This One's for The Obama Loyalists, Pay Attention.

[Pashnish_Ewing]

I love that these two quotes showed up in the same post.

@jrodefeld

As to that 99% of doctors statistic you just pulled out of your ass, you would do well to read…

@jrodefeld

Did you know that a fairly high number of vaccinations actually CAUSE the disease they are meant to prevent?

[jrodefeld]

@ITR_champion

@jrodefeld

Your views are in direct contradiction of the beliefs and warnings of the founding fathers. You appear to be okay with that, but you should clearly acknowledge it and don’t pretend otherwise.

I have already acknowledged that I’m not in exact agreement with what the Founding Fathers said in the 1700’s. There’s no point in you demanding that I acknowledge that again. What I said was that if they had seen what occurred in the 19th century, they surely would have seen the need for a larger, more involved government.
Eugenie Blanchard was. So was Walter Breuning.

No, this is not so. As it happens I’ve read a considerable amount from people who were alive in the industrial revolution. For example, William Cobbett was a prolific author who traveled widely in both England and the United States and carefully documented the conditions of people in both countries during the early 19th century. His most famous book is Rural Rides, which you can read online here. By reading the words of Cobbett and other first-hand witnesses to the industrial revolution, I’ve gotten a very good picture of what happened during that time period. Much better than the articles written by your economists, which were written many generations after the fact. Is this not so?

If you stop reading biased accounts written with the intention of misleading you about the past and start reading documents actually written at that time period, you’ll learn that what actually happened in the industrial revolution is quite different from what your Austrian School economists say happened.
There has been a middle class since the the days of ancient Greece and Rome. Claiming that it appeared for the first time in the 19th century is absurd even for you.
So if your version of events is actually correct, answer me this question: how much social unrest was there among the poor in the first fifty years of the industrial revolution in England? How does that compare to the fifty years before the industrial revolution? How about if we ask the same question in France, the United States, Germany, or any other country that industrialized in the 19th century? Obviously, since your an expert on economic history, you know that in both Europe and America in that time period the government and the upper class were constantly using violence to suppress the workers. If life for the workers was so great, why was this violence necessary?
And as I’ve already told you multiple times, the rate of economic growth in the last 30 years has been quite bit higher than in any other 30-year period in American history. It seems that since this established fact contradicts your beliefs, you’ve chosen to simply ignore it. However, since I like rubbing things in your face, I’m going to place it in gigantic letters.

the rate of economic growth in the last 30 years has been quite bit higher than in any other 30-year period in American history.

Now, given that fact, why do you keep saying that the rate of economic growth was higher in the 19th century than in recent times? It’s another one of my trademark very simple questions, and I think it deserves an answer.

As far as the constitution is concerned, if it is outdated, as you seem to claim, then answer me this question: Instead of simply ignoring the Constitution, why didn’t we amend it to change with the times? Wouldn’t this keep the limitations on government that the founders set up yet still allow the government to slowly evolve over time? I await your answer.

We did amend the Constitution so as to ignore the will of the founders. The founders wanted slavery. We amended the Constitution to outlaw slavery. The founders didn’t let women vote. We amended the Constitution so that women could vote. The founders didn’t allow a federal income tax. We amended the Constitution to allow a federal income tax. etc…

By the way, I’m still waiting for you to justify your statement that gold prices remain consistent over time, when in reality the price of gold has dipped 80% against oil over the past decade. Please answer that question.

Look at the long term. Gold has ALWAYS had tremendous value in society over thousands of years. Fiat currencies don’t last very long. It is wrong to look at a very short term in modern economies in a market as volatile as oil and say that it proves gold is not a store of value. Gold has never been worthless in almost any society in history.

Look at this graph of the price of gold since 1971: http://goldprice.org/charts/history/gold_all_data_o_usd.png

Gold has become worth MORE in relation to the dollar. As fiat currencies go down, the value of gold goes up in comparison.

As to amending the Constitution, we did on several occasions. But about eighty years ago or so we gave up on that idea and government has been operating without any regard for the Constitution ever since.

Do you think it is a good idea to have some arbitrary and concrete limit to government growth and power so as to protect liberty?

That is the point. If you don’t think its a good idea then you clearly have no regard for human liberty.

About the Industrial Revolution, there were classical economists and libertarian thinkers writing during that period as well, and I have read many of their books and writings. I am not saying that there weren’t any bad work conditions or exploitation taking place at all. What I am saying is the notion that the problems that DID exist somehow invalidate the superiority of free enterprise and necessitated the type of government intervention and exploitation BY the government is patently absurd.

There has never been a perfect system for maximum prosperity and minimum poverty and suffering in world history. All societies have flaws. However, a free economy, respect for property rights, sound money and limited government has been the BEST system that provides the highest standard of living for the most people.

What has government done since that has solved all of these problems? Look around the country and see how people are doing today. Government hasn’t done a very good job taking care of people.

Don’t you see how easy it is to look at any society and point to the problems that do exist (some degree of poverty and social problems exist in any society) and claim that it invalidates the entire economic and social system? It is the absurd Utopian ideas of guys like Lyndon Johnson who think we can use government force to eliminate poverty. This hasn’t worked.

Government intervention hasn’t worked. Don’t you see there is still massive exploitation? At least in a free economy I am able to leave the bad work environment and work for a better company. Or I can start my own business or freely associate with whoever I choose. I have SOME freedom to avoid exploitation.

But with government regulation, mandates and corporatism, I have no choice. I have to buy health insurance, I have to pay taxes to support things I think are immoral. My economic activity is SEVERELY compromised.

Isn’t this worrisome to you AT ALL? The thing I find fascinating about liberals is there steadfast determination to blame all problems in society on businessmen and corporations who exploit people and “take all the wealth” yet fail to understand the threat to liberty posed by government?

Why is that?

Seriously, in a free society there will be some company who treats their employees terribly but the larger harm to society is diminished. A reasonable person can refuse to do business with those people. They are not compelled to interact with people who they find deplorable.

If government makes a mistake, or mandates people buy a product from a corporation, they are taking away our liberties. We don’t have a choice in the matter and the damage is felt throughout society.

You make the mistake of thinking that I or the Austrian economists think we should follow ALL the policies of the 19th century but this is hardly the case. There were problems with society during that time period. But the problem wasn’t too much freedom or property rights.

You also make a mistake to claim that the problems that DID exist in the 19th century invalidated the argument for freedom. This is a fallacious argument with no merit for a thinking mind.
Lets, for arguments sake, say that I endorse government intervention in terms of only the following areas:

Safety regulations to protect workers
Environmental standards
Minimum wage laws
Rules against discrimination (like the Civil Rights Act)

But no more. Keeping a free economy and respecting property rights but doing just enough to protect workers.

Would this be okay with you? Getting rid of many thousands of pages of bad regulations that do nothing to help the workers or poor?

Its one thing to advocate safety standards and environmental protection. It is quite another to abandon all principles of market economics and endorse this federal behemoth that invades privacy, interferes with contracts, facilitates corporate abuse and thinks nothing of property rights or freedom of association.
Can you be persuaded to move in my direction even a little? You really cannot be convinced to support the move towards market economics and lessoning the regulatory burden on business and consensual economic activity?

I am looking forward to hearing your answer.

[Fear_Itself]

It’s like listening to curlcoat on Red Bull.

[yoyodyne]

@tomndebb

I need a new irony meter.

They don’t make one strong enough: http://www.herbs2000.com/homeopathy/merc.htm

[John_DiFool]

Too bad this thread degenerated into this inane side discussion about vaccinations (note I, as son of a physician, am firmly on the side of same), tho the main topic isn’t much better in the end analysis. It is conceivable that somewhere a libertarian has written a thesis supporting said philosophy which sober-mindedly takes into account human behavior and tendencies, and I’d love to read it and take a chance on being convinced-but this thread ain’t it. Perhaps that means that such an airtight argument doesn’t exist (and from what I’ve read elsewhere I haven’t been terribly impressed, but you never know).

[Jackmannii]

@jrodefeld

I have to pay taxes to support things I think are immoral. My economic activity is SEVERELY compromised.

Isn’t this worrisome to you AT ALL?

I’ve had to pay taxes to support your health and welfare so that you may promote things I think are immoral. It’s a minor source of :rolleyes: but I can live with it. It’s better than living in a society where it’s everyone for himself and homeopaths stalk the Earth unfettered.

[zoid]

@jrodefeld

@Lobohan

This is rich. Not only does Jrodefeld not understand basic economics, civics and vaccinations. He believes in homeopathy.

Jro, bubbie. Do us a favor. Look at the masthead of this site. Right under the words, “The Straight Dope”, we are here to fight ignorance. You are promulgating it.

**
If you got success from any treatment, you would become a believer. Period. **

You are simply displaying your close mindedness.

Why do you think homeopathy and various alternative therapies have lasted so long? How are so many quacks and charlatans getting away with this stuff for so long?

We can disagree on the various merits of vaccinations and homeopathy, but any learned person will not be able to dispute the teachings of Austrian economics and Constitutional Law, both of which I am extremely educated.

bolding mine…

Only a fucking moron could possibly believe this.
Failure to understand causation, correlation, and coincidence makes you a fucking moron.

[jrodefeld]

@ITR_champion

@jrodefeld

I’m gonna tackle this part first, because it is astounding. I’m a little bit worried about the national debt but not much., and Sure, we face large shortfalls in the future, but those can be eliminated through minor changes such as raising the retirement age and trimming benefits for the richest quartile.

No. Go back and read some economics. We CANNOT deal with the problem through tinkering around the edges. Raising the retirement age and “trimming” benefits for the richest is going to cover $100 Trillion dollars? If you believe that then you need to also go back and take some math courses as well.

All right, take a few deep breaths.

First of all, you claim that there’s a projected shortfall of “$100 trillion dollars” [sic]. Like must of what you say, this is completely untrue. The projected shortfall in Social Security is 5.3 trillion dollars. For Medicare I can’t find a cite that reflects the changes from the recent Health Care overhaul, but even the highest estimates before that law were nowhere near 100 trillion dollars. So your figure of 100 trillion dollars is utterly bogus.

Now as for the fact that we can solve these shortfalls with any one of several minor changes, here’s a quote from the same article.

So the fiscal problems of Social Security are easily solvable. Medicare could be dealt with likewise. Now that I’ve provide an airtight cite that proves myself to be right and you to be wrong, I guess you’ll have to go back to calling me “retarted” and “insane”.

I don’t think I ever called you retarded or insane. Misguided, sure but not retarded. You are SEVERELY underestimating the entitlement shortfall. There is no way to cover the shortfall over the next several decades without drastically cutting back benefits. Many people have vouched for the fact that our true national debt, calculating in Social Security and Medicare liabilities is 100 Trillion dollars. The President of the Dallas Federal Reserve, Richard W. Fisher told everyone that this figure is accurate in a May 2008 speech.

Here is the whole speech: Storms on the Horizon - Dallasfed.org

Bill Walker wrote a short article about this problem. Here is an excerpt:

The Real Debt

Here is what he said regarding the actual US debt:

“Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon. Traditional Medicare composes about 69 percent, the new drug benefit roughly 17 percent and Social Security the remaining 14 percent.”

Interested readers will notice that the new prescription drug benefit is projected to be more fiscally crushing than all of Social Security.

Mr. Fisher points out that this $99.2 trillion will be a bit of a burden to pay off:

“Let’s say you and I and Bruce Ericson and every U.S. citizen who is alive today decided to fully address this unfunded liability through lump-sum payments from our own pocketbooks, so that all of us and all future generations could be secure in the knowledge that we and they would receive promised benefits in perpetuity. How much would we have to pay if we split the tab? Again, the math is painful. With a total population of 304 million, from infants to the elderly, the per-person payment to the federal treasury would come to $330,000. This comes to $1.3 million per family of four—over 25 times the average household’s income.”

You do have $1.3 million in your pocket, right? What, are you some kind of deadbeat?

Speaking of deadbeats, the “$99.2 trillion” estimate does not include the subprime bailout. So for those who like large round numbers, by the end of 2008 the real National Debt should be large, round, and about $100 trillion.

Other Unfunded Liabilities

The Fed’s numbers do not include some other liabilities the US has acquired over the years. One massive but unquantifiable liability is the probability of future wars. If it cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars to invade the fifth-rate kleptocracy of Iraq and the foreign-aid regime of Afghanistan, how many trillions would wars against real powers cost? Perhaps I should ask “how many US cities” such wars would cost.

Some nations could legitimately plan for peace. Sweden has not fought a foreign war since 1814 (as many Swedes have pointed out in emails regarding my Swiss article). Switzerland, not since 1815. The US record is less hopeful.

The US is rarely not in foreign wars, and the current Administration has openly announced that the “Global War On Terror” will never end. Yet our government accounting is predicated on perpetual peace, on an ever-increasing flow of money into the official pyramid schemes.

The truth of the matter is we cannot sustain this no matter what. We can cut back and let everyone know the government will not be able to provide these services long term, or we can drive off the cliff. Walker goes on:

Most likely, the US will simply continue into bankruptcy. This is the most common pathway for nations with fiat currencies and unchecked ruling classes. But let’s assume that somehow a Clone Army of 435 Ron Pauls gets into Congress, while genetic technology brings back Jefferson and Gallatin to their old offices. Can the US be made solvent again?

I think so. Most of the unfunded liability is medical. We know why the medical system does not work. So if we eliminate the FDA, guild restrictions on medical professions, and the ridiculous tax laws that force us into medical-insurance serfdom to employers, we could cut medical costs enough to phase out Medicare and the new “drug benefit.” In this way more than half the shadow debt can be wiped out.

The answer for the Social-Security pyramid scheme is well known. Chile fixed its Social Security disaster decades ago, by giving large IRA-style allowances and phasing out the government payments to younger recipients. The sooner we do this the easier it will be… the Boomers start retiring soon.

…

None of this will happen while Mordor-On-The-Potomac still possesses its plutonium credit card, the Fed. Just as we would for any other bankrupt relative, we must help Uncle Sam cut up his credit cards.

Your fantasy of being able to tinker with the tax rate to cover the shortfall is pure nonsense. No serious thinkers believe that is possible. Everyone acknowledges the need for dramatically cutting benefits, as politically unpopular as that may be, to get back to solvency.

Here are more links defending that $100 Trillion figure:

Zerohedge

Sludinājumi - SS.COM

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12082
Among experts over the past few years, the very lowball estimates for the unfunded liabilities have been estimated at 55 to 65 Trillion dollars. That is the low range. More and more people believe it is north of $100 trillion.

So that figure is very close to accurate from a variety of sources. We will be forced to cut back and not give out benefits to more and more people. Social Security is simply a Ponzi Scheme. I am 25, I am just starting out in my work life. I will pay into this system for thirty to forty years and receive nothing when I retire.

That is not fair. We need politicians with the courage to confront these problems head on.

Well, okay, those are fair questions. My answer are that I do not see how falling prices help the poor, and that I want a healthy inflation level of about 4-5%, which is about what we’ve had during our wonderful fun of good economic times since 1982.

Inflation is good for the poor, good for the middle class, and only mildly bad for the ultra-rich. Deflation is terrible for the poor, terrible for the middle class, and excellent for the ultra-rich. That’s why your Austrian School economists love deflation and hate inflation. They want to grab all the wealth that’s currently held by the poor and middle-class and hand it over to the rich.

Consider me. I’m middle-class and not far from the poverty line, earning about $26,000 per year. I have a mortgage on my house of about $130,000, for which I pay $956 each month. At the moment I can pay that mortgage, buy food and other necessities, and save a little each month. If we entered a deflationary spiral, my salary would fall but I’d still owe the bank $956 per month, so I’d lose my house. By contrast, if our leaders were smart enough to give us some inflation, then my salary would shoot up, bud I’d still owe only $956 per month. So now that you’re on the record as saying that you want to see deflation, please answer me this question:

Why do you want to take away the houses currently owned by me and millions of others like me and give them to the rich?

Ten dollars says that you refuse to answer this question.

You need to stop betting with me, before we’re done here, you’ll owe me your life savings.

Seriously though, inflation is NOT good for the poor and middle class. What gave you that idea? If there is inflation, prices for goods and services go up, right?

Okay, if a person is very wealthy they don’t care if prices go up a little. It is irrelevant to them. But a poor person on a fixed income or on food stamps is hurt tremendously as there standard of living goes down. Shouldn’t this be obvious? Government fights so hard to hide the true rate of inflation so they don’t have to adjust benefits to match the level of inflation. The poor are screwed by inflation.

The value of homes was artificially high to begin with. I don’t want anyone to lose their homes, but I argued against the policies that built up this housing bubble in the first place. Do you see how the well motivated government policies end up hurting the very people they were designed to help?

These homes and “toxic” assets need to be allowed to find their true value in the marketplace. The government cannot keep the prices artificially high forever. There is no way to determine the value of things without a market mechanism of pricing.

For more on the negative effects of inflation on the average person, read this:

Economics recommends neither inflationary nor deflationary policy. It does not urge the governments to tamper with the market’s choice of a medium of exchange. It establishes only the following truths:

1. By committing itself to an inflationary or deflationary policy a government does not promote the public welfare, the commonweal, or the interests of the whole nation. It merely favors one or several groups of the population at the expense of other groups.
2. It is impossible to know in advance which group will be favored by a definite inflationary or deflationary measure and to what extent. These effects depend on the whole complex of the market data involved. They also depend largely on the speed of the inflationary or deflationary movements and may be completely reversed with the progress of these movements.
3. At any rate, a monetary expansion results in misinvestment of capital and overconsumption. It leaves the nation as a whole poorer, not richer. These problems are dealt with in Chapter 20.
4. Continued inflation must finally end in the crack-up boom, the complete breakdown of the currency system.
5. Deflationary policy is costly for the treasury and unpopular with the masses. But inflationary policy is a boon for the treasury and very popular with the ignorant. Practically, the danger of deflation is but slight and the danger of inflation tremendous.

This was Ludwig von Mises, from Human Action.

Another short post from Tim Swanson asks “Who Benefits from Inflation?” and answers:

Temporarily, just organizations and individuals that owe truckloads of debt, namely the US government (although, the debt still exists).

Unfortunately in his interview with Wallstrip, Paul Kedrosky does not mention some of the larger demographic groups that suffer due to monetary malfeasance. Apropos Robert Murphy, the latest infusion of credit will result in price inflation due to the declining value of the dollar.

For instance, here is a short list of others who are particularly hit hard:

• anyone with a savings account (even a CD/MMA is hit by it)
• anyone on a fixed income (retirees, disabled vets)
• individuals on long-term contracts
• anyone paid in cash (restaurant workers, day laborers)
• anyone selling a product at a fixed price (authors, publishers)

What is the one organization that is responsible for this misfortune? The Fed. It is the same institution that individuals like Mises and Rothbard have criticized, and it is the same firm that statesmen like Ron Paul have tried to dissolve.

One more notable excerpt from the great Austrians demonstrates the harms of inflation on the poor:

Everything that is done by a government against the purchasing power of the monetary unit is, under present conditions, done against the middle classes and the working classes of the population. Only these people don’t know it. And this is the tragedy. The tragedy is that the unions and all these people are supporting a policy that makes all their savings valueless. And this is the great danger of the whole situation.

The conditions under which people are living in the industrial countries of the West, which today means in practically all the countries where the standard of civilization has made some progress since the 16th or 17th century, the masses are in a position, fortunately, in the years in which they are able to work, in which they are in full health, to provide for the state of affairs as it will prevail in later years when they will either be absolutely unfit to work, or when their capacity to work will have decreased on account of old age or other changes.

Under conditions as they are today, these people can only provide for their old age practically by either entering into labor contracts that give them a pension for their later age, or they can save a part of their income and invest it in such a way that they can use it in later years. These investments can be either simple savings deposits with banks, or they can be life-insurance policies or bonds, for instance, government bonds that appear in many countries as perfectly safe. In all these cases the future of these people who are providing in this way for their old age, for their families and children, is closely connected with the purchasing power of the monetary unit.

The man who owns an agricultural estate, the producer of oil or of foods, or the businessman who owns a factory is in a different position. When the prices of the products that he is selling go up on account of the inflation, he will not be hurt in the same way in which other people are hurt by the inflation. The owner of common stock will see that, by and large, most of this common stock is going up in price to the same degree as the prices of commodities are going up on account of the inflation.

But it is different for people with fixed incomes. The man who retired 25 years ago with a yearly pension, let us say of $3,000, was by and large in a good situation or was believed to be in a good situation. But this was at a time when prices were much lower than they are today. I don’t want to say any more about this situation and the consequences and effects of inflation for the people.

What I want to point out is that the greatest problem today is precisely this, although the people don’t realize it. The danger is due to the fact that people consider inflation as something that hurts other people. They realize very well that they too have to suffer because the prices of the commodities they are buying go up continually, but they don’t realize fully that the greatest danger for them is precisely the progress of inflation and the effect it will have on the value of their savings.

All over Europe today you see unrest due to the fact that the European masses are discovering that they have been the losers in all these financial operations, which their own governments have considered as a very wonderful thing. And, therefore, also from the point of view of making it possible for the masses to enjoy the improvement of economic conditions and to make them partners, real partners, in the great development of industrial production that is going on practically now already in all countries of Europe and North America, even including Mexico, it is necessary to abandon the policy of inflation.

Read the rest here: Inflation Destroys Savings | Bettina Bien Greaves

First of all, I’m note sure why you keep talking to me about Keynes. I’ve never read anything by Keynes nor quoted him, nor has anyone else in this thread that I can recall. Keynes is totally irrelevant to this thread, any by bringing him up 50 times in each post you’re only demonstrating your own inability to stay on topic and address the questions we’re asking you.

Second, why should I believe what you say about the “current crisis”? Obviously you’ve already admitted that you’re unable to provide cites, but you should at least provide some form of argument. However, you’re in real trouble when you talk about address the “current crisis” because there isn’t any current crisis. The economy is not in a crisis right now. There’s a risk of crisis, namely a deflationary spiral, but that can be addressed with more government spending.

Your economic ideas are very Keynesian whether you know it or not. I have provided link after link to defend my positions. What really blows me away is that you say this: However, you’re in real trouble when you talk about address the “current crisis” because there isn’t any current crisis. The economy is not in a crisis right now. There’s a risk of crisis, namely a deflationary spiral, but that can be addressed with more government spending.

What do you think we have been dealing with since 08? Why is there so much anger in the country? What about the double digit employment numbers?

You think all problems are caused by a lack of government spending?

Where does it all end? You have demonstrated that you don’t care about the debt, inflation or spending. Any problem can be dealt with through government spending and deficits. This is Keynesian whether you like it or not.

And its completely false and utterly discredited among true thinkers.

Okay, so now you’ve finally admitted that you’re not able to give me the cites that I requested. Oddly enough, that’s exactly what I predicted you would do.

You have to actually read what I link to. I have posted a lot of links and provided quite a few cites to back up what I have said. You will have to tell me exactly what cites you are requesting.

My library of economic literature and history is extensive, so I can easily provide back up for anything I say. I could provide a reading list for you as well, if you cared to spend the time.

[jrodefeld]

@Jackmannii

@jrodefeld

As for Homeopathy, it DOES work if you get a good Homeopath. You are astoundingly ignorant. There are many alternative therapies in Eastern Medicine such as acupuncture and Ayurveda that allow people to attain a level of health not seen in Western culture. Your ignorance is based on you believing everything the United States medical establishment tells you without any critical thinking.

These statements don’t surprise me. Ron Paul supporters include numerous homeopaths and homeopathy believers who think their candidate will be a stout defender of their creed. And they have reason to think so. Here’s Ron Paul speaking before the House of Representatives on health care last year:

"A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes made which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.
16.) We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives."

(apologies for linking to a loon site* but the transcript of Paul’s remarks appears accurate based on the first portion of his speech which I saw on youtube).

In other words, Ron Paul would like to do away with government regulations protecting people from health quackery, a goal heartily endorsed by the myriad supplement companies running a multibillion dollar industry dependent on false claims and gullibility.

Do a search on Ron Paul and homeopathy and you’ll find lots of true believers.

The tactic of cherry-picking a list of small/poorly-designed studies from homeopathy/alt med journals and the like to support homeopaths’ claims is a common one. However if you look at large well-run clinical trials and systematic reviews (like those performed by the highly respected Cochrane Collaboration which look at the overall scientific literature and give weight to those studies meeting criteria for good design and statistical rigor), homeopathy and its miraculous water cures are revealed to be nothing more than placebo effect. A large cash prize was offered for proof to the contrary but sorry, no takers.

I’d be interested in seeing if libertarians overall suffer from horrendous lapses in critical thinking on issues such as vaccination, homeopathy and conspiracy theories, or if it’s an affliction to which Paul supporters are particularly prone.

*is this site also on your trusted list of sources, 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.

Ron Paul is not endorsing homeopathy, but rather health freedom. Don’t you see the danger for government restricting access to certain kinds of medical treatments and alternative therapies? The abuse of such a system should be obvious.

Why do you care if I or another person seeks medical help from someone who you don’t like? Isn’t this what freedom is all about?

By the way, I know more about vaccinations and alternative medicine than most people, given how I was raised and through life experiences.

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.

Of course this is bullshit, but it seems you like to focus on irrelevant points to mask your inability to form a cogent argument against the larger topic at hand.

Why don’t you support health freedom?

[tomndebb]

@zoid

Only a fucking moron could possibly believe this.
Failure to understand causation, correlation, and coincidence makes you a fucking moron.

This is a Warning to avoid direct, personal insults in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

[Clothahump]

@Dob

The Tea Party is in reaction to the president being black, with him being a democrat second.
…
So spare me the long winded and rambling paragraphs and just deal with the real issues.

I’ll call bullshit on that. The color of Obama’s skin is meaningless. The real issue is that he is a Marxist.

[Lobohan]

@Clothahump

@Dob

The Tea Party is in reaction to the president being black, with him being a democrat second.
…
So spare me the long winded and rambling paragraphs and just deal with the real issues.

I’ll call bullshit on that. The color of Obama’s skin is meaningless. The real issue is that he is a Marxist.

I think the real issue is you don’t have a clear idea what a Marxist is.

[Robot_Arm]

@jrodefeld

Bill Walker wrote a short article about this problem. Here is an excerpt:

“Add together the unfunded liabilities from Medicare and Social Security, and it comes to $99.2 trillion over the infinite horizon.”

Well, hell, let’s just put a dollar in the bank (or a fraction of an ounce of gold). Over the infinite horizon the interest alone will dwarf $100 trillion.

[zoid]

@tomndebb

@zoid

Only a fucking moron could possibly believe this.
Failure to understand causation, correlation, and coincidence makes you a fucking moron.

This is a Warning to avoid direct, personal insults in Great Debates.

[ /Moderating ]

Understood and no argument - the warning was warranted

[Oldeb]

This

@jrodefeld

I know about herd immunity and understand very well the concept of immunizations.

and this

@jrodefeld

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.

are not compatible.

@jrodefeld

Why should I be afraid of the Flu, Chicken Pox, or any other number of fairly harmless illness that people have gotten for centuries with no lingering ill effects?

Chicken Pox can cause death, especially in infants and pregnant women. And as for the Flu:

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?

[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.

[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.

[PBear42]

@jrodefeld

@PBear42

I agree with this. Also with CannyDan’s similar points in Post #549. As a thought exercise yesterday, I contemplated trying to wrestle this beast to the ground and bring together in one post the various elements of the OP’s platform. Then I logged in to discover the thread had sprouted another three pages. Sorry, JRod, but this is getting to be too much like work. I’m moving on.

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.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@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.

Ron Paul is not endorsing homeopathy, but rather health freedom. Don’t you see the danger for government restricting access to certain kinds of medical treatments and alternative therapies? The abuse of such a system should be obvious.

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.

Why do you care if I or another person seeks medical help from someone who you don’t like? Isn’t this what freedom is all about?

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.

By the way, I know more about vaccinations and alternative medicine than most people, given how I was raised and through life experiences.

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.

[QUOTE]

I do not claim that - I only note that it is an example of your lack of ability to evaluate evidence.

Of course this is bullshit, but it seems you like to focus on irrelevant points to mask your inability to form a cogent argument against the larger topic at hand.

And yet despite this you keep coming back to defend an indefensible position.

Why don’t you support health freedom?

Its not freedom, it is quackery and criminal.

[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.