# 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:** 39
**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, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/761 "2010-09-07T05:09:51Z")
> [@](#): > > 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. The studies so far on prolotherapy have been small, with conflicting but generally positive results. The studies have not been similar enough to put together into much meta-analysis. There are some larger randomized controlled trials going on. I think there’s probably something to it, but we won’t be able to say for sure until those new trials are done. The only people “threatened” by prolotherapy are the insurance companies. And one could argue that they’re understandably so; if they’re going to shell out hundreds of dollars each for every patient with some back soreness, they’d at least like to know that the evidence was in favor of it. ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/762 "2010-09-07T05:12:22Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > > [@PBear42](#): > > > > 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. To be clear, I’m not comparing Mises, Hayek or even Ron Paul to YECs. It’s you and this witenssing thread I’m talking about. And what I’m calling you out for (as did **CannyDan** ) is the assumption that if you bat back all the balls, you’ve sustained your position. But you haven’t. All you’ve sustained is your belief in the position. YECs do the same thing. That you don’t like (and can’t see) the parallel is understandable. Doesn’t make it untrue. To borrow a page from your playbook, I have lots of experience with One Great Truth world views. You read very much like the others. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/763 "2010-09-07T05:18:44Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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. They either condoned or tolerated slavery and many of them owned slaves. Some of them were conflicted, but we’re talking about the founders as a whole. And if you would bother to read the governing document they created–the US Constitution–you will see that it contains a number of decidedly non-libertarian ideas (such as spending on the general welfare, postal roads, hell, I’ll even throw patents and copyright in there). And on top of that, what you’ve managed to conveniently ignore is that they set up a government which routinely redistributed wealth, subsidized private industry and created arbitrary economic restrictions. The US was not a libertarian country at its inception, and it has never been a libertarian country. The notion of liberty is not unique to libertarian philosophy. There are many other philosophies which revolve around personal liberty. Simply pointing out that some founders favored liberty doesn’t make them libertarian. You’ve simply hand-waved away all the many, many behaviors of the founders which were completely non-libertarian, while at the same time pointing at some statements in order to pretend that they were libertarian at heart. I can see why people are having trouble arguing with you. Sighing pompously at people as if you’ve somehow argued a point is completely irritating. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/764 "2010-09-07T06:57:52Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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. First of all, one of the reasons homeopaths stay in business with their quackery is simple mathematics: Most people who are sick get better. If you have a cold you’ll get over it. If you’ve got a sore muscle it will heal. If you’ve got some strange symptom you’re scared of such as recurring headaches or strange gastrointestinal feelings you’ve never had before, you’ll probably get better. If not, you’ll die, or you’ll eventually be compelled to seek better treatment. Homeopaths have nothing to lose. They give you _water_ with some active ingredient distilled down to the point where it’s highly unlikely that there’s even a single molecule of it left. And hey presto, you get better. Or you die. Either way no one’s going to hear about the failure. And if you continue to be sick and you go to a real doctor, by then you’ve probably taken so many quack medicines and shaman treatments that you won’t know who to blame or credit. But in the end, the one person who gets better will make a lot of noise telling everyone how wonderful homeopathy is, while all the people who felt nothing will be too embarrassed to admit they even tried it. Or even if they don’t get better, placebo effect may make them feel that way for a time and in the end the homeopath either gets the credit or manages to deflect the blame. As for allowing it… hell yeah. But last time I checked, it _was_ allowed. You’re free to give your own money to anyone who wants to offer you distilled water for 50 bucks. My local pharmacy is full of homeopathic garbage. Go look in the ear drops section of your pharmacy. I’ll bet you half the products there say in fine print, “A homeopathic remedy”. You’re making both a tactical and intellectual mistake here. Your tactical mistake is allowing your desire for freedom from the FDA push you into defending quackery. That weakens your position and gives your opponents an easy target. Hellestal in particular seems to be enjoying himself. Your intellectual mistake is that you seem to unquestionably accept things that libertarians or Austrians support. If Ron Paul likes Homeopathy there must be something to it! Because otherwise, he’d be a bit of a crank and that would diminish his standing. But you can’t wish away crankery, especially when it comes from people on your own side. Also, it’s a mistake to believe in homeopathy because you think it worked for you once. This ignores the weaknesses of self-deception, placebo effect, confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and most importantly, the fact that the medicine you think you took is distilled freaking water. > [@](#): > > Its more about health freedom than a belief in homeopathy. If you want to defend freedom, defend freedom for what it is; a fundamental human right. It’s a mistake to deny that it has consequences. I think this is at the root of your defense of homeopathy - you’re looking for an example of something the FDA won’t certify, yet does good for people. And of course, if it’s quackery, it’s something the pro-FDA people can use against you. Don’t go there. If you want to be a libertarian or an Austrian, you have to be honest about it. The fact is, freedom is hard. Free markets may result in lots of good things and be on balance better than central command by governments, and freedom is an end unto itself, but freedom does not guarantee a better life for all. Free markets do not guarantee desirable social outcomes. On the other hand, neither does government; it just promises to. > [@](#): > > 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. You’re getting a lot of bad information. No, vaccines aren’t perfectly safe; no drug is. Yes, people occasionally die from vaccinations. Very, very, VERY few. But the fact is that public vaccination saves millions of people from death, disease, and crippling deformity. The only reason you think that you’re safe to let yourself or your family go without vaccination is because you’re free-riding on the vaccinations of everyone else. Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to free riders. If everyone did what you’re doing and stopped getting vaccinations we would within a few years start seeing outbreaks of all the old diseases that terrorized families for centuries until we learned better. > [@](#): > > 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. Vaccination isn’t exactly a big profit center. A lot of those drugs are no longer under patent, or never were. Furthermore, the nature of a vaccine is that you only have to give it once, with maybe a booster shot every few years. No one’s getting rich off of vaccinations. On the other hand, fully half of the population wants to get an erection every day, or thereabouts. A quarter of them are going bald prematurely. They have an awful lot of headaches and joint pain. They’re stressed, or they’re too inattentive. A lot of them seem to be depressed. That’s where the money goes, and that’s what the pharma companies care about. The big common afflictions that affect the mass of the population, and which have to be taken repeatedly day after day, sometimes for life to have therapeutic benefit. Big Pharma would probably give vaccinations for free as a loss leader if it helped keep their customers alive long enough to develop an affection for Pond’s Cold Cream and Oxycontin. > [@](#): > > 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. I don’t recall us ever ignoring diet and exercise. Most people won’t shut up about it. In fact, every time I go to my doctor, he tells me to watch my diet and exercise more. Doesn’t yours? The only way we’re ignoring this advice is by being lazy self-indulgent overeaters in denial. Years and years of public service campaigns don’t seem to have changed that much. As for ‘complementary medicine’, if you’re talking about acupuncture, chiropractic medicine, homeopathy, ‘toxin removal’, cleansing your bowels, or any number of idiotic, unscientific crap treatments, we did try that for thousands of years before we had actual scientific medicine. With less than stellar results. If someone thinks that having shaman in a sweat lodge wave chicken entrails over him will cure his cancer, that’s his business. But he can pay for it out of his own pocket and he’d better not complain if his insurance company won’t pay for it. And if the Shaman turns out to to be a guy named Joey who may have lied about his entrailing skills, he should be sued out of lodge and home. > [@](#): > > This is a very valid discussion and certainly not “quackery”. Saying so doesn’t make it so. Show me a properly controlled double-blind trial that has positive results within two standard deviations and which has withstood scrutiny by peers and can be reproduced, and I might change my mind. Good luck with that. > [@](#): > > 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. Austrian economics brings valuable insight to the table. It provides a perspective sometimes forgotten by mathematical economists and specialists who bury themselves in general equilibrium models and mathematical minutiae. But Austrian theory isn’t complete. It’s not perfect. And it’s not even a monolothic thing. Von Mises approached the problem of economics by trying to derive it from basic axioms, starting with Human Action. Rothbard followed in Von Mises footsteps. Hayek, on the other hand, was more interested in complexity and information theory. Schumpeter went to his grave throwing up his hands and assuming we’d just have a big economic collapse anyway, because we are too stupid to survive. He may have had a point. Hayek did not agree with Von Mises on everything. In fact, Hayek didn’t agree with _himself_ on everything. Like Keynes, Hayek’s opinions changed throughout his life. His opinions also changed with the economic circumstances - he was a reluctant Keynesian at a time when Keynesian economics seemed to be working. He flirted with monetarism while disagreeing with the exact mechanism for it. Furthermore, he was willing to admit when he didn’t know things and where his theories were not fully fleshed out. Hayek was also not a libertarian, nor did he believe in a gold standard. He felt that the fed should control the money supply and toyed with a few ways to do it, but never landed on one he felt was acceptable. The lesson to learn from Hayek is first of all, humility. Don’t assume your opponents are idiots. Don’t lecture them on how much you know lest you become a walking example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. And learn that you will win more minds over with calm, reasoned debate devoid of personal insults than you will demanding that your idiot audience go read a book or sit at your feet while you lecture to them. Hayek had strong disagreements with many people throughout his life, but remained a gentleman. Milton Friedman carried himself with a quiet demeanor and a smile. Always a smile. You should try it. Milton Friedman championed free markets and business - which his opponents always tried to cast as some malevolent force. Had he been an angry caustic ass he wouldn’t have had nearly the influence on the public that he enjoyed. > [@](#): > > 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. Economics is faddish. Schools of thought rise and fall. “The Truth” is elusive, because economics is not a hard science amenable to proofs and mathematical certainty, no matter how much some economists want it to be one. It is a study of human behavior, and humans are tricky things to get a handle on. It wasn’t that long ago that Keynes had been ‘discredited’. When Keynesianism couldn’t explain stagflation economists ran from it in droves. When tight money broke the back of inflation and caused economic growth to start, the monetarists owned the day. Now monetarism is mired in a liquidity trap and Keynes once again is the White Knight come to save all. The Austrians have a strike against them: If Austrians are right, then the proper course of action is almost always to do nothing, and let the economy sort itself out. But politicians don’t get elected to do nothing, and economists like Paul Krugman went to school dreaming of the day when they could be the guys to save the world (Dr. Krugman admits this willingly - he became an economist because he was captivated by Isaac Asimov’s econometricians who solved all economic and social problems). Paul Krugman was a Keynesian before he knew who Keynes was, because Keynesianism is the one economic philosophy that advocates that people like Paul Krugman be given the power to run the world so they can set it right. They are simply not going to buy into an economic philosophy that says they are powerless to do good. Ever. As for the public, when people are unemployed and hurting their demand of government is that it DO SOMETHING. Austrians have nothing to offer them, other than to advise government to stop doing things. It’s like going to the doctor because you’re feeling lousy, and instead of magically curing you the doctor points out that you’re fat and overweight, and should really just go home, work out a bit, and go easy foods ending in ‘z’, such as ‘Cheez’. You’ll notice that these other economic schools became popular and ‘mainstream’ only when the current circumstances gave them the power to ‘fix’ the world through positive action. > [@](#): > > 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? I am closest to Hayek in my Austrianism. I think a major problem today is uncertainty and the addition of noise into the information carrying capacity of the price system. I think that Alan Greenspan made a fundamental error when he decided that technology had permanently changed the fundamentals of the economy, and as a result was willing to hold interest rates very low for a long period of time. That, and other factors such as the Chinese flooding the western world with money due to its intentional savings plan, caused a number of misallocations of resources - predominantly in housing and long-term investments. I think the low interest rates pushed bankers and other financial ventures into seeking ever-higher returns through novel schemes. I think that moral hazards from government protecting people from the results of poor decision-making decimated the savings rate. The result of all this, plus market distortions caused by government meddling with the tax code and through GSE’s like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all added up to a situation where we were putting our resources in the wrong places, spending more money than we had, and generally throwing a party we couldn’t afford. The crap eventually hit the wall, trillions of dollars in paper wealth vanished, the hidden risks were exposed, and now we’re in a period of retrenchment and recovery. This isn’t a standard business cycle recession, it’s a balance sheet recession. We found out we weren’t nearly as wealthy as we thought we were, and now we have to adjust to that new reality. Note that government isn’t the only one to blame here. At least, not only the U.S. government. This recession is the cold water in the face of a world that’s been living from bubble to bubble since the 1980’s. It’s not going to be easy to get out of and it’s not going to respond to fiscal stimulus the way the Keynesians think it will. > [@](#): > > 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. We had a long discussion of Austrian economics a while ago. And this message is already way too long. But let me say this: The key Austrian belief I hold is that the economy is far too complex and chaotic to be controlled by central authority. The complex structure of the economy is the result of billions of decisions by billions of people. There are networks, supply chains, labor pools, warehouses, assembly lines, shipping routes, etc. All running efficiently and in the right quantity most of the time. It is an example of emergent order. The idea that it can be reduced to aggregates that can be manipulated without cost by injections of money from the federal government is fundamentally flawed. Every stimulus program, every tax change, every new regulation destroys information, breaks down finely-tuned structures created over long periods of time, and ignores local knowledge that is key to efficient decision-making. Furthermore, an environment which includes an activist government constantly intervening in the economy creates risk and uncertainty. It makes it impossible for businesses to make accurate long term plans. It is destructive to the economy. Any good that comes out of government action has to be weighed against the potential harm it causes. So what should the government do now? Focus like a laser beam on stability. That means no jerking the economy around with new government plans and programs. It means a credible plan for attacking both the debt and the medicare and social security crises, because they are scaring the bejeebers out of the business community. Cities and states have to stop regulating businesses into the ground, and have to come up with plans to address their own pension shortfalls. No new stimulus spending, but no tax cuts, either. Announce a moratorium on new regulations for five years, and put together a panel to do cost-benefit analysis of existing regulations. Axe the ones you can no longer afford. Pass binding resolution that the government cannot grow by more than GDP growth minus one point until it is down to 25% of GDP. Raise the Social Security and Medicare age. Means-test both programs. Announce a wage freeze and benefit reduction plans in the public service until those wages and benefits are aligned with similar jobs in the private market. Then, the government can go off and work on free trade, defense, and running the other agencies that already exist. ---
**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, 7:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/765 "2010-09-07T07:11:47Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > 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. > > First of all, one of the reasons homeopaths stay in business with their quackery is simple mathematics: Most people who are sick get better. If you have a cold you’ll get over it. If you’ve got a sore muscle it will heal. If you’ve got some strange symptom you’re scared of such as recurring headaches or strange gastrointestinal feelings you’ve never had before, you’ll probably get better. If not, you’ll die, or you’ll eventually be compelled to seek better treatment. > > Homeopaths have nothing to lose. They give you _water_ with some active ingredient distilled down to the point where it’s highly unlikely that there’s even a single molecule of it left. And hey presto, you get better. Or you die. Either way no one’s going to hear about the failure. > > And if you continue to be sick and you go to a real doctor, by then you’ve probably taken so many quack medicines and shaman treatments that you won’t know who to blame or credit. > > But in the end, the one person who gets better will make a lot of noise telling everyone how wonderful homeopathy is, while all the people who felt nothing will be too embarrassed to admit they even tried it. Or even if they don’t get better, placebo effect may make them feel that way for a time and in the end the homeopath either gets the credit or manages to deflect the blame. > > As for allowing it… hell yeah. But last time I checked, it _was_ allowed. You’re free to give your own money to anyone who wants to offer you distilled water for 50 bucks. My local pharmacy is full of homeopathic garbage. Go look in the ear drops section of your pharmacy. I’ll bet you half the products there say in fine print, “A homeopathic remedy”. > > You’re making both a tactical and intellectual mistake here. Your tactical mistake is allowing your desire for freedom from the FDA push you into defending quackery. That weakens your position and gives your opponents an easy target. Hellestal in particular seems to be enjoying himself. > > Your intellectual mistake is that you seem to unquestionably accept things that libertarians or Austrians support. If Ron Paul likes Homeopathy there must be something to it! Because otherwise, he’d be a bit of a crank and that would diminish his standing. But you can’t wish away crankery, especially when it comes from people on your own side. > > Also, it’s a mistake to believe in homeopathy because you think it worked for you once. This ignores the weaknesses of self-deception, placebo effect, confirmation bias, anecdotal evidence, and most importantly, the fact that the medicine you think you took is distilled freaking water. > > If you want to defend freedom, defend freedom for what it is; a fundamental human right. It’s a mistake to deny that it has consequences. I think this is at the root of your defense of homeopathy - you’re looking for an example of something the FDA won’t certify, yet does good for people. And of course, if it’s quackery, it’s something the pro-FDA people can use against you. Don’t go there. > > If you want to be a libertarian or an Austrian, you have to be honest about it. The fact is, freedom is hard. Free markets may result in lots of good things and be on balance better than central command by governments, and freedom is an end unto itself, but freedom does not guarantee a better life for all. Free markets do not guarantee desirable social outcomes. On the other hand, neither does government; it just promises to. > > You’re getting a lot of bad information. No, vaccines aren’t perfectly safe; no drug is. Yes, people occasionally die from vaccinations. Very, very, VERY few. But the fact is that public vaccination saves millions of people from death, disease, and crippling deformity. > > The only reason you think that you’re safe to let yourself or your family go without vaccination is because you’re free-riding on the vaccinations of everyone else. Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to free riders. > > If everyone did what you’re doing and stopped getting vaccinations we would within a few years start seeing outbreaks of all the old diseases that terrorized families for centuries until we learned better. > > Vaccination isn’t exactly a big profit center. A lot of those drugs are no longer under patent, or never were. Furthermore, the nature of a vaccine is that you only have to give it once, with maybe a booster shot every few years. No one’s getting rich off of vaccinations. > > On the other hand, fully half of the population wants to get an erection every day, or thereabouts. A quarter of them are going bald prematurely. They have an awful lot of headaches and joint pain. They’re stressed, or they’re too inattentive. A lot of them seem to be depressed. That’s where the money goes, and that’s what the pharma companies care about. The big common afflictions that affect the mass of the population, and which have to be taken repeatedly day after day, sometimes for life to have therapeutic benefit. > > Big Pharma would probably give vaccinations for free as a loss leader if it helped keep their customers alive long enough to develop an affection for Pond’s Cold Cream and Oxycontin. > > I don’t recall us ever ignoring diet and exercise. Most people won’t shut up about it. In fact, every time I go to my doctor, he tells me to watch my diet and exercise more. Doesn’t yours? The only way we’re ignoring this advice is by being lazy self-indulgent overeaters in denial. Years and years of public service campaigns don’t seem to have changed that much. > > As for ‘complementary medicine’, if you’re talking about acupuncture, chiropractic medicine, homeopathy, ‘toxin removal’, cleansing your bowels, or any number of idiotic, unscientific crap treatments, we did try that for thousands of years before we had actual scientific medicine. With less than stellar results. > > If someone thinks that having shaman in a sweat lodge wave chicken entrails over him will cure his cancer, that’s his business. But he can pay for it out of his own pocket and he’d better not complain if his insurance company won’t pay for it. And if the Shaman turns out to to be a guy named Joey who may have lied about his entrailing skills, he should be sued out of lodge and home. > > Saying so doesn’t make it so. Show me a properly controlled double-blind trial that has positive results within two standard deviations and which has withstood scrutiny by peers and can be reproduced, and I might change my mind. Good luck with that. > > Austrian economics brings valuable insight to the table. It provides a perspective sometimes forgotten by mathematical economists and specialists who bury themselves in general equilibrium models and mathematical minutiae. > > But Austrian theory isn’t complete. It’s not perfect. And it’s not even a monolothic thing. Von Mises approached the problem of economics by trying to derive it from basic axioms, starting with Human Action. Rothbard followed in Von Mises footsteps. Hayek, on the other hand, was more interested in complexity and information theory. Schumpeter went to his grave throwing up his hands and assuming we’d just have a big economic collapse anyway, because we are too stupid to survive. He may have had a point. > > Hayek did not agree with Von Mises on everything. In fact, Hayek didn’t agree with _himself_ on everything. Like Keynes, Hayek’s opinions changed throughout his life. His opinions also changed with the economic circumstances - he was a reluctant Keynesian at a time when Keynesian economics seemed to be working. He flirted with monetarism while disagreeing with the exact mechanism for it. Furthermore, he was willing to admit when he didn’t know things and where his theories were not fully fleshed out. Hayek was also not a libertarian, nor did he believe in a gold standard. He felt that the fed should control the money supply and toyed with a few ways to do it, but never landed on one he felt was acceptable. > > The lesson to learn from Hayek is first of all, humility. Don’t assume your opponents are idiots. Don’t lecture them on how much you know lest you become a walking example of the Dunning-Krueger effect. And learn that you will win more minds over with calm, reasoned debate devoid of personal insults than you will demanding that your idiot audience go read a book or sit at your feet while you lecture to them. > > Hayek had strong disagreements with many people throughout his life, but remained a gentleman. Milton Friedman carried himself with a quiet demeanor and a smile. Always a smile. You should try it. Milton Friedman championed free markets and business - which his opponents always tried to cast as some malevolent force. Had he been an angry caustic ass he wouldn’t have had nearly the influence on the public that he enjoyed. > > Economics is faddish. Schools of thought rise and fall. “The Truth” is elusive, because economics is not a hard science amenable to proofs and mathematical certainty, no matter how much some economists want it to be one. It is a study of human behavior, and humans are tricky things to get a handle on. > > It wasn’t that long ago that Keynes had been ‘discredited’. When Keynesianism couldn’t explain stagflation economists ran from it in droves. When tight money broke the back of inflation and caused economic growth to start, the monetarists owned the day. Now monetarism is mired in a liquidity trap and Keynes once again is the White Knight come to save all. > > The Austrians have a strike against them: If Austrians are right, then the proper course of action is almost always to do nothing, and let the economy sort itself out. But politicians don’t get elected to do nothing, and economists like Paul Krugman went to school dreaming of the day when they could be the guys to save the world (Dr. Krugman admits this willingly - he became an economist because he was captivated by Isaac Asimov’s econometricians who solved all economic and social problems). Paul Krugman was a Keynesian before he knew who Keynes was, because Keynesianism is the one economic philosophy that advocates that people like Paul Krugman be given the power to run the world so they can set it right. They are simply not going to buy into an economic philosophy that says they are powerless to do good. Ever. > > As for the public, when people are unemployed and hurting their demand of government is that it DO SOMETHING. Austrians have nothing to offer them, other than to advise government to stop doing things. It’s like going to the doctor because you’re feeling lousy, and instead of magically curing you the doctor points out that you’re fat and overweight, and should really just go home, work out a bit, and go easy foods ending in ‘z’, such as ‘Cheez’. > > You’ll notice that these other economic schools became popular and ‘mainstream’ only when the current circumstances gave them the power to ‘fix’ the world through positive action. > > I am closest to Hayek in my Austrianism. I think a major problem today is uncertainty and the addition of noise into the information carrying capacity of the price system. I think that Alan Greenspan made a fundamental error when he decided that technology had permanently changed the fundamentals of the economy, and as a result was willing to hold interest rates very low for a long period of time. > > That, and other factors such as the Chinese flooding the western world with money due to its intentional savings plan, caused a number of misallocations of resources - predominantly in housing and long-term investments. I think the low interest rates pushed bankers and other financial ventures into seeking ever-higher returns through novel schemes. I think that moral hazards from government protecting people from the results of poor decision-making decimated the savings rate. > > The result of all this, plus market distortions caused by government meddling with the tax code and through GSE’s like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all added up to a situation where we were putting our resources in the wrong places, spending more money than we had, and generally throwing a party we couldn’t afford. The crap eventually hit the wall, trillions of dollars in paper wealth vanished, the hidden risks were exposed, and now we’re in a period of retrenchment and recovery. This isn’t a standard business cycle recession, it’s a balance sheet recession. We found out we weren’t nearly as wealthy as we thought we were, and now we have to adjust to that new reality. > > Note that government isn’t the only one to blame here. At least, not only the U.S. government. This recession is the cold water in the face of a world that’s been living from bubble to bubble since the 1980’s. It’s not going to be easy to get out of and it’s not going to respond to fiscal stimulus the way the Keynesians think it will. > > > [@](#): > > > > 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. > > We had a long discussion of Austrian economics a while ago. And this message is already way too long. But let me say this: > > The key Austrian belief I hold is that the economy is far too complex and chaotic to be controlled by central authority. The complex structure of the economy is the result of billions of decisions by billions of people. There are networks, supply chains, labor pools, warehouses, assembly lines, shipping routes, etc. All running efficiently and in the right quantity most of the time. It is an example of emergent order. The idea that it can be reduced to aggregates that can be manipulated without cost by injections of money from the federal government is fundamentally flawed. Every stimulus program, every tax change, every new regulation destroys information, breaks down finely-tuned structures created over long periods of time, and ignores local knowledge that is key to efficient decision-making. > > Furthermore, an environment which includes an activist government constantly intervening in the economy creates risk and uncertainty. It makes it impossible for businesses to make accurate long term plans. It is destructive to the economy. Any good that comes out of government action has to be weighed against the potential harm it causes. > > So what should the government do now? Focus like a laser beam on stability. That means no jerking the economy around with new government plans and programs. It means a credible plan for attacking both the debt and the medicare and social security crises, because they are scaring the bejeebers out of the business community. Cities and states have to stop regulating businesses into the ground, and have to come up with plans to address their own pension shortfalls. No new stimulus spending, but no tax cuts, either. > > Announce a moratorium on new regulations for five years, and put together a panel to do cost-benefit analysis of existing regulations. Axe the ones you can no longer afford. > > Pass binding resolution that the government cannot grow by more than GDP growth minus one point until it is down to 25% of GDP. Raise the Social Security and Medicare age. Means-test both programs. > > Announce a wage freeze and benefit reduction plans in the public service until those wages and benefits are aligned with similar jobs in the private market. > > Then, the government can go off and work on free trade, defense, and running the other agencies that already exist. [Stands up and does the '80s slow clap waiting for others to join in.] ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/766 "2010-09-07T07:45:43Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The only reason you think that you’re safe to let yourself or your family go without vaccination is because you’re free-riding on the vaccinations of everyone else. Libertarians are supposed to be opposed to free riders. > > If everyone did what you’re doing and stopped getting vaccinations we would within a few years start seeing outbreaks of all the old diseases that terrorized families for centuries until we learned better. This. It’s been obvious all along Jro was ignorant of this basic fact, which has now been rephrased for him seven different ways. We keep bringing up vaccination not because it’s an important issue in Jro’s general ignorance, but because its very simplicity should teach him the flaws in extreme libertarianism. But I’d have picked a different example to start with if I’d known Jro was ignorant of this simple fact about vaccination _ **and incapable of learning it** _. Talk about willful ignorance! At times he seems intelligent, but then he interjects moronic rants like “lefties tax the rich as punishment” or “Keynesians never care about deficits.” His credibilty would increase enormously if he admitted he learned anything in this thread or ever made a mistake. He responds with something like “maybe I made a few spelling errors.” Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 7:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/767 "2010-09-07T07:57:34Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > This. It’s been obvious all along Jro was ignorant of this basic fact, which has now been rephrased for him seven different ways. We keep bringing up vaccination not because it’s an important issue in Jro’s general ignorance, but because its very simplicity should teach him the flaws in extreme libertarianism. To be fair, this isn’t a ‘flaw’ until you’ve shown that libertarianism would be incompatible with public vaccination programs. I don’t think you will be able to do that, because there is plenty of evidence that society will manage public vaccination just fine without the help of government. My company offers free flu vaccines. Private schools will not allow in students who have not been properly vaccinated. Companies would have a huge vested interest in inoculating their staffs. The cost-benefit advantage would be tremendous. Hell, there are pretty good public vaccination programs for _dogs_, enforced by the various kennel clubs, animal shelters, boarding kennels, and veterinarians. No government is providing that or mandating it. Do you think we would do less for our own children? ---
**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, 8:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/768 "2010-09-07T08:04:10Z")
I’d just like to say I disagree with a ton of stuff you just wrote, but you argued it with _reason_. It’s awesome to see the contrast with the drivel Jro has been spewing. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/769 "2010-09-07T08:10:35Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Hell, there are pretty good public vaccination programs for _dogs_, enforced by the various kennel clubs, animal shelters, boarding kennels, and veterinarians. No government is providing that or mandating it. Not exactly. From the Frequently Asked Questions [page](http://www.mass.gov/agr/animalhealth/rabies/faq.htm) of the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources: > [@](#): > > Does Massachusetts law require that my dog or cat to be vaccinated for rabies? > > Yes. Massachusetts law requires that dogs, cats and ferrets must be vaccinated for rabies. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/770 "2010-09-07T08:29:58Z")
Dogs are typically vaccinated for more than rabies. At least around here they are. And studies have shown that there is a strong cost-benefit advantage to companies that offer vaccinations to their employees. Also, people would almost certainly pay for their children’s vaccinations, and probably those of their neighbors if they had to, if there was a pandemic and the government wasn’t in the vaccination business. That said, I have no problem with public health programs from the government. I think it’s net cost savings to society, and since not vaccinating carries with it negative externalities, I think it’s a legitimate role for government. ---
**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, 9:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/771 "2010-09-07T09:04:55Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > > [@tomndebb](#): > > > > 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.) > > Or they could just decide that they don’t like something like the FDA and just found their own pay-as-you-go DFA. Rand Paul is blazing the trail! FREEEEEEDOM!! > > -Joe What are you talking about? Both of you have no idea about the true definition of fraud. Fraud is knowingly lying and deceiving someone. ---
**Author:** ![Baboonanza](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/f475e1/32.png) [@Baboonanza](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baboonanza)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2010, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/772 "2010-09-07T09:19:24Z")
> [@jrodefeld](#): > > 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? To be fair I think you misunderstand me here. Like most other people I’m perfectly happy for Homeopathy to be legal and for people to waste their money on it if they like, but proponents must be prevented from making false claims about it’s effectiveness without any scientific evidence. That is the role for government. > [@jrodefeld](#): > > [QUOTE=Baboonanza] > 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. [/QUOTE] Please, less condescention. I don’t have to read a long quote to know that setting the minimum wage at $100 is fucking retarded. I also won’t dispute that the minimum wage destroys the lowest of low-paying jobs. Jobs that didn’t pay a living wage, jobs that people had to work at for 70+ hours a week just to get by. The difference seems to be that you think bringing these jobs back is a good idea, I think it’s an affront to human dignity. Fair enough. The thing is, I’m not ideologically attached to a minimum wage. I just want the best solution the problem of worker explotation by employers. YOU on the other hand don’t seem to believe that worker exploitation can even exist, but sadly the history of the human race (particularly since the Industrial Revolution) completely disagrees with you. Once again, it’s a situation where Libertarian ideology is willfully ignorant of the way the world works. I would happily listen to your ideas if you actually proposed solutions to real world problems, but you don’t even acknowledge that they exist. Your ideology blinds you. > [@](#): > > 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. For the record I’m not for ending poverty because under a capitalist society it is an unobtainable and undesirable goal (capitalism _requires_ poor people to function properly). I do however believe that people have a certain right to dignity and being looked after by the wider society of which they are a part. _I_ am open minded enough to consider any policies that further humanity and improve the welfare of citizens. I would rather pay taxs to support the poorest than have them work like slaves for a pitance. Is this a perfect situation? Of course not, but so far it’s the best compromise we have. The problem is that your policies are essentially to transport everybody back to a an age where poor people were exploited and left to starve. Or do you deny that this ever happened in America? **Oldeb** post #756 sums up my feelings on the fundamental flaws in Libertarianism pretty well. ---
**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, 9:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/773 "2010-09-07T09:23:22Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Beyond the incredibly condescending tone and undeserved attitude of superiority, you completely missed the point. > > I got no comment on this yet. Just, you know, _wait for it._ You’re still having comprehension problems related to your own cites. > > The charge was not counterfeiting. Nowhere does it say that the charge was counterfeiting. As your own cite explained six months ago, the charge was creating too close an imitation of the US dollar. As your own cite in this very thread explained, the charge was creating too close an imitation of the US dollar. Counterfeiting means creating a cheap knock-off designed to look like the real thing. That’s not what these poor dumb bastards were doing. They were creating expensive coins that were tagged with "". It's irrelevant that no one would have mistaken the coins for counterfeit currency. That wasn't the charge. That's not the relevant law. The law in this case is that only the US government gets to make US dollars. Even the dollar sign itself, , comes from the initials of the country, the US. Uncle Sam owns that likeness. > > They could have denominated the coins by ounce. They could have denominated the coins as Sparmafunq Tollagars. But they didn’t. They denominated the coins as _dollars_, and that’s why they got busted. Unjust? Maybe. But that’s not how you were arguing it. You tried, and failed, to make the case that this was related to currency competition. > > Two times now that I’ve seen, you have falsely used the Liberty Dollar case to argue that there are no competing currencies allowed at all. In March you wrote: “Thus, it is ILLEGAL to circulate competing currencies.” That’s wrong. There are alternative circulating currencies. And in this thread? “Don’t ever tell me people are free to circulate private currencies in this country. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.” That’s not only wrong. It’s _beautifully_ wrong. It’s a masterpiece of fail. Why? Because in addition to being completely incorrect, it shows an incredibly condescending tone and undeserved attitude of superiority. > > You’re not just wrong about damn near everything under the sun. You’re wrong with _style_. > > That’s why I like you so much. > Hayek wrote his little booklet _Denationalisation of Money_ in 1976. This was soon after the Nixon Shock and the fall of the Bretton-Woods international gold standard. Obviously, inflation was a huge concern of the time, and Hayek’s book is indeed filled with breathless rhetoric about the evil government and its inability to maintain a steady price level. If he’d written the book in the late 80s, he would’ve seen differently. But more important than that, Hayek’s currency reform is primarily concerned with _bank deregulation_. That was his method to get competitive currencies. > > That is, yes, different from the system of competitive currencies today. Even so, you seem to miss the fact that alternative currencies like e-gold were illegal at the time he wrote his book. Hayek could not have commented upon the competitive currency system as it exists today, because it did not exist at the time. In the United States, for example, contracts could _not_ specify weights of gold and be enforced by the courts. That was a legacy of the gold standard. > > The gold market didn’t become truly free until _after_ the standard was dropped and the fiat currency established. It was in 1977, a year after Hayek published his book, that the gold regulations in the US were relaxed, and contracts could once again specify payment in weights of gold instead of US dollars. That is the competitive currency condition that exists today, that Hayek didn’t see when he was writing his booklet. > > Now, that change would’ve pleased him, but it’s not everything he was looking for. As I said, bank deregulation was the core of his competing currencies plan, and we don’t have that. But this still doesn’t help your case. The system that Hayek describes is traditional private market banking, like it existed back in the day, which is to say: a _fractional reserve system_. You say you read all these books, but you can’t even seem to differentiate different Austrian viewpoints. Hayek wasn’t a full-reserve, gold-buggering nutter like Rothbard. But what do I find on page four of this very thread? The following Rothbardian recommendation from you: “Fractional Reserve Banking is outlawed. Banks are required to keep 100% reserves.” > > That is not Hayek’s deregulated system. You are blatantly contradicting yourself if you want to advocate the two systems together. > > Hayek theorized that banks could issue their new currency in the form of new loans put out into the community. The new currency would be backed, initially, by a basket of other currencies, with its long-term value to be pegged as close as possible to a basket of commodities. Hayek specifically mentions that the free market would ensure that banks kept an adequate percentage of reserves on hand to deal with any potential withdrawals. That’s not “full reserve” banking. It’s an unregulated fractional reserve system. And that particular suggestion from Hayek has, of course, not come to pass. It _is_ an interesting idea, but it’s still incomplete. It’s not fully formed. He dances completely around the idea of seignorage: You can’t think about the predominant currency without considering taxation. > > None of this story comes through in your post. You just cut&paste what other people wrote, as long it’s Austrian. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that Hayek and Rothbard belonged to two different, sometimes contradictory, Austrian traditions. > > Advocating both together is a demonstration that you understand neither. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > The intricacies of monetary policy and banking elude you. > > With _style_. Well Hellestal, you go quite a way towards actually acknowledging that what we have today is not competing currencies in the manner that I, Ron Paul and FA Hayek are arguing for. It is your foolish insistence that what we have today with e gold (give me a break) constitutes the competing currencies that I advocate for. This is hardly the case, I certainly know the differences between Hayek and Rothbard and the other Austrians. Hayek had a number of distinct differences on a number of issues from Mises and the classical economists. I know them very well. However I consider his desire for denationalization of money and competing currencies to be one of his best suggestions. You think I don’t understand the differences between Rothbard and Hayek? I understand them considerably better than you do. My preference is for full reserve banking and a gold standard like Mises and Rothbard suggest. But, as many people have pointed out, getting rid of the Fed and transitioning towards that sort of system is quite difficult and politically impractical. But, as a step towards a better system I suggest, as does Ron Paul, that we adopt Hayek’s proposal to allow transitions to encourage people to bail on the Fed and do their transactions with private money. Once the Fed self destructs on its own, we can argue for the replacement with an official currency which is a 100% reserve standard. Hayek’s proposal is far more politically practical and would move us in the right direction. Your arguments and claims that I don’t understand this stuff fails because you don’t really understand what I am saying. ---
**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, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/774 "2010-09-07T09:32:10Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Why don’t you support health freedom? > > “Health freedom” is one of those buzz-phrases that is popular among supplement dealers and the websites of alt med promoters who depend on advertising from sellers of alt med products and services. Translated, the phrase means “the freedom to sell whatever I want making any claims for it that I want, without having to worry about any regulations compelling me to show that those products/services are safe and effective.” It’s all about the money. > > [Here’s a typical conspiracy theory-laden rant](http://www.naturalnews.com/028464_health_freedom_America.html) from a “health freedom” advocate. Note the accompanying ads. > > It’s not suprising that such attitudes are popular among libertarians, many of whom seem to have the basic philosophy “I got (or expect to get) mine, buddy, so get out of my way”. Their willingness to let health quackery flourish does not automatically invalidate their views on economics and other matters, but their lack of critical thinking skills and gullibility do make me very suspicious of their platform as a whole, and unwilling to vote Ron Paul or anyone like him into office. > > My advice to Paul supporters is to clam up on the crazy (or enabling the crazy) and stick to Austrian economics. I can see where that would be difficult though - the crazy seems integral to libertarianism/Paul groupitude. Yeah because companies never compel the government to mandate their products in an effort to make a profit, right? As an individual I would much rather have a system where there were charlitans and quacks out there, but there were many choices to choose from as an individual and I wasn’t restricted from seeing the type of doctor I want. People who pay for Homeopathy know what they are getting. There is no scamming or deceit. They believe in it. You may think they are delusional but it is not fraud. Do you acknowledge that many health companies push for regulation to hurt companies and alternative health practitioners simply because they are cutting in on their profits? This goes on all the time. Our government protects Big Pharma at the expense of peoples health. Your lack of respect for liberty is disgusting. You cannot tolerate a person pursuing alternative medicine and believing in it because you don’t and no one is allowed to have a different opinion from you. Why do you trust the government in matters of health care? Government always advocates on behalf of certain corporations and people with money. They don’t always (or even most of the time) prohibit something because it is right. Get it straight. ---
**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, 9:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/775 "2010-09-07T09:33:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@Baboonanza](#): > > > > 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. > > Not to mention that people get better on their own all the time without the placebo effect or medicine. Frauds like homeopathy or faith healing just try to take the credit when the body manages to restore itself without help. Which of course is why they never “cure” anything that the body can’t do on its own, like reattaching a severed body part. Why should you care? Its none of your business if people want to spend their money on homeopathy and “faith” healing (which, I agree, is total bullshit). Leave these people alone to spend their money how they see fit. ---
**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, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/776 "2010-09-07T09:39:40Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > :rolleyes: Yeah, nice diversion of the issue. > > Actually, his commentr is quite pertinent. While going on at length about the rights of people to the fruits of their labors–libertarian style–you have repeatedly denied other authors the fruits of their labor by re-posting their words without attribution and in violation of Fair Use copyright laws. > > It does shed a bit of light on your words that you are willing to violate your own principles for your own benefit. Well, what I posted was basically a list. You are right that I posted some other information without linking to it, and I should have. I didn’t mean to pretend they were my words. I simply forgot to attach the link. ---
**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, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/777 "2010-09-07T09:46:05Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Very elderly people can die from the flu, but if I get the flu it is no big deal. > > You have repeatedly made this wholly false assertion, but that only demonstrates that you really have no idea what you are talking about. > > The millions who died in 1918 and 1919 were hardly all elderly. Influenza is quite capable of killing younger people. Each strain is a bit different and the morbidity for each differs from year to year, (which is why the CDC does not encourage all people to get every flu shot each year and they are not mandatory, despite your implied claims), but a lot of young people die from it. Anecdotally, every person I have ever known to have died from influenza was between the ages of 20 and 40. > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Some vaccines are necessary. But many are a scam, as I have proved. > > Your self-assessment of what you have “proved” is ludicrous. What percentage of young, healthy people die from the common flu each year? Not very many. I certainly doesn’t mean we all NEED to rush out and get vaccinated against it. Why can’t you acknowledge that some vaccinations are not necessary for most people? Some diseases are not that big of a deal. People CAN potentially die from a lot of things. But my point is there should be a risk analysis before one gets a vaccine. If there is a vaccine against a minor illness that I am unlikely to contract, I would see vaccinating against it as completely unnecessary. Do you not agree? ---
**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, 9:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/778 "2010-09-07T09:54:23Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > No use in trying to convince you so I won’t bother. > > Way to dodge the questions. > > > [@](#): > > > > I simply hope you visit the links I have posted on the subject and open your mind up to the possibility of ill effects coming from over vaccinations of children. > > Sorry, but your links just went to a bunch of hysterical lies told by anti-vax murderers. Fear-mongering without a shred of evidence doesn’t impress me. > > Did you, in turn, even look at the real cases I brought up? Such as the ones to the CA outbreak of pertussis that has killed 8 children thus far and caused by declining vaccination rates? Any answer for that or just more grumping about ‘No use’? > > How about when anti-vaxxers decided to [harass a parents whose kids died of pertussis](http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2010/s2951651.htm). > > The only ‘ill effects’ are coming from anti-vaxers. Plain and simple. Your mind is closed and you defend the medical establishment with a religious zeal. There is NO downside to vaccines at any quantity, period. That is your stance. You dismiss doctors who take my side as “quacks”. You dismiss studies I post as “junk science”. You dismiss all links I post as fear mongering hysteria with no merit whatsoever. It really doesn’t matter what I post, or how many links and proven negative effects from certain vaccines there are. You won’t budge an inch. You can support vaccinations but acknowledge the potential risks. If you did you would have more credibility. ---
**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, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/779 "2010-09-07T10:01:01Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I would like to drop the antivax nonsense. But the hits just keep on coming. > [QUOTE=jrodefeld] > If you stay healthy, there is no reason to fear the occasional illness that may crop up. A person, such as myself will have a healthy immune system and be able to fight infections through natural immunity. In addition to the WWI-era influenza example that **tomndebb** supplied (in which many young healthy adults died), there’s our very recent experience with H1N1 flu that [contradicts your blithe assumption](http://www.emaxhealth.com/1020/90/34098/h1n1-causing-critical-illness-mostly-young-adults.html) that being young and healthy will ward off infectious disease. \*"A review of H1N1 flu shows that the virus is causing critical illness mostly in young adults. H1N1 flu in young adults is associated with low levels of oxygen, multi-system organ failure, and the need for longer prolonged respiratory support with mechanical ventilation. The findings are due for publication November 4 in JAMA, and show that **H1N1 flu is especially severe among healthy adolescents and adults between the ages of 10 and 60 years**. \*(bolding added). _The authors write that H1N1 flu follows”… a pattern reminiscent of the W-shaped curve [rise and fall in the population mortality rate for the disease, corresponding to age at death] previously seen only during the 1918 H1N1 Spanish pandemic."_ So the H1N1 outbreak is just one demonstration it’s not just the feeble elderly getting extremely sick and dying from preventable infectious disease, but in particular younger previously healthy adults were stricken badly by this form of the disease. And in the case of other vaccine-preventable diseases similar populations can experience nasty consequences, not just kids (for example, I’m sure **jrodefeld** would not enjoy a nice case of mumps or chickenpox). Yo, **jrodefeld**! Is any of this getting through, or are you just dismissing it as “propaganda” while getting the real deal from fellow antivaxers at those sites you linked to? > [@jrodefeld](#): > > But I don’t believe the way to true health is through surgery and drugs, which are the primary modalities that are used. This is another misconception gained by getting all your info from alt med sites and practitioners. Diet and exercise are a major focus in mainstream medicine. It’s when people don’t follow advice in these areas that pharmacologic therapy and other modalities come into play. Attempts by alt med to co-opt diet (with a plethora of “super” supplements, “miracle” foods and other bad recommendations) don’t change the facts. This thread demonstrates that many other posters have taken the time and trouble to answer (and refute) the arguments **jrodefeld** has raised. He, on the other hand, merely repeats himself and calls us close-minded. **jrodefeld** is apparently afraid to do the reading that would overturn his cherished views. [/QUOTE] First this is an unnecessary aside and reflects my personal views and experience and in no way supports or undermines the merits of libertarianism. I simply do not think people need the number of vaccinations they receive. I have read a lot on the subject and that is the conclusion I come to. I believe this is simply a case where neither of us is going to convince the other. My point is only that some vaccines are unnecessary for many people and some are pushed out of a desire to make profits. I am not against vaccines. I don’t want ANYONE to get sick. But surely you know that some people get vaccinated and contract the illness anyway. We cannot merely pretend that immunization is the only way to prevent disease. Can’t you see this point of view a little bit? ---
**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, 10:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784/780 "2010-09-07T10:08:00Z")
> [@Mr.Miskatonic](#): > > > [@jrodefeld](#): > > > > Look, there is quite a bit of scientific evidence to support alternative medical approaches (some more than others). Oftentimes an agency with an agenda will dismiss the evidence that exists, so people like you don’t hear about it. > > Nonsense. To date any study of altmed that shows a hint of a positive result gets huge media attention. But closer examination shows shortcomings or failures and it often gets filedrawered upon follow-up studies. > > Because it is true. > > The record of evidence. > > That is a pathetic end-run around the scientific method and is what gets people in trouble in the first place. Anecdotes and your personal experiences are simply are not serious evidence no matter how much you whine about it. > > > [@](#): > > > > (much of this stuff HAS been validated in double blind studies, by the way). > > No, it has not. Even the link that you provided show the bankrupcy of altmed evidence when the best they could come up with was obscure and rather dated ‘studies’. Okay go on believing the propaganda. I’ll follow my personal experience with complementary medicine but don’t be surprised when I am healthy at eighty five years old and you are crippled and weak in old age due to your dismissal of the “woo” “alternative” medicine and healthy living that I follow. The results speak for themselves. I am already the healthiest person I know. By the way, how do you lump all “alternative” medicine, meaning any and all medicine that is outside the rigid box of Western orthodoxy into the same category and dismiss it out of hand? What is the justification to dismiss dozens of treatments and complementary modalities that you know nothing about? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/this-ones-for-the-obama-loyalists-pay-attention/550784.md?page=40)