some of the huge ones, like Apple and Google, got that way through innovation. But in such cases they're self-limiting because as they get too big, they become too bloated and inefficient with too much bureaucracy, so some young, fresh blood comes along and takes it away from them. Remember, Google is the young fresh blood that took the business away from Yahoo just a few years ago, and already there's newer, fresher blood nipping at Google's heals.
Quote:You mean, a regulated curriculum is easy for Christians to change to creationism?
Sure, because Christians voters have a majority and they only elect politicians who reinforce their beliefs. Their power is slipping, but imho, it's only because the curriculum historically hasn't been regulated. If it was, I'm sure evolution, which was at one time a really far-out, widely-dismissed theory, would never have crept in.
Quote:So I'm not sure how would this deregulation look like, less taxes for families to pay for their schools, or a voucher program? What do you think about vouchers, I think I forgot the lesson.
It would look more like Scandinavian and Benelux countries. We always think of them as being more centrally managed since they have high taxes, but that's not true. Finland, which scores #1 in most internationally standardized tests, is actually the MOST decentralized of all. Each teacher selects his own curriculum. And some of those countries operate entirely on a voucher system. The government-owned schools have no special privileges over the private ones, and everyone is free to choose. So the government schools have to up their game to even exist.
Quote:I see Boehner reading about the rules and then about the ayes. I don't see the results displayed. Do I understand this right?
See at 2:01, the result of the vote “the ayes have it” was scrolling onto the teleprompted even before the 'nays' were heard. In case you didn't know: Aye=yes, nay=no. Being a voice vote means Boehner's question, “All those in favor of signifying [ie barring Ron Paul from the convention] say yes [aye], all those opposed [ie let Ron Paul remain on the ballot] say 'no' [nay].” And he's supposed to pick whether he hears a louder 'aye' or a louder 'nay', and then in his sole discretion decides which side was louder. It's an ABSURD system that's only used when you want to rig a vote, but the point was that the result was scrolling onto the teleprompter even before he could hear how loud the nays were.
Quote:Politics is not about well-thought programs. A strong personality can bitch-slap the nation for 20 years... I believe that's the general Libertarian problem, they're just normal people who go into politics out of necessity, not because they have any talent for it. They are understood only by people of the same kind.
I agree. Libertarians are terrible at connecting with a mainstream audience. Most of us get so mired in explaining WHY we think what we do that we forget to even say WHAT it is we think; namely we want to eliminate violence so people are free. It's such a simple concept, but few understand that's what libertarianism is supposed to mean. But it's our own fault for rambling on with posts that go on for countless pages that people forget what point you're trying to make. Can you believe some Liberatrians are so stupid? Wink That's why my posts are never more than 1 or 2 lines.
Quote:I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist... I believe the financial sector is responsible
There's 2 questions: WHO is doing it, and HOW are they doing it and keeping it a secret. It's the HOW that just totally has me baffled. You should have seen this. Virtually every single liberal journalist was dissing Ron Paul to pump up extreme right-wing whack-jobs instead. Somebody can't just go pay them all off and think it won't get out. Surely ONE of the journalists would turn down the bribe and blow the whistle. Did they use subtle persuasion to convince the journalists it was in the interest of the country? Was it corporate pressure? Were the journalists hypnotized or secretly replaced with programmable robots? I have absolutely no idea, but would love to find out.

Interestingly one mainstream journalist who had a popular show called “Freedom Watch” spoke very highly of Ron Paul during the 2012 elections. He was fired within a day and the network just ran reruns the rest of the season.
As far as the “WHO” is doing it, it's easier to hypothesize. There are two really big groups that would really have suffered if Ron Paul were President: The military industrial complex (the private, for-profit contractors who make up the military), and the banks. It obviously wasn't the soldiers themselves. Ron Paul got more donations from active duty military than all the other candidates combined—even the President. They loved his plan to shut down all the overseas military occupation and bring all the troups home to defend the homeland. But, obviously, the companies that make the planes, bombs, missiles, etc., would have losed a lot. But, the banks stood to lose the most. Remember, the US's #1 export is US Dollars since all the world's oil can only be bought in dollars, so every country has to stock up on dollars and there are more dollars outside the US than in, and this lets the Fed print trillions of them.

But HOW would the banks control what news the media could report? I've read all sorts of conspiracy theories (often talking about the Illuminati or the Rothschilds) but none of them seem believable. I've got no clue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 10:13 AM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2013 10:41 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(08-09-2013 12:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Luminon,

Quick PS re: your insight that libertarianism is different from a typical political system because it's really the absence of a system.

Further support of this is that at all the libertarian gatherings I've been to, nearly always libertarians refer to themselves as 'agnostic', which means “an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge”, and not 'atheist' which means you know for sure there is no “higher power”.
Well, there are many higher powers, obviously. We just don't think they are alive and conscious in the same sense as we are. But I also see agnosticism as the only consistent worldview, because the cosmology is agnostic as well, it has these two big concepts of dark matter and dark energy, dwarfing our visible universe. If that isn't agnostic, I don't know what is Smile

(08-09-2013 12:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  I often get frustrated with atheists, just like creationists, because they insist they know how we got here. And I always ask “So where did all the matter in the universe come from?”, and the answer is generally “The Big Bang”. Ok, so a creationist says there's a god who waved his wand and BANG!, all the matter in the universe exists. The atheist says essentially the same thing, just without the wand of god. Neither one is scientific. They're both leaps of faith that ignore the laws of physics. Einstein's E=MC2 showed that matter can only be created with a phenomenal amount of energy, but that the net amount of energy + matter is always the same regardless. The only scientific explanation I've heard to explain how the energy/matter got here that doesn't involve some external source was watching Stephen Hawking's recent presentation on modified string theory, something about vibrating dimensions beyond the 3 dimensions normal humans can comprehend. It went way over my head, so I have to admit I remain agnostic. But if you've somehow got it figured out, please give Hawking a call and fill him in because last I heard he still said his theory had holes, couldn't be proven, and he still didn't know if there was some external force (ie a “god”) involved that's beyond human comprehension.
When you see today's atheists and scientists speaking, realize, even they grew up being punished for saying "I don't know". So they have a really difficult time saying it, when they don't know. They rather tell you the label.

But I have a soft spot about string theory. Let's say, my spiritual guru endorsed it as true Smile Let's say, it fits into what I know about metaphysics. But I can only understand it, if there are strings contained in particles, which make the difference into which dimension (or which membrane) the particle belongs. If that is so, I might have an idea. If not, I don't. I have more experience with macroscopic side of the metaphysics, not its sub-atomic workings.
Can you please find me this video of Hawking?

(08-09-2013 12:43 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Similarly, libertarians say that although we may have ideas about what's an ideal system that everybody should be forced to follow, we can never know for sure and it's too risky. What if, for example, you TVP'ers managed to take over the government and force everyone to adopt your system, and what if it ended up being a total disaster and took us back to the stone ages unable to even feed ourselves? Can you concede that no matter how sure you are of TVP, you could be wrong? Do you agree with that the libertarian philosophy that the more intelligent one becomes, the more he realizes how little he knows, and only fools think they know everything? So isn't it safer for our civilization if, whatever physical force (ie violence) your experiment needs to function, that it be constrained to a local level and that we all agree that participants must be guaranteed the right to leave your system in case it's not working out? I think of it as a safety valve in case we've made a mistake, because if everybody is forced to adopt TVP, whoever is ultimately wielding the power is never going to give it up no matter how obvious it becomes that it's not working.
Yes, we can be wrong. That's why we use scientific method. TVP is not a product of human mind, it's the product of empirical science, of studying the properties of reality. If we want to know something, we don't make up an opinion, we arrive at it. Usually, we build a machine to find it out for us, like scales at the butcher's, or the Doppler radar. Airplane passengers and pilots trust with their lives in laws of physics that make the Doppler radar work, to tell them how far they're off the ground and how to land safely. They used to look out of the window and make a guess, before the radar. Guesswork is the same way that politics used to work, but today politicians lead the plane down deliberately, telling the passengers if they pay them enough money, the plane will get up. It doesn't, they grab the money and jump out with a parachute. That's how it would be if politicians were airline pilots. To say they don't use science would be an understatement.

TVP'ers would never take over the government, because they have no use for it, except to make a referendum if the citizens choose to fund TVP. If they were somehow forced to stay and rule in the government, they'd dismantle Dem/Rep. think tanks and create think tanks out of real universities that do real research on nature and society. They'd re-phrase all political questions onto technical questions and delegate them to research in these universities. Nobody would decide, but the results that the universities arrive at. It is irresponsible to have human opinions decide about masses of people. Fans of TVP like me would make the libertarian reforms, stop wars and give science back what's left of the budget, but there is no desire to perpetuate the current system and use the old means, the coercion. They however would gladly take over the media and broadcast educational programs. We are sorely in need of education.

So it is not me, who is sure of TVP. It is the empirical reality. Whatever Fresco says, he always says why. He says why the cities are circular and why most of buildings are domes, why the cars have streamlined shape, how it all saves resources, so we all have more resources on things we want. We have the knowledge, the resources and we have the moral duty to use it. Knowledge is power and with power comes responsibility. To act like Milton Friedman would be today, after many decades of successful science, a false sense of modesty and denying help.

If we don't know, we must not coerce people, we just say we don't have the data. But if the science gave us data, we must let people know. If they value reason, evidence and their lives, they'll listen to science. They already do. They get onto airplanes with Doppler radar and Bernoulli principle. There is no lefist or rightist, statist or anarchist way to design an airplane. Reality itself laid down the laws of physics and if we want to fly and land safely, we have to obey them. Our knowledge of natural laws decides the design of airplanes, not any person's opinion, preference, democratic vote, authority, religious revelation or all the money of the world. Those who don't obey natural laws, get Darwin's award. Is it a dictatorship? Yes, it's a dictatorship of reality. Science is the good policeman here, nature is the bad policeman. If you think deciding things for collectively for people is risky, look at people boarding an airplane. Look at people receiving a vaccine, a centrally designed, tested and administered vaccine. Look at people using a centrally designed document format and IP protocol. We all share the same reality, natural laws and genetic layout. Science is universal, global, there is no black science, asian science or white science. It works for everyone, this is why using science collectively is not risky. Not using science is risky. There is one science, one kind of safety, and many various wrong ways of doing things. Is that the freedom which Libertarians want? To act blindly, to waste resources, to act in spite of science just because? I get that feel from the guy I'm debating for the 2 months.

But if people don't realize that, we have already renounced state violence, so the responsibility is to educate people, including small children in methods of science. Coercion does not teach people, education does. TVP has no means of coercion. Should the people themselves choose to elect policemen, they would have no more powers than a guard at the mall, who is just a normal guy and has no legal standing. It might still help during the transition phase, but TVP relies on educating people to understand and respect science, and on giving them the results of science.

TVP doesn't say, trust us, or we're as good as the others. TVP says let's build a testing city to develop the evidence, to prove the concept. We already move in the direction of TVP. We already put people out of work and replace them with machines. We just do not let them have access to the machine productivity without money. Scientists can design an infrastructure to live on Mars or the moon without money. On Earth it would be so much easier, to live without money. There's more resources on Earth. If moon was covered in money, it would make living on the moon not a single bit easier. In space engineering you realize, that all you really need is clean water, air, food, recycling, production and computers. And you realize, Earth is no different.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Quote:If you think deciding things for collectively for people is risky

I'm not suggesting that central standards bodies are not essential. I'm only suggesting that people shouldn't be threatened with violence if they choose to resist. And if violence is absolutely necessary, contain it. So, if there's a pandemic of bird flu in California and to be effective the vaccine MUST be given to everybody, and if some individuals abstain it puts the rest at risk (a scenario I haven't yet seen in the real world), then so be it. Just permit those who strongly object to leave. Even vaccines that science believes are proven to be 100% safe CAN backfire. I read the conspiracy theory 'The River' that suggested that HIV was introduced by amplifying the cultures in the Congo using Chimp kidneys. At the time it was dismissed as a silly conspiracy and the people who ran the program in the 50's were adamant that only monkeys were used. But a couple years later I recall that documents and photos were leaked proving that they were in fact using Chimps, and that the first infections occurred in precisely those villages that got Chimp-amplified vaccines. So while we both put our trust in science, I hope we both agree that SCIENTISTS (ie humans) are not infallible, and thus science as we know it (ie administered by humans) is not infallible either. So, if some civil servant is coming at me with a vaccine that he insists is 100% safe and I must take it, but I've read about some risks that the mainstream scientific community won't acknowledge, I just want the option to pack up my family and leave, and not be told that we'll be physically forced to take the vaccine.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
09-09-2013, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2013 12:35 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Differences in political views.
(09-09-2013 11:11 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
Quote:If you think deciding things for collectively for people is risky

I'm not suggesting that central standards bodies are not essential. I'm only suggesting that people shouldn't be threatened with violence if they choose to resist. And if violence is absolutely necessary, contain it. So, if there's a pandemic of bird flu in California and to be effective the vaccine MUST be given to everybody, and if some individuals abstain it puts the rest at risk (a scenario I haven't yet seen in the real world), then so be it. Just permit those who strongly object to leave. Even vaccines that science believes are proven to be 100% safe CAN backfire. I read the conspiracy theory 'The River' that suggested that HIV was introduced by amplifying the cultures in the Congo using Chimp kidneys. At the time it was dismissed as a silly conspiracy and the people who ran the program in the 50's were adamant that only monkeys were used. But a couple years later I recall that documents and photos were leaked proving that they were in fact using Chimps, and that the first infections occurred in precisely those villages that got Chimp-amplified vaccines. So while we both put our trust in science, I hope we both agree that SCIENTISTS (ie humans) are not infallible, and thus science as we know it (ie administered by humans) is not infallible either. So, if some civil servant is coming at me with a vaccine that he insists is 100% safe and I must take it, but I've read about some risks that the mainstream scientific community won't acknowledge, I just want the option to pack up my family and leave, and not be told that we'll be physically forced to take the vaccine.
Yes, you're totally right. Not even science gives civil servants or anyone the right to use violence.

Coercion by state force is the cheap way out. If science is so high and mighty, it must devise better ways to educate children and adults in science. If we are all educated at scientific method, we can understand the science and review the studies, post our reviews on the net for others when in doubt. This is already common in science and it's called a peer review. Studies that are not peer-reviewed, aren't trusted. People will likely find their favorite tried and true reviewers and universities to watch for news on any science news. If we can't find anything wrong with the results, we'll obey them in great majority just out of common sense.
Social phenomena always have exceptions, a society behaves statistically in the same way, not deterministically. We can not have 100 % obedience and conformity at all costs, the costs would be way too high, the costs of fascism.

Btw, if that is so, if AIDS is really a case of human error... Goddamnit. Sounds like it. Looks like some mistakes of science will be making us pay a long, long time. Just like the Chernobyl reactor, which still contains enough waste to kill 100 million people, and it will sit there for quarter a million years. Just imagine, people in the future enclose it in a gigantic super-strong beton sarcophagus. Then a 10 thousand years later some new, young civilization will wonder about this mysterious building, likely a burial mound of Grand President Hytlor of the European Socapital Empire and they'll manage to break into it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 06:20 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
(09-09-2013 12:08 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(09-09-2013 11:11 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that central standards bodies are not essential. I'm only suggesting that people shouldn't be threatened with violence if they choose to resist. And if violence is absolutely necessary, contain it. So, if there's a pandemic of bird flu in California and to be effective the vaccine MUST be given to everybody, and if some individuals abstain it puts the rest at risk (a scenario I haven't yet seen in the real world), then so be it. Just permit those who strongly object to leave. Even vaccines that science believes are proven to be 100% safe CAN backfire. I read the conspiracy theory 'The River' that suggested that HIV was introduced by amplifying the cultures in the Congo using Chimp kidneys. At the time it was dismissed as a silly conspiracy and the people who ran the program in the 50's were adamant that only monkeys were used. But a couple years later I recall that documents and photos were leaked proving that they were in fact using Chimps, and that the first infections occurred in precisely those villages that got Chimp-amplified vaccines. So while we both put our trust in science, I hope we both agree that SCIENTISTS (ie humans) are not infallible, and thus science as we know it (ie administered by humans) is not infallible either. So, if some civil servant is coming at me with a vaccine that he insists is 100% safe and I must take it, but I've read about some risks that the mainstream scientific community won't acknowledge, I just want the option to pack up my family and leave, and not be told that we'll be physically forced to take the vaccine.
Yes, you're totally right. Not even science gives civil servants or anyone the right to use violence.

Coercion by state force is the cheap way out. If science is so high and mighty, it must devise better ways to educate children and adults in science. If we are all educated at scientific method, we can understand the science and review the studies, post our reviews on the net for others when in doubt. This is already common in science and it's called a peer review. Studies that are not peer-reviewed, aren't trusted. People will likely find their favorite tried and true reviewers and universities to watch for news on any science news. If we can't find anything wrong with the results, we'll obey them in great majority just out of common sense.
Social phenomena always have exceptions, a society behaves statistically in the same way, not deterministically. We can not have 100 % obedience and conformity at all costs, the costs would be way too high, the costs of fascism.

Btw, if that is so, if AIDS is really a case of human error... Goddamnit. Sounds like it. Looks like some mistakes of science will be making us pay a long, long time. Just like the Chernobyl reactor, which still contains enough waste to kill 100 million people, and it will sit there for quarter a million years. Just imagine, people in the future enclose it in a gigantic super-strong beton sarcophagus. Then a 10 thousand years later some new, young civilization will wonder about this mysterious building, likely a burial mound of Grand President Hytlor of the European Socapital Empire and they'll manage to break into it.

AIDS is not the result of human error. That is absurd.

HIV existed at least as long ago as 1908. Preserved blood and tissue samples have been tested in the search for the true 'Patient 0'.

Link ...

...and another

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 08:10 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
@Chas, neither of those links support your claim that they found tissue actual tissue samples from before 1959 that had HIV. They seem to support exactly what I said all along, that the first known tissue samples of HIV came from the time and location of those polio vaccine trials, and that claim that they predated this by decades was made by the same scientists who were implicated by the theory, and was based on an unproven assumption about RNA mutation. If you have actual links showing where they found tissue samples before those vaccines were used, or if they found early cases in towns other than where the vaccine was administered, can you please post them?

For me, it's just a curiosity, and you'll note from my prior post I claimed it was dismissed as a silly conspiracy theory. In fact the guy who proposed it, Hooper, has a bunch of nutty theories, I remember another about cancer being caused by a vitamin deficiency because we don't eat the pits of fruits.

So I don't claim to be speaking with authority, don't suggest that Hooper is an authority either (he's a conspiracy theorist), and thus I would never use absolute terms like saying something is "absurd".

But, here is why I think that nut might have been on to something. When he first presented the theory, Hilary Kaprowski, the guy who headed up the Oral HPV, dismissed it as lunacy for 4 reasons: 1) The facilities in the Congo were primitive and couldn't be use to amplify vaccine anyway, 2) When they did amplify it elsewhere they only monkeys, not chimps, 3) The chimps in that part of the Congo had a different strain of SIV unrelated to the one in humans and they never used chimps anyway, 4) and later on based on RNA mutation cycles they estimated that HIV had mutated enough since it's introduction that it must have been introduced in 1908.

So, it was an open and shut case and the mainstream scientific community closed the book. What gave me pause was several years later I saw a video of him confronting Kaprowski. He had a photo that a tourist had taken in those very same facilities in Congo of Osterrieth with some flesh that was too big to be a monkey's, and the caption of the photo was something like "amplifying Polio vaccine". And, he produced a bill of lading from a company that traded in Chimps showing that Chimps from the area that DID have the SIV from humans were sold to that facility shortly before that photo was taken. But Kaprowski refused to comment and later on just said something like 'all these claims have been previously dismissed', which was, of course, nonsense since they were previously dismissed based on Kaproski's claims, all of which were then proven to be lies. It smelled of a cover up.

As far as the patient zeros, Hooper had a list of the first known AIDS cases, and they correlated precisely with those villages that received Kaprowki's vaccine. As far as the 'HIV predated those trials by decades', my recollection of the events was NOT that there was any tissue samples to prove this; all the tissue samples supported Hooper's conspiracy theory. And in fact that up to that point the scientific community agreed HIV was introduced at around the same time as the trials. But rather that Kaproski, when he was trying to cover for himself, claimed that because HIV had already mutated from SIV, based on current rates of RNA mutation, it would have taken decades for that amount of mutation. However, I subsequently read claims from virologists that this isn't necessarily true because the rate of mutation is not steady, it can happen in spurts, and it's reasonable that the mutations could have happened quickly after introduction.

Thus, my conclusion was that Kaproski was caught lying and that he was using Chimps with the same SIV strain to make vaccine, and that the claims that HIV was introduced decades earlier was based on unprovable assumptions, made by the same guy who was caught lying.

Again, I'm no expert, and I concede the real experts dismiss this as a conspiracy theory. However, so far I haven't seen anything convincing that the theory was dismissed. And surely you have to concede that it would deal a great blow to the medical and scientific theory if they admitted to causing AIDS, and it would make it hard to get people to give their children vaccines anymore, which could lead to outbreaks of now-cured diseases. So they, and the society at large, have a lot to lose by admitting they caused AIDS, and nothing to gain. And even IF the OPV theory is true, it's in the public's best interest NOT to know that. Therefore, I take it with a grain of salt until I see evidence.

Regardless, this wasn't the core point anyway. The core point, which I DO feel strongly about, is that humans make mistakes and even the best intentions can backfire because science is never absolute and we're always learning new things. I just read an article in a science magazine a couple weeks ago that there are an estimated 300,000 animal viruses that could potentially migrate to humans, and that the scientific community is not doing any serious analysis of those viruses so the potential for another pandemic is high. Therefore, regardless of the OPV theory or not, I just don't want a civil servant to FORCE me to take a vaccine, and want to have the option of moving instead.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-09-2013, 03:51 PM
RE: Differences in political views.
(10-09-2013 08:10 AM)frankksj Wrote:  I just read an article in a science magazine a couple weeks ago that there are an estimated 300,000 animal viruses that could potentially migrate to humans, and that the scientific community is not doing any serious analysis of those viruses so the potential for another pandemic is high. Therefore, regardless of the OPV theory or not, I just don't want a civil servant to FORCE me to take a vaccine, and want to have the option of moving instead.
Riiiight.
As you know, my government is full of petty criminals gone big time. In this post-Commie European country, local politicians can be dictators without carrying out executions and with EU-grade economy, their power is comparable, the citizens are mellow as the weather.
So when the bird flu and pig flu came, the government instantly bought lots of vaccines for the tax money and there was a talk of passing a law that will force all the public servants to be vaccinated, because, you know, we need them healthy and safe from the epidemic to keep the state going. Oh, the irony! Big Grin
I think even the public servants will agree with you whole-heartedly. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-09-2013, 07:45 AM
RE: Differences in political views.
Rather than starting a new thread, I'll just bump this one back up.

I found this quote, that I think -- in one way, as there are probably many ways -- describes a factor distinguishing ideologies.

‘‘It’s very hard to look into the mirror and say, ‘Yeah, that guy looking at me is a vicious criminal.’ It’s much easier to say, ‘That guy looking at me is really very benign, self-sacrificing, and he has to do these things because it’s for the benefit of everyone.’’ -- Noam Chomsky

I notice this a lot in people. It is especially fascinating how people on the right, or who take certain right-wing positions, can do this, but that is not exclusive. I see people, when questioned about past events, that either come out later or come out as negatively viewed, take a stone-cold approach to sticking with their original position; they can even go to the point of saying absolutely nothing was wrong, and they would do it again, in the same situation or in the future, or they might take the position that regardless of the outcome (if negative), even when their original action was based on an outcome, and sometimes because of the outcome (if positive), it was a good decision.

Sliding to the left-right, you will get different justifications, at different levels. One thing that you notice is the ability of people to stick hard to different moral standards without a concern for how it holds up to reason or even simply natural, human empathy. I notice either the rejection of moral standards, or the adoption of consequential moral standards, where you have people on the right adopting egoism and people coming toward the center/left utilitarianism, or even the not too far removed adoption of an almost purposefully unsophisticated or arbitrary standard that allows for confirmation of already held or developing views.

Rarely will you get people who will honestly say, "Yes, my actions are immoral, and yes, I should change my actions."-- really only from people doing so strategically, like people, certainly politicians, doing so to get back into to popularity. It's rare to get the recognition of hypocrisy, flawed reasoning and imperfections in actions, especially without the alternative motive.

One thing I don't know, is whether the denial of moral standards, really in line with common-sense morality, is something that is natural, or is something from growing up in a particular culture with a certain type of indoctrination.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: