# This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784 "2010-08-19T20:08:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 38
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/741 "2010-09-07T02:52:05Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > No healthy person died from the swine flu. Of course not; every person who died of the swine flu was very sick at the time of death. With the flu. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/742 "2010-09-07T02:52:51Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > > [@Oldeb](#): > > > > Asiatic (Russian) Flu: 1889-1890 > > > > 1,000,000 dead > > > > Spanish Flu: 1918-1920 > > 50,000,000 dead > > Asian Flu: 1957-1958 > > 2,000,000 dead > > Hong Kong Flu: 1968-1969 > > 1,000,000 dead > > Swine Flu: 2009-August, 2010 > > 18,209 dead > > Guess which one of those there was a vaccine for? > > Those comparisons are totally invalid. The definition of inflation is that as the number of people goes up, each one is worth less. Those 50,000,000 dead in 1920 was just a natural correction. And we predicted it would happen. Then Roosevelt prevented them from coming back to life. > > Go read the internet, it’s all right there. The time you spend thinking up smart ass responses would be better spent learning a thing or two about economics. I love how you laugh off the fact that your savings are being eroded in secret by private bankers to bailout their buddies on Wall Street and fund overseas wars which are killing innocent children as we speak. You should be pissed off at the Federal Reserve and the politicians and be marching in the streets along side the Tea Baggers. What you don’t know CAN hurt you. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/743 "2010-09-07T03:07:50Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > What you don’t know CAN hurt you. If that’s true you are in serious danger. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/744 "2010-09-07T03:08:24Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > Anti-Vax, Homeopath and Austrian Economics. Do you only believe stuff that’s completely discredited? 😃 > > Austrian economics have not been discredited. There are still many Austrian economists around. That doesn’t mean it’s 100% correct, but even many non-Austrian economists give it partial credit for certain insights. Don’t forget, Hayek won a Nobel prize for aspects of Austrian theory. > > It pains me to see a supporter of Austrian economics give opponents such a huge opening by associating it with ludicrous ideas as homeopathy and anti-vaccination quackery. I respect you Sam Stone, as one of the only libertarians on this board, but you misunderstand my positions. What I am saying is this: I am not a firm believer in homeopathy. I tried in once and got good results. I believe that people should be ALLOWED to seek treatments like homeopathy, whether it is bogus or not. Thats what freedom is all about. Its more about health freedom than a belief in homeopathy. As for vaccinations, I am not against them either. I think people get too many and am concerned about the long term effects of the adjuvents, thimerisol, and other toxins contained in many vaccines. And I believe, like the Pharmaceutical industry with prescription drugs, makers of the vaccines are looking to make a buck opening the door for abuse and pushing unnecessary vaccinations on people. All of these things are helpful tools in medicine: vaccines, prescription drugs, diet, supplementation and exercise. AND complementary medicine. Don’t you think there is a valid discussion to be had on whether or not we are relying too much on one “tool” while neglecting others? Vaccinations (the number of which have risen dramatically in the last fifteen years) beg long term cost-benefit analysis and rational discussion on when or if we can go too far seeking to vaccinate against any possible illness, no matter how low the changes of contracting that disease. This is a very valid discussion and certainly not “quackery”. You are correct, however, that this aside about vaccines in no way reflects on the work of Austrian economists and the merit of the school of thought. I have said before I am not an expert in medicine but I have read a lot of Austrian economics and understand it very well. And no one, not even Keynesian economists dispute the tremendous contributions to economic thought that Mises and the Austrians have provided. It is well known in the field of study. It is fallacious to think that because a school of thought has been out of vogue for a few decades it is somehow “discredited”. I see this is nonsense and you clearly do as well. I would be interested, if you are willing, for you to elaborate a little on what you think of the ongoing economic crisis and what principles of Austrian economics you would recommend our leaders to follow? Should we cut spending? Should we audit the Federal Reserve? Since you clearly know your stuff, it would be great for you to add a little more to the pro Austrian side of the argument. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/745 "2010-09-07T03:10:20Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > NOT AMONG HEALTHY PEOPLE! Healthy people do not die of the flu. There was a swine flu vaccine because people were made to be hysterical about a non event. No healthy person died from the swine flu. This was a racket. And your proof of this? You had it pointed out to you that the H1N1 virus affects people aged 10-60, and some 18,000 people died of the swine flu pandemic worldwide. You want to tell me none of them were ‘healthy’? Then you’re gonna have to prove that, and no, bragging about your health won’t cut it. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/746 "2010-09-07T03:13:12Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Lobohan](#): > > > > We are living in accordance with the constitution now. At least that’s what the SCOTUS thinks. And I suspect they understand the issue better than you. > > No actually they don’t. I like to defer to the AUTHORS of the document. I consider them a little more trustworthy than some activist that is a corporate crony, no better than a lawyer who finds a “legal” way to get a murderer off the hook. Do you believe the Founders erred in giving the Supreme Court the authority to interpret the Constitution? Should we repeal Article Three of the Constitution, or should we simply ignore it? ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/747 "2010-09-07T03:14:27Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Well, fine. I have no problem if some of you don’t want to read the links and tackle this complex subject. Like I said earlier, I will later elaborate with specific points in individual threads that are more condensed and easier to debate. > > > > I just want to get this information out there for your benefit. You don’t have to reply, but following up on what is posted, you should take the time to read the literature and learn about the philosophy of liberty. > > > > You may not agree, but you will broaden your views and develop a more nuanced view of the world. > > Out of curiosity, I decided to check in on the thread and noticed this. I’m sorry, but you’ve pretty much entirely missed the point of my objection. It isn’t that I don’t want to tackle a complex subject, or even that I don’t want to read your links (I’ve read most of them). Nor is it that I have a simplistic world view or don’t care about liberty. The problem, very simply, is that this is a shitty debate. Rather, this is a witnessing thread. Nothing wrong with that _per se_. Indeed, by forum rules, GD is the place for witnessing threads. But I’m no more required to give the thread credence than I would a similar one by a Young Earth Creationist. In your own mind, no doubt, you’ve bested all the infidels and proven the One Great Truth. To the rest of us, you’ve done no such thing. One could scarcely swing a cat in this thread without finding errors of economics, history and constituional theory. I’ve tried to point out a few of these, as have others, and you seem to think that so long as you bat back the ball, you’re winning. YECs think the same thing. They’re wrong too. > > Stated a little differently, the problem is that you opened something like twenty Great Debates in one thread and don’t have the bandwidth to handle them all. As a consequence, the thread lacks coherence and anything like focus. If I thought you could be brought back from the abyss, I might try. But I have no confidence in that regard. So I conclude, reluctantly, that you’re a lost cause and move on. Not because I don’t care, but because I don’t see the game as worth the candle. Happily for you, there are other playmates. May you enjoy the game. Criticisms about the focus of the debate is valid and has been addressed before. I am running with it for now, because I don’t want to start a new thread at present. But I am convinced in my beliefs given my study of the various subjects. I am sure most of you are not likely to change your opinions either. That doesn’t mean nothing good can come from debate, however. I will be sure to start a more reasonable, focused debate in the future and I hope you respond then. Don’t compare myself, von Mises, and Ron Paul to Young Earth Creationists, that is completely out of line. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/748 "2010-09-07T03:27:59Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > And I believe, like the Pharmaceutical industry with prescription drugs, makers of the vaccines are looking to make a buck opening the door for abuse and pushing unnecessary vaccinations on people. Then they sure are doing a lousy job of it. The number of pharmaceutical companies producing vaccines has dropped dramatically over the past few decades. There just isn’t much money in it, and the controlling of prices makes them almost not worth the effort. In 1967 the number of U.S. vaccine manufacturers was 37, now we are down to 3. The number of vaccines on the market has also dropped in that time from over 350 to a few dozen. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/749 "2010-09-07T03:28:19Z")
[quote=“Mr.Miskatonic, post:699, topic:550784”] > [@jrodefeld](#): > > Okay, first of all you believe it is the governments job to “protect” us from “health quackery”? Even if you endorse the notion that homeopathy and other kinds of alternative therapies are bullshit, you shouldn’t limit my, or anyone else’s right to use them. Wrong. You are free to use them if you want. You are not free to claim they have any medical value whatsoever. Nor should you or anyone else make money on snake oil. I’ve heard the same stupid ‘freedom’ arguments used to squeeze religious teachings and creationism in school. The simple fact is no matter how much you try to weld the word ‘freedom’ to something it is still bullshit that has no place in certain fields. Because when people like you promote quackery and snake oil it gets into the area of borderline murderous behavior, or waste of money and time at the very least. Think of it being beyond the point of where your right to swing your fist ends. That is completely and utterly wrong and a perfect example of someone who overestimates their abilities. You have demonstrated multiple times in this thread that you don’t know anything about vaccines besides your hysterical reactions to them and what you cut and paste from anti-vax liar sites. [QUOTE] You make this leap that if I believe in alternative medicine or am skeptical about mandatory vaccination, that somehow invalidates my views on economics or social policy. > [@](#): > > I do not claim that - I only note that it is an example of your lack of ability to evaluate evidence. > > And yet despite this you keep coming back to defend an indefensible position. > > Its not freedom, it is quackery and criminal. Lets leave aside homeopathy for a minute. How about the larger market of alternative doctors, chiropractors, acupuncturists, nutritionists and others? How is it criminal to peacefully offer me a treatment that doesn’t harm me and I choose to pay for? And what gives you (or anybody) this notion that you have complete knowledge and can say with certainty that any alternative doctor is a quack and a charlatan? Maybe you know nothing of the subject? Here is the point: If I saw a homeopathy doctor a couple years ago and felt in improved in my symptoms considerably after treatment and I was happy to pay for it, why should you deny me that right? If the doctor or practitioner doesn’t harm anyone then it is none of the governments business period. **In a larger sense, there are many alternative and cutting edge medical treatments that the government is resisting because they cut into the profits of the drug companies! Even though there is tons of research supporting it.** This really isn’t about homeopathy. Let me give you another example. There is an alternative treatment for healing injuries and joints called prolotherapy. It is a series of injections that stimulates the growth of new ligament tissue and collagen that cures chronic pain and can return athletes to a high level of play in a short amount of time. I got this done a couple years ago for a chronically strained and weakened ankle. Within three visits the pain was gone and I could go back to full time athletic competition. There is numerous scientific studies to support the effectiveness of the treatment, but it invalidates the need for drugs and surgery, so the medical establishment resists it. Insurance won’t cover it and it is not well known, even though it is a true miracle treatment. It is being suppressed because it threatens people who make money off knee surgeries, back surgeries and pain drugs. ALL doctors who practice it have medical degrees and years of specific training. Don’t dismiss the notion of medical freedom. It is one of the most important liberties we (used to) have. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/750 "2010-09-07T03:33:19Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > Wow. What a storm of cliched craziness. It’s like the Katrina of bat-shit in this thread. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Okay, first of all you believe it is the governments job to “protect” us from “health quackery”? Even if you endorse the notion that homeopathy and other kinds of alternative therapies are bullshit, you shouldn’t limit my, or anyone else’s right to use them. > > … > > Why don’t you support health freedom? > > ‘Why do you hate freedom?’. You’re seriously playing that card? > > It’s the goverment’s job to protect people from being taken advantage of by medical quacks who claim unproven benefits for treatments that do not work, cannot work and have never, ever worked. Like Homeopathy. > > And why is it the government’s job? Because nobody else will do it and people have the right to be free of exploitation by con-men preying on the desperate. But since you’re a Libertarian I guess you have no problem with that. Everyone is free to make their own decisions right? Even if they die because they believed some snake-oil salesman that said pure water was more effective for their cancer than chemotherapy? > > Incidentally, if you want to know why Homeopathy ‘appears’ to work in some cases despite it being based on completely impossible junk science I suggest you read up on the placebo effect. Nope. That is NOT the governments job. What about the people who experienced improvement from Homeopathy (like me) and the many people who got help from alternative doctors and are more than happy to pay the fee? As long as I am not hurt, I can pay anyone to do anything they want in an effort to positively effect my health. Whether you think it is a placebo or not is irrelevant to my right to spend my money how I see fit. Leaving aside homeopathy for a minute, how can you fail to see the abuse that a government with that much power over medical care can cause? You really think the government is always looking out for you? Maybe they are protecting the drug companies profits? Ever think of that? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/751 "2010-09-07T03:54:20Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Let me give you another example. There is an alternative treatment for healing injuries and joints called prolotherapy. It is a series of injections that stimulates the growth of new ligament tissue and collagen that cures chronic pain and can return athletes to a high level of play in a short amount of time. > > I got this done a couple years ago for a chronically strained and weakened ankle. Within three visits the pain was gone and I could go back to full time athletic competition. There is numerous scientific studies to support the effectiveness of the treatment, but it invalidates the need for drugs and surgery, so the medical establishment resists it. > > Insurance won’t cover it and it is not well known, even though it is a true miracle treatment. It is being suppressed because it threatens people who make money off knee surgeries, back surgeries and pain drugs. What do you mean by “the medical establishment resists it?” What does you mean by “it is being suppressed?” Clearly it is available. I see Medicare doesn’t cover it, and so major insurance carries don’t cover it. And they may be wrong to do that (I’m trying not to roll my eyes at your statement that it’s “a true miracle treatment”). But your argument that this is being covered up does not hold water. It’s true that it hasn’t been widely adopted. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/752 "2010-09-07T03:54:34Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > > > I have implied no such thing. You stated you are entitled to send your unvaccinated children to public schools, because it is too inconvenient to home school them. That is what is inconsistent with libertarianism; your sense of entitlement, and unwillingness to accept personal responsibility for the consequences of your actions. Disgraceful. > > My main point was about psychotropic drugs, not vaccinations. No one believes that. The vast majority of your comments about mandatory medications in schools have been regarding vaccinations. Do not even try to argue otherwise. > [@](#): > > You really don’t have a problem with schools drugging normal kids because they don’t want to deal with normal childhood behavior? I have a problem with this. You apparently do not. As I have made absolutely no statements about Ritalin, etc., how would you know? Besides, there are no laws that make Ritalin or other mood altering drugs mandatory to send your kids to school. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/753 "2010-09-07T03:56:42Z")
> [@Baboonanza](#): > > And to jump back 8 pages to your last reply to one of my posts: > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > First of all, nobody would be forced to work for two dollars an hour or starve. That is a false choice that wouldn’t exist in a free economy. Workers would be paid what they are worth. If a competitor is paying its employees eight dollars an hour, how would this company get away with salaries of two dollars an hour? Plus, people would be unwilling to work for less than a fair amount so business would adjust to pay people what they are worth. Minimum wage laws would be unnecessary. There are certain jobs that are worth less than minimum wage today, but they don’t exist because of minimum wage laws. So, raising the minimum wage destroys jobs and people get laid off. These kind of policies end up hurting people. This is my point. > > > > There is a difference between caring about the poor and the true effects of the policies you advocate, which is very much opposite of your intended result. > > This just makes me want to bang my head on the desk. First you just handwave any possible negative effects of the free-market (it’s can drive salaries down as well as up) away just by saying ‘that wouldn’t happen’. Then you directly contradict yourself. > > You are saying that people wouldn’t be forced to work for 2 dollars an hour and then say that without the minimum wage jobs would be created that pay _less than the minimum wage_. Since you would presumably also abolish welfare you would be leaving people with the choice of working for less than minimum wage or starving. **That is exactly what I said.** I’m glad you agree with me that Libertarian polices are bad for the poor. At least you’re honest. > > Poor people often aren’t poor because there is a shortage of jobs for them to do. They are poor because the only work they are qualified for is valued so low that they remain poor. Why do you think this would be helped by removing the minimum wage? No, you are misunderstanding me. People are not forced to work for any salary. They can choose their place of employment and unless there is a monopoly (usually government granted) nobody has to remain in horrible working conditions and companies would not want to purposely drive away workers. The pay of certain jobs is valued in the marketplace at what that job is worth. I gave the example earlier of why we don’t have people pumping our gas for us in gas stations anymore. The reason is because the minimum wage eliminated that job. Very, very low skilled labor jobs pay very little but there is always someone who is willing to do that job. When the minimum wage is raised, it destroys low skilled jobs and the people who HAD a job are now unemployed. See, money has value. If it maintains its value and buys more, people are wealthier even if they don’t have more money. Their money buys more. A critical point was made by Jacob Hornberger: > [@](#): > > The Minimum Wage Hurts the Poor > by Jacob G. Hornberger > > All too many liberals continue to extol the virtues of the minimum wage despite the fact that it hurts the very people liberals want to help — the poor. A recent example of this phenomenon occurred last week in a New York Times op-ed by Adam Cohen. Harkening back to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, Cohen used the 75th anniversary of the National Industrial Recovery Act, a law cartelizing American industry that fortunately was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, to sing the praises of the federal minimum wage. > > Here is the critical sentence in Cohen’s op-ed: “The minimum wage can play a vital role in lifting hard-working families above the poverty line.” > > Oh? > > Actually, it’s the exact opposite. The minimum wage can play a vital role in keeping hard-working families below the poverty line by preventing them from working. > > Let’s see how. > > Cohen points out that the federal minimum wage in 1933 was 30 cents an hour. Today, he observes it is set at $7.25 per hour. He states that over the years “advocates for low-income workers have had a hard time keeping the minimum wage at a reasonable level and passing other laws necessary to fulfill the original goal: ensuring that people who work hard can achieve a reasonable standard of living.” > > Unfortunately, Cohen fails to point out what his ideal minimum wage would be. Let’s give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he would be generous to the hardworking poor. Let’s say that Cohen would support a minimum wage of, say, $100 per hour. > > Now, what poor person would oppose that? Certainly Cohen wouldn’t oppose it, given his concern for the working poor. > > However, there would be one big problem with setting the minimum wage at $100 per hour. It would doom many of the hard-working poor to unemployment. > > The problem becomes obvious to most people when we set the minimum wage at $100 per hour. It’s just not worth it to most employers. Value is subjective. While employers might find it worth it to purchase workers’ labor at, say, $10 an hour, they won’t find it worth it to purchase it at, say, $100 an hour. > > In fact, most people would easily recognize that businesses simply could not afford to pay their workers $100 an hour and would quickly go out of business if they did so. Faced with a law that required them to pay $100 per hour, most businesses would not hire new people and would also let some current employees go. > > Thus, it is easy to see that every worker whose labor is valued in the marketplace at less than $100 per hour will be precluded from getting a job. Every time he applies for a job, the employer will say, “Sorry, I just cannot afford to pay you $100 per hour, which the law mandates. You might be the best worker in the world but your labor is not worth $100 an hour to me. I’d be willing to pay you $10 an hour but unfortunately the law won’t let me.” > > What if the prospective employee says, “I need the job. I’ve got a family to support. I’ll work for $10 an hour”? The employer will refuse because he’s facing sizable damages if he’s caught breaking the law. > > Therefore, the $100 per hour minimum-wage law would doom a vast portion of the working populace to unemployment. How would they survive? You’ve got it — government welfare, unemployment compensation, food stamps, public housing, public schooling, etc. That would keep the poor alive — and dependent on the government. [http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-23.asp](http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2008-06-23.asp) When you compound the fact that the minimum wage never rises at the rate of inflation you see how it hurts the very people it is designed to help. I wouldn’t eliminate welfare, by the way. Only FEDERAL funding for welfare. Local governments, charities and local communities will be tasked with helping the poor and homeless. And they will be doing a whole lot better than the federal government. Don’t you see that it doesn’t improve the living conditions of anyone to raise the minimum wage? Prices adjust, jobs are lost and the people that remain employed are doing no better than before. Libertarian policies are GOOD for the poor and middle classes. In fact, countries with a vibrant market economy are the only nations as a rule to have a healthy middle class and very low rates of poverty. How about we don’t steal from the poor through inflation? Why enrich the government and the bankers at the expense of everyone else? You and many liberals focus on feel good concepts like “ending poverty” through redistribution and helping the poor without understanding the harm done through the actual implementation of said policies. It requires an understanding of money and the creation of wealth. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/754 "2010-09-07T04:03:41Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Really, is there any doubt that the founders were libertarians? > > They were so libertarian, they created a country which had legalized chattel slavery, which routinely subsidized private corporations, which routinely redistributed wealth and which routinely barred people from working in their chosen profession based on race, religion, ethnic origin and gender. I don’t see how anyone can claim the founders were remotely libertarian unless they didn’t understand libertarianism. Sigh. I don’t know of anyone who defends the lamentable fact that slavery wasn’t abolished during the revolution. But many founders were against slavery, and some were not. They had their faults, but they were still ahead of the rest of the world in their thinking and writing on liberty. It has been argued that the founders (not all of them) truly abhorred slavery and understood the contradiction with the documents they authored but lamentably knew that not a sufficient percentage of the populace would accept an abolition of slavery at that time. No this was not libertarian to allow slavery to continue. But their views on liberty was followed up with the true abolition of slavery and the expansion of their libertarian views. We should still head the words they wrote and respect the documents that they gave us. They established the greatest nation in all of history and provided a blueprint for human liberty for the entire world, despite being products of their time and despite their contradictions and personal faults. ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/755 "2010-09-07T04:10:52Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Okay, first of all you believe it is the governments job to “protect” us from “health quackery”? Even if you endorse the notion that homeopathy and other kinds of alternative therapies are bullshit, you shouldn’t limit my, or anyone else’s right to use them. > > . . . > > Why don’t you support health freedom? > > I was under the impression that a libertarian position was that the only role of government was to protect the citizens from coercion and fraud. > > Homeopathy is fraud and, therefore, the government needs to provide protection. > (Unless, of course, there is a new variety of libertarianism that gets to declare someone else’s practices as fraud while declaring their own favorite woo as freedom.) > And, of course, no one in the government is actually preventing anyone from engaging in the fraud of homeopathy, either as a seller or buyer, except that certain fraudulent claims in advertising are proscribed. As long as one clearly indicates that one’s product is homeopathic, one is allowed to hustle it to the rubes. Homeopathy is not fraud. Many people sincerely believe it is effective and have dozens of loyal customers who swear to the success they feel they get from the treatment. YOU may think it is bullshit, but it should be legal. It has a long history of use for hundreds and hundreds of years. Fraud is the knowing deception and extortion of money from unsuspecting victims. Thus homeopathy does not count. You are right that the government does not restrict a persons right to use homeopathy YET. But there are many who would go in that direction. I want COMPLETE medical freedom, no exceptions. And can’t you conceive for a second that there may be something to homeopathy of acupuncture that you don’t know? You act as if there is some big conspiracy to knowingly screw people through pushing a fraululent scam on people. Most people come from a long line traditions of homeopathy and naturalistic medicine with scores of people who swear by the results they get. Who are you to make such a blanket accusation that there is no health value to any of these things? You can be skeptical, but don’t be close minded. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/756 "2010-09-07T04:13:32Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Why would you believe the government should limit access to a medical treatment than you don’t approve of? What about personal freedom? Personal freedom ends when you become a danger to others. People not getting vaccines or otherwise walking around with treatable diseases are a danger to everyone around them. It’s like drunk driving. Sure many, maybe even most, drunks make it home okay. Many people will go their entire lives without getting into an accident with a drunk driver. That still doesn’t stop them from killing thousands every year. That’s the biggest failing with Libertarian philosophy. It ignores that all of human history is people being bastards to others. Sometimes it’s for fun, sometimes it’s out of fear, sometimes it’s through indifferance, sometimes it’s to gain an advantage, and sometimes it’s all those reasons and more. There’s always a big complaint about how government should stick to repairing the roads and let people just go about their lives. But there is never an explaination for how you’re going to prevent things like exploitive child labor, exploitive 70 hour work weeks, unsafe work enviroments, rampant pollution, or grossly unfair wages from returning. All of that has happened throughout history and only stopped once government regulation started. (Heck, it still goes on even now. There’s a Pit thread about a Hawaiian company that was exploiting it’s workers) There’s always the magical handwave of, “That just wouldn’t happen.” But I’ve never seen a good reason why. And it’s not just for labor issues. It’s the same for things like education and health. Libertarians seem to believe in a fantasy world where nobody is ever selfish and thinks only of themselves. It’s a great fantasy really. I’d love to live in a world like they describe. It’s also not that different from one described by Communists either. The only real difference between the two is why they feel everyone is going to be nice to each other. Too bad the real world just doesn’t work that way. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/757 "2010-09-07T04:13:34Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > You act as if there is some big conspiracy to knowingly screw people through pushing a fraululent scam on people. I’m speechless (almost). ---
**Author:** ![jrodefeld](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/59ef9b/32.png) [@jrodefeld](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jrodefeld)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/758 "2010-09-07T04:16:14Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Really, is there any doubt that the founders were libertarians? > > There is no doubt, at all, they they were not libertarians in the sense that you use the word, today. > > Go look at the histories of Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion and see on which sides the Founders lined up, pretty much universally. > (Shay’s Rebellion also offers an interesting insight into the notion of tying all money to gold, although I am sure that you would spin the history differently.) > Cherry-picking a few quotes from the Founders on different aspects of freedom does not actually establish that they favored a “libertarian” form of government as you would picture it. It just means that you have found a book that has collected cherry-picked quotes that sound good to you outside of their original contexts. No I didn’t cherry pick the quotes. I have read their writings extensively. Many founders had faults and they didn’t always govern according to their principles they expressed in their writings either. They believed in small government (there was some debate over HOW small) They were against a central bank and favored Gold money They favored a strict interpretation of the constitution and a Republican form of government You can nitpick and show contradictions all you want, but on the whole they believed in human liberty and that is what they wrote about. I know of no scholar alive who disputes the fact that the founders advocated very small government and human liberty. Why you would attempt to argue the contrary position is beyond me. ---
**Author:** ![Oldeb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/ea666f/32.png) [@Oldeb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oldeb)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/759 "2010-09-07T04:21:28Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > Homeopathy is not fraud. Many people sincerely believe it is effective and have dozens of loyal customers who swear to the success they feel they get from the treatment. YOU may think it is bullshit, but it should be legal. It has a long history of use for hundreds and hundreds of years. People believe a lot of things. They believe that Obama was born in Kenya. They believe aliens came and after a trip of light years decided the best thing to do was create some funny circle is our food. Posting a birth cerificate certified by Hawaii didn’t help Obama. Having the people who created the crop circle come out and explain how they did it didn’t stop the true believers. And no amount of medical studies will convince some people that sugar water and food coloring won’t cure anything. And appeals to history are problably not the best choice. Hundreds and hundreds of years have been spent believing that maggots spontaneously form in meat, the sun revolves around the earth, and eating a rhino’s horn will give you a boner. Dumb ideas have a way of sticking around. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/760 "2010-09-07T04:46:11Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > During the original swine flu “epidemic” in the 70s more people died from the vaccine than from the swine flu itself. I hate to wade in here, but I have to respond to this. The swine flu (H1N1) “outbreak” in 1976 killed one person, and as far as we know was limited to Fort Dix. An attempt was made to vaccinate everyone, and three elderly people died not long after getting inoculated. There was never any reason to think that the deaths were caused by the vaccine, but that’s how it was portrayed in the media at the time, and that’s how it gets quoted by vaccine alarmists today. The universal vaccination program seems like overkill in retrospect, since the virus was successfully contained. But remember that the flu pandemic of 1918-19 killed _tens of millions_ of people worldwide. If the vaccinations were unnecessary in '76, it’s only because we got ridiculously lucky. If Patient Zero had been someone who rode the subway to work instead of a soldier on an Army base, we’d have a whole different story. > [@](#): > > NOT AMONG HEALTHY PEOPLE! Healthy people do not die of the flu. There was a swine flu vaccine because people were made to be hysterical about a non event. No healthy person died from the swine flu. This was a racket. In my eight or so years as a physician, I personally have been involved in the care of three very healthy people in their late 20s/early 30s who got the flu, developed a secondary infection, and died. Probably ten times that many have been in the ICU on the ventilator but managed to pull through, though many of them will never recover completely. That’s just young people; I couldn’t even begin to count the old folks who’ve suffered similarly. **jrodefeld** , you’re right to be skeptical, and to not automatically believe the prevailing opinion. But being an independent thinker means looking at all the available evidence, and not just the pieces that sound convincing. Evaluating and processing medical information and separating the good from the bad isn’t easy. I make a living (in part) teaching young doctors to do it, and even after medical school they struggle with it. So I’m asking **you** to keep an open mind and consider that you have collected and cut-n-pasted is, by and large, not good information. At best, it’s been misleadingly written and/or out of date, and at worst it’s outright falsehood. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=39)