Corporate Funded Research
We have been having a pretty good discussion here on the role of the government vs. the private market in bringing about much needed change in the fields of energy, education, health care, infrastructure. Even in the five years I’ve been associated with a major research university like USC, I have seen a disturbing change in the role of the private corporation in funding research. Yesterday Senator Charles Grassley revealed the basic problem with this new dependence on the corporation–the conflict of interest.
A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators.
As has been pointed out by some of our contributors the increased tranquilizing of young children in school has led to a 40-fold increase in the prescription of anti-psychotic drugs for children in 10 years.
Doctors have known for years that antipsychotic drugs, sometimes called major tranquilizers, can quickly subdue children. But youngsters appear to be especially susceptible to the weight gain and metabolic problems caused by the drugs, and it is far from clear that the medications improve children’s lives over time, experts say.
In the last 25 years, drug and device makers have displaced the federal government as the primary source of research financing, and industry support is vital to many university research programs. But as corporate research executives recruit the brightest scientists, their brethren in marketing departments have discovered that some of these same scientists can be terrific pitchmen.
Our Libertarian cohort believes this is all well and good–the invisible hand of the marketplace delivering just the right solution to these kids.
Oh yeah?
Given the unlikely scenario that drug manufacturers have only the public interest at heart, we would still need expert oversight of the products and services they bring to market, because mistakes can and will be made. Who among us is qualified to assess the safety and efficacy of drugs whose misuse could be fatal? Certainly I am not, but increasingly, I am afraid that corporate shills, wearing white coats, are all too eager to please the drug companies or their analogues in other endeavors. Waiting for the “invisible hand” of the marketplace to warn us off could very well cost us a lot of lives. Maybe our own. The only realistic answer is to have government do the monitoring for us in an open and transparent manner. We may not be qualified to evaluate their science, but at least we can see how they approach the task.
Should we not regulate air travel? How about uniform standards for automobile brakes and nuclear power plants? Are OSHA regulations regarding required safety equipment and training for people who have to climb towers and such too onerous? I have had an ongoing discussion with a libertarian friend over just these points. He insists that the loss of a few heart or cancer patients is no great cost when weighed against the costs of regulation. Similarly, he does not over-value the loss of a couple of airliners full of people while waiting for the market to act to ensure airplanes are properly maintained and operated. He is an otherwise intelligent individual, but cannot see beyond the simple-minded rhetoric of libertarians and their ilk. Of course, he is probably convinced that he will never be the patient or passenger on the doomed airliner.
The libertarians of my acquaintance defend their views despite any evidence to the contrary. They remind me of my friends who are members of the NRA (and there is considerable overlap between these two groups of friends). Any regulation of firearms, ammunition, or the firearm industry is too much. “The thin end of the wedge” as they see it. Even to the point, several years ago, of debates about “cop-killer” teflon coated bullets that easily penetrated body armor. “If they take away our cop-killer bullets, next they’ll be kicking in our doors and confiscating our .22s from the bedroom closet.”
As the father of three children, I saw for myself the resistance they could put up against nasty-tasting medicine. As an adult, I felt it my responsibility to ensure the medicine went down. Similarly, as an adult, I feel it my responsibility to try to convince libertarians of the naivety of their beliefs, however earnestly held. It’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
Great post, up until you get to this:
“Our Libertarian cohort believes this is all well and good–the invisible hand of the marketplace delivering just the right solution to these kids.”
It’s not like government-backed science is necessarily pure as the driven snow — witness the Bush Administration’s pressure on research like global warming. Big Business and Big Government are both subject to the “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” syndrome.
Until we somehow manage to reel in the power of Big Everything, it’s not a question of whether science will be corrupted, but by whom and by how much.
51% of insured Americans are on medication — I bet lifestyle changes would be better treatment for most. . . but Big Pharma doesn’t profit off of things like increased exercise frequency and cutting back on eating crap — and a fair percentage likely shouldn’t be on medication at all.
And if 51% of (insured) Americans needed to be on medication, that should be huge cry for behavior shifts in the nation because aside from the occasional herbal remedies, cranking your body full of chemicals is unnatural. . . worse with so many Americans on meds, the water supply is only going to grow more tainted from trace meds than it already is.
Sir Ted Robinson gave a ted talk in 2006 discussing creativity and the future of education and told a brief anecdote about a renowned choreographer. As a child she couldn’t sit still and was constantly in trouble at school. Her mother finally took her to a therapist who told her to enroll her daughter in dance classes because the girl needed to move to think, which delighted the girl because she was finally around people who need to move to think as well. Robinson noted that today, a doctor would just medicate the girl and move on, which would be a great loss for the dance community.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY
How many great future artists and philosophers are we ripping the wings off with medication?
Yes, thankfully tho Patrick you aren’t the parent – and your friends all have gotten to keep their guns. NO ONE is “asking” to keep our rights, if that were the case, we’d have none – no sir, we’re “telling” you how it is and you have no more control than your children do.
That said, I personally view psychiatry as pretty much a sham, but you shouldn’t be surprised that science is getting better and will continue to do so at making weird chemicals that manipulate brain function.
“Don’t give that shit to your kids.”
That’s a great message Jon, and that’s how much power you should have and it is how much power you need – when you meet people, say to them (like I do), don’t give that shit to your kids. You should have just said it at the end of your blog post.
But NO, there is something slightly wrong in your own brain that instantly wants to make you tax one guy, make a a bunch law, hire more eggheads and cops, and generally RUIN the important immediate message, “Don’t give that shit to your kids.”
HELL, call the AdCouncil (I can help you here), and tell them you want to produce a campaign, and let private charity help spread your message.
The point isn’t that all progress is good, the point is YOU AREN’T SMART ENOUGH TO BE THE WORLD’S BOSS. And it shows.
Morgan, speaking of “cats jammin’”, you are getting to be a real Katzenjammer punk yourself, kicking our globetrotting polymath host in the shin every chance you think you get. You managed to unravel a perfectly good string that Rick, with Patrick’s help, got off to a perfectly good start, and now you seem intent on skunking this one too.
You’re in very good company, Morgan, and it’s OK to converse. Like any gentleman, the man can take a good ribbing, but you’re trying positively to offend, and that’s a mistake. It’s a mistake.
I recommend that you go back to Rick’s perfectly clear, equable prospectus on how we ought to deal with climatic “chaos”. And although it doesn’t happen to guard American sovereignty, or short-leash our own government, as blatantly as you and I might like, I really doubt that you can find fault with it.
You ought to appreciate it. We’re listening. But you’re not.
“Our Libertarian cohort believes this is all well and good–the invisible hand of the marketplace delivering just the right solution to these kids.
Oh yeah?”
Sorry Hugo, he wrote the sentence. It wasn’t needed. So that’s that.
1. A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor’s cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. “It is overfull. No more will go in!”
“Like this cup,” Nan-in said, “you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?”
Oy vey ist mir, Morgan Ben-Organ-Even-You-Mother-Didn’t-See-Coming. What are you, the Princess without pea, all of a sudden? You look at one of the first prudent essays on global warming, and THIS is what you have say? That Rick’s SOCKS are mismatched? No, Bubbie. That’s meshugena. Go back, I’m asking you—I’m BEGGINK YOU!—and report back three GOOD things about that piece.
Go. Go! Be gone with you, awreddy…
True, TN. But like him I’ve wary of that sensei. It’s Sensei’s teapot that is presumed full (if not overflowing), and pupil’s cup that must come empty.
That’s just hinky. The wacky Brazilian I so recently ridiculed, he said as much.
As wacky, miniature Brazilians go, he was on the wiser end of the scale. So let’s split the difference, between Ugly American and Zen Master, and meet in Rio.
I probably won’t go down to Rio. But then again, I just might.
True, TN. But like him I’ve wary of that sensei. It’s Sensei’s teapot that is presumed full (if not overflowing), and pupil’s cup that must come empty.
That’s just hinky. The wacky Brazilian I so recently ridiculed, he said as much.
As wacky, miniature Brazilians go, he was on the wiser end of the scale. So let’s split the difference, between Ugly American and Zen Master, and meet in Rio.
I probably won’t go down to Rio. But then again, I just might.
Sadly, the man has made it a hobby to O’Reilly this site. He knows no shame, no boundaries, nor how to fact check. He is clinically a narcissist and as easy to change by words as we are apt to be swayed by his self acknowledged magnificence.
From WikkiPedia: “The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge (or skill) tend to think that they know more (or have more skill) than they do, while others who have much more knowledge tend to think that they know less. Dunning and Kruger were awarded a 2000 Nobel prize for their work.
“The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.
“Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it). They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,
1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.”
A large amount of the far right noise machine’s “certainty” comes from this effect and explains why liberals are often at a a disadvantage of appearing to be uncertain. Morgan will not get it, and will blast me with some “I’m rubber you’re glue…” bon mot which he will be convinced stands as a pinnacle of insight and wisdom. Poor sod. Our own little right wing talk radio wanna be, filling the airways with his HIM!.
I do find myself missing the kill-filter of Usenet.
Sadly, the man has made it a hobby to O’Reilly this site. He knows no shame, no boundaries, nor how to fact check. He is clinically a narcissist and as easy to change by words as we are apt to be swayed by his self acknowledged magnificence.
From WikkiPedia: “The Dunning-Kruger effect is the phenomenon wherein people who have little knowledge (or skill) tend to think that they know more (or have more skill) than they do, while others who have much more knowledge tend to think that they know less. Dunning and Kruger were awarded a 2000 Nobel prize for their work.
“The phenomenon was demonstrated in a series of experiments performed by Justin Kruger and David Dunning, both of Cornell University. Their results were published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in December 1999.
“Kruger and Dunning noted a number of previous studies which tend to suggest that in skills as diverse as reading comprehension, operating a motor vehicle, and playing chess or tennis, “ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge” (as Charles Darwin put it). They hypothesized that with a typical skill which humans may possess in greater or lesser degree,
1. Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
2. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
3. Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
4. If they can be trained to substantially improve their own skill level, these individuals can recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill.”
A large amount of the far right noise machine’s “certainty” comes from this effect and explains why liberals are often at a a disadvantage of appearing to be uncertain. Morgan will not get it, and will blast me with some “I’m rubber you’re glue…” bon mot which he will be convinced stands as a pinnacle of insight and wisdom. Poor sod. Our own little right wing talk radio wanna be, filling the airways with his HIM!.
I do find myself missing the kill-filter of Usenet.
I was standing guard over a gym door, a k-8 school and there was a dance in progress. If you left the gym you couldn’t go back in. As instructed I denied entry to a young person, as I looked sternly into this bright young face he look back unafraid and told me, TWS you are going to like this, to go fuck myself and their was nothing I could do about it.
There in lies the problem, he was right because their was the specter of a lawyer and CPS over his shoulder. I was powerless. I immediately began to rethink my opinion about drugging. This particular youngster anyway.
Being a parent is a tough job and not everybody is up to it. Disciplining a child today is all but impossible. The first thing a child learns is that the Child protective services sword is easy to wield.
It seems to me that the market for the drugs would be greatly reduce if they’re was more drubbing and less drugging.
The drugs are for the parent not the child in most cases and we need to ask ourselves why this is the case.
Many times hyper activity is aggravated by food allergies, night shades as in my case, It is best controlled by strong consistent and honest discipline. They can’t abide inconsistent weak sisters. Abide may not be the proper word, consume may be more appropriate.
Attention deficit is more of an attention inconsistency. If and ADHD child/adult finds an interest then step back because they can excel.
I have a friend and business partner who was given a choice years ago, time in the poke e or the service. He retired from the Navy as a captain had 1250 carrier landings over 250 combat missions was CAG on the Kitty Hawk and at 70 he is a State Legislator and still can’t sit still.
If you drug them how do they ever learn to deal with it. The drugs are and abomination.
I was standing guard over a gym door, a k-8 school and there was a dance in progress. If you left the gym you couldn’t go back in. As instructed I denied entry to a young person, as I looked sternly into this bright young face he look back unafraid and told me, TWS you are going to like this, to go fuck myself and their was nothing I could do about it.
There in lies the problem, he was right because their was the specter of a lawyer and CPS over his shoulder. I was powerless. I immediately began to rethink my opinion about drugging. This particular youngster anyway.
Being a parent is a tough job and not everybody is up to it. Disciplining a child today is all but impossible. The first thing a child learns is that the Child protective services sword is easy to wield.
It seems to me that the market for the drugs would be greatly reduce if they’re was more drubbing and less drugging.
The drugs are for the parent not the child in most cases and we need to ask ourselves why this is the case.
Many times hyper activity is aggravated by food allergies, night shades as in my case, It is best controlled by strong consistent and honest discipline. They can’t abide inconsistent weak sisters. Abide may not be the proper word, consume may be more appropriate.
Attention deficit is more of an attention inconsistency. If and ADHD child/adult finds an interest then step back because they can excel.
I have a friend and business partner who was given a choice years ago, time in the poke e or the service. He retired from the Navy as a captain had 1250 carrier landings over 250 combat missions was CAG on the Kitty Hawk and at 70 he is a State Legislator and still can’t sit still.
If you drug them how do they ever learn to deal with it. The drugs are and abomination.
I of course have the kill filter button, but have chosen not to use it.
Morgan and P. Cross are irritating and are probably good subjects for the Cornell Professors further study. We could of course take up a collection and give them one way coach tickets to the Ithaca airport, at which point the professors in white lab coats could take over.
I of course have the kill filter button, but have chosen not to use it.
Morgan and P. Cross are irritating and are probably good subjects for the Cornell Professors further study. We could of course take up a collection and give them one way coach tickets to the Ithaca airport, at which point the professors in white lab coats could take over.
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I can say with some confidence that as soon as Bush and Cheney are out of office, this whole discussion about the regulatory powers of government over the corporation will be moot.
There is no doubt that the FDA, SEC, FCC and FTC will begin to once again assert themselves. The Grover Norquists of the world will piss and moan, but it will be a fact of life.
Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I can say with some confidence that as soon as Bush and Cheney are out of office, this whole discussion about the regulatory powers of government over the corporation will be moot.
There is no doubt that the FDA, SEC, FCC and FTC will begin to once again assert themselves. The Grover Norquists of the world will piss and moan, but it will be a fact of life.
Let’s see…to get this back on track…corporate funded research. How about tobacco for a great example of this? Now that’s the free market at its best!
And for another approach to libertarianism, what do you all think of motorcycle helmet laws? Maybe motorcyclists should be allowed to kill themselves by getting into accidents without helmets on. No insurance card on you, and if you crash without a helmet, then you get left to die.
But maybe, maybe just, maybe many of us need to be protected from our own greed and stupidity and the G&S of others around us because greed and stupidity have effects that ripple far beyond our own individual selves. Tobacco companies knowingly poisoned millions of people and continue to do so. Perhaps the true libertarian solution would be to make them pay for medical insurance for every smoker. And part of owning a motorcycle would be mandatory very high accident medical insurance. Ever know someone who went down, then lived in a vegetative state for years, and then finally died after a couple of million bucks in medical care and convalescent care because he chose not to wear a helmet one day? Guess who paid the tab? California taxpayers… So the libertarian ideals of personal responsibility didn’t quite work there.
In a perfect world populated with perfect people, libertarianism would work fine. But it’s just like communism in that it does not take into account the way real people really think and act.
Corporate philosophy is too often based on the basest of human desires and emotions…win at any cost to the others, greed is good, the customers are just there to be fleeced, and what’s good for the corporation is what’s good for America. NOT…
Would anyone toss Morgan a life preserver if he went overboard based on how we see him performing here?
Let’s see…to get this back on track…corporate funded research. How about tobacco for a great example of this? Now that’s the free market at its best!
And for another approach to libertarianism, what do you all think of motorcycle helmet laws? Maybe motorcyclists should be allowed to kill themselves by getting into accidents without helmets on. No insurance card on you, and if you crash without a helmet, then you get left to die.
But maybe, maybe just, maybe many of us need to be protected from our own greed and stupidity and the G&S of others around us because greed and stupidity have effects that ripple far beyond our own individual selves. Tobacco companies knowingly poisoned millions of people and continue to do so. Perhaps the true libertarian solution would be to make them pay for medical insurance for every smoker. And part of owning a motorcycle would be mandatory very high accident medical insurance. Ever know someone who went down, then lived in a vegetative state for years, and then finally died after a couple of million bucks in medical care and convalescent care because he chose not to wear a helmet one day? Guess who paid the tab? California taxpayers… So the libertarian ideals of personal responsibility didn’t quite work there.
In a perfect world populated with perfect people, libertarianism would work fine. But it’s just like communism in that it does not take into account the way real people really think and act.
Corporate philosophy is too often based on the basest of human desires and emotions…win at any cost to the others, greed is good, the customers are just there to be fleeced, and what’s good for the corporation is what’s good for America. NOT…
Would anyone toss Morgan a life preserver if he went overboard based on how we see him performing here?
Jon,
When I grew up that was Grover Norquist’s job – he pissed and moaned. I think that’s what he is supposed to be doing. You don’t?
JH, since just last month you thought I was a right wing operative – let me put on my hat and say it isn’t hard to cause your ship to flounder.
Look at the logical flow of this chat as an example. Jon says some opinions /quotes and ends it with a pique, I’m not even the first to complain about his pique, but I make it personal attacking him directly (but I also answer his point), that offends someone else’s senses, and they forget the point and go after the personal. And from there it is lost. Now if that was my goal, I’d be pretty good at it.
But it isn’t.
The irony that the over-drugging of the population comes directly from jackasses thinking if they name something they don’t like, they can make it a disease, study it, and then “fix” it. Until you kill that, the FDA is as meaningless as the DEA. It’s the same with steroids, you if can’t stop the demand, you need a new strategy. And remember, even your drugs will be regulated. You’d have no Levitra right now. None.
You are hell bent on trying to return us to the 1970′s. Not even you liberals should be uncertain of that.
Jon,
When I grew up that was Grover Norquist’s job – he pissed and moaned. I think that’s what he is supposed to be doing. You don’t?
JH, since just last month you thought I was a right wing operative – let me put on my hat and say it isn’t hard to cause your ship to flounder.
Look at the logical flow of this chat as an example. Jon says some opinions /quotes and ends it with a pique, I’m not even the first to complain about his pique, but I make it personal attacking him directly (but I also answer his point), that offends someone else’s senses, and they forget the point and go after the personal. And from there it is lost. Now if that was my goal, I’d be pretty good at it.
But it isn’t.
The irony that the over-drugging of the population comes directly from jackasses thinking if they name something they don’t like, they can make it a disease, study it, and then “fix” it. Until you kill that, the FDA is as meaningless as the DEA. It’s the same with steroids, you if can’t stop the demand, you need a new strategy. And remember, even your drugs will be regulated. You’d have no Levitra right now. None.
You are hell bent on trying to return us to the 1970′s. Not even you liberals should be uncertain of that.
But Morgan don’t you see this explosion of drug prescriptions is directly related to the Market. Ten years ago Big Pharma couln’t advertise directly to the consumer. And now they spend $6 billion a year on consumer advertising so consumer will ask their doctors for drugs. Don’t you see how screwed up this is? And because we are the only major country that allows this madness, our drugs are 30% more expensive to pay for the cost of marketing.
But Morgan don’t you see this explosion of drug prescriptions is directly related to the Market. Ten years ago Big Pharma couln’t advertise directly to the consumer. And now they spend $6 billion a year on consumer advertising so consumer will ask their doctors for drugs. Don’t you see how screwed up this is? And because we are the only major country that allows this madness, our drugs are 30% more expensive to pay for the cost of marketing.
There are no psychiatric epidemics. What there is is more doctors giving more medication for fewer symptoms. It’s silver bullet bullshit.
There are legitimate psychiatric illnesses that benefit from medication. People with these illnesses are beginning to wonder what the hell the reason is that so many normal people are coming into the fold.
Maslow was right. What the average person needs to recognize is that water and unprocessed food; hygiene and exercise; security and safety; love and belonging; education and career; morality and reciprocity make for a healthy person. There are no short cuts. And our culture and any culture in the world would be a powerhouse if it observed this.
What has unrestrained government and capitalism given us?
There are no psychiatric epidemics. What there is is more doctors giving more medication for fewer symptoms. It’s silver bullet bullshit.
There are legitimate psychiatric illnesses that benefit from medication. People with these illnesses are beginning to wonder what the hell the reason is that so many normal people are coming into the fold.
Maslow was right. What the average person needs to recognize is that water and unprocessed food; hygiene and exercise; security and safety; love and belonging; education and career; morality and reciprocity make for a healthy person. There are no short cuts. And our culture and any culture in the world would be a powerhouse if it observed this.
What has unrestrained government and capitalism given us?
Morgan, my sensibilities weren’t offended. You’re fierce, defensive of the things dear to you, angry almost into rage. Very well. We of the Foreign Legion can make good use of those dangerous qualities. But before your Brie and hardtack washed down with an apologetic but proud Montrachet, you really ought to fall back to Algeria and look again at the OTHER string, in which you managed to shout down Rick’s extraordinarily reasonable brief on climate change, and to piss again on Jon’s shoes while doing it. Why?
Because you found a freedom-guarding piece missing? Because if so then guess what: so did I do. But is that a reason to pull down the tent? Of course not! Simple add our harmony part, and be grateful to for the hospitality of a house where our chords are recognized as consonant.
I mean Morgan if you’re a straight-out born contrarian and shit-disturber, then so the he’ll what? We all speak American here. But if you’ve got to be wrapped so tight as to take after Jon every day, in personal terms, heedless of where he is on the globe or of whence he’s returning or of what measures he’s taking to sustain this blog’s hospitality, then I personally would like to see you take that kind of angry defense of liberty and focus it on, say helping to outmaneuver and bring to justice the PRC leadership, because you seem to have forgotten that here, you’re among friends.
Morgan, my sensibilities weren’t offended. You’re fierce, defensive of the things dear to you, angry almost into rage. Very well. We of the Foreign Legion can make good use of those dangerous qualities. But before your Brie and hardtack washed down with an apologetic but proud Montrachet, you really ought to fall back to Algeria and look again at the OTHER string, in which you managed to shout down Rick’s extraordinarily reasonable brief on climate change, and to piss again on Jon’s shoes while doing it. Why?
Because you found a freedom-guarding piece missing? Because if so then guess what: so did I do. But is that a reason to pull down the tent? Of course not! Simple add our harmony part, and be grateful to for the hospitality of a house where our chords are recognized as consonant.
I mean Morgan if you’re a straight-out born contrarian and shit-disturber, then so the he’ll what? We all speak American here. But if you’ve got to be wrapped so tight as to take after Jon every day, in personal terms, heedless of where he is on the globe or of whence he’s returning or of what measures he’s taking to sustain this blog’s hospitality, then I personally would like to see you take that kind of angry defense of liberty and focus it on, say helping to outmaneuver and bring to justice the PRC leadership, because you seem to have forgotten that here, you’re among friends.
Does anyone here remember that link to an article about Morgan Warstler (or whatever) that he posted that referred to him as a “junk mail mogul” and a “conservative activist”?
It is not a pretty sight to see someone turn himself into a punching bag. I, for one, am going to attempt to lay off.
It was semi funny slapping him around for a while, but now I have come to believe he likes it.
German.
Does anyone here remember that link to an article about Morgan Warstler (or whatever) that he posted that referred to him as a “junk mail mogul” and a “conservative activist”?
It is not a pretty sight to see someone turn himself into a punching bag. I, for one, am going to attempt to lay off.
It was semi funny slapping him around for a while, but now I have come to believe he likes it.
German.
Hugo I’m already in Rio. I will happily split the difference with you on any of this stuff here. I love it when you get all dialecticized. And I really don’t have an axe to grind. I am anti political. All points of view are welcome, as far as I’m concerned. I attempt to adhere to the precepts live and let live and mind your own business. I am, however, opposed to bad manners.
Hugo I’m already in Rio. I will happily split the difference with you on any of this stuff here. I love it when you get all dialecticized. And I really don’t have an axe to grind. I am anti political. All points of view are welcome, as far as I’m concerned. I attempt to adhere to the precepts live and let live and mind your own business. I am, however, opposed to bad manners.
JH, you have been bested – deal. Even with guidance, you can’t help yourself, as I said, it is too easy to make your ship flounder. You just did it again, talked about me, instead of talking about the subject. Yawn.
Jon, we have witnessed an avalanche of new drug designs because of this crap. Your crowd’s dick pills are the tip of the iceberg. The past ten years has given rise to a massive market driven scientific advance in longevity. Even scarier than these new drugs, is the biologics, nanotech, and genetics – GOOGLE is in on it.
It is scary, but you are dreaming if you think the genie goes back in the bottle. And I hate saying that, because the truth is more likely that the genie was never in the bottle – it is just that YOUR GENERATION is dying, getting old, etc – and ready to buy the shit up.
Is that really your argument? Obama is going to make it illegal to advertise drugs, and that’s going to keep your buddies from using their health insurance (and now Medicaid) to get cheap pills?
So here’s the logical argument:
1. status quo is probably overall better anyway.
2. no way to stop it.
3. your generation’s fault and now subsidized by government.
You’ll find that’s my entire point for almost everything posted here. Perhaps you can preemptively cover all three points in your original post from now on. And try stop referring to mythical libertarians (instead woo us economic centrists), and then I won’t even have to post!
JH, you have been bested – deal. Even with guidance, you can’t help yourself, as I said, it is too easy to make your ship flounder. You just did it again, talked about me, instead of talking about the subject. Yawn.
Jon, we have witnessed an avalanche of new drug designs because of this crap. Your crowd’s dick pills are the tip of the iceberg. The past ten years has given rise to a massive market driven scientific advance in longevity. Even scarier than these new drugs, is the biologics, nanotech, and genetics – GOOGLE is in on it.
It is scary, but you are dreaming if you think the genie goes back in the bottle. And I hate saying that, because the truth is more likely that the genie was never in the bottle – it is just that YOUR GENERATION is dying, getting old, etc – and ready to buy the shit up.
Is that really your argument? Obama is going to make it illegal to advertise drugs, and that’s going to keep your buddies from using their health insurance (and now Medicaid) to get cheap pills?
So here’s the logical argument:
1. status quo is probably overall better anyway.
2. no way to stop it.
3. your generation’s fault and now subsidized by government.
You’ll find that’s my entire point for almost everything posted here. Perhaps you can preemptively cover all three points in your original post from now on. And try stop referring to mythical libertarians (instead woo us economic centrists), and then I won’t even have to post!
You are embarrassing yourself.
Nobody cares what you say.
I am certainly not in competition with you.
If you want to best me, be my guest.
I am disinterested.
I hope that you overcome your particular sort of attention deficit disorder.
All the best to you.
You are embarrassing yourself.
Nobody cares what you say.
I am certainly not in competition with you.
If you want to best me, be my guest.
I am disinterested.
I hope that you overcome your particular sort of attention deficit disorder.
All the best to you.
The best advice remains: don’t feed the trolls. But if they insist on ambushing you, study this guy.
The pharma case an excellent one. Patrick and Zak both make strong points about it. Even P. Cross has a useful perspective on the bogus quality of a lot of the diagnoses — though I don’t think ADHD is a result of parenting practices nearly as much as a result of the crap we eat.
What is the solution? I’m interested in some concrete discussion of the type of regulation folks would like to recommend. One interesting suggestion in the area of financial regulation that came up recently is the simple idea of paying the regulators more. This is at least superficially appealing — just up the ante a bit by making the bank minders more equal in status to the bankers. But I don’t think it really works.
Trouble is: I’m afraid what’s needed is just old fashioned values. We need to stop hypnotizing ourselves (or limit the corporate media’s ability to hypnotize us) into thinking money is the measure of all things.
The best advice remains: don’t feed the trolls. But if they insist on ambushing you, study this guy.
The pharma case an excellent one. Patrick and Zak both make strong points about it. Even P. Cross has a useful perspective on the bogus quality of a lot of the diagnoses — though I don’t think ADHD is a result of parenting practices nearly as much as a result of the crap we eat.
What is the solution? I’m interested in some concrete discussion of the type of regulation folks would like to recommend. One interesting suggestion in the area of financial regulation that came up recently is the simple idea of paying the regulators more. This is at least superficially appealing — just up the ante a bit by making the bank minders more equal in status to the bankers. But I don’t think it really works.
Trouble is: I’m afraid what’s needed is just old fashioned values. We need to stop hypnotizing ourselves (or limit the corporate media’s ability to hypnotize us) into thinking money is the measure of all things.
Yeah, you’ve said that before. And again, don’t say ANYTHING, except post after post, complaining about me. And I’m sure you’ll do it again. You are an odd old man. And I really do like odd, but you should have no allusions.
Yeah, you’ve said that before. And again, don’t say ANYTHING, except post after post, complaining about me. And I’m sure you’ll do it again. You are an odd old man. And I really do like odd, but you should have no allusions.
If we’re to use big pharma and the US medical profession and service delivery as a model for the world, then infant mortality will go up and average length of life will go down. How’s that for free market? We’re not number one in either field. But we are number one in obesity, among other gifts. And that is in a great part due to our fabulous junk food industry, another wonderful example of capitalism run wild.
Churls gone wild… What a scene! Wonder who fits this definition around here?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/churl
If we’re to use big pharma and the US medical profession and service delivery as a model for the world, then infant mortality will go up and average length of life will go down. How’s that for free market? We’re not number one in either field. But we are number one in obesity, among other gifts. And that is in a great part due to our fabulous junk food industry, another wonderful example of capitalism run wild.
Churls gone wild… What a scene! Wonder who fits this definition around here?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/churl
Just for our information:
We’re 42nd in the world in life expectancy, and we’re 37th in infant mortality. Now that’s something a good libertarian can be proud of!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200113.html
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
May good government protect us from such perfect examples of the free market capitalist system gone bad and under over-sighted.
Just for our information:
We’re 42nd in the world in life expectancy, and we’re 37th in infant mortality. Now that’s something a good libertarian can be proud of!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200113.html
http://www.geographyiq.com/ranking/ranking_Infant_Mortality_Rate_aall.htm
May good government protect us from such perfect examples of the free market capitalist system gone bad and under over-sighted.
“Churls gone wild… What a scene! Wonder who fits this definition around here?”
Rick
I would allude to it, but I have no allusions.
Good post.
“Churls gone wild… What a scene! Wonder who fits this definition around here?”
Rick
I would allude to it, but I have no allusions.
Good post.
I believe it was the Greeks that asked the question”did He have passion”? Of course it was at the funeral.
I believe it was the Greeks that asked the question”did He have passion”? Of course it was at the funeral.
Wow, and I thought I was the only one who was saying “something is wrong” with 15% of the kids in our local public school here being on Adderall or Ritalin for “ADHD”. Now there’s a bunch being put on these extremely powerful antipsychotics. It’s good to see other similar comments on this blog.
Fwiw, Dr. Peter Breggin has some interesting points on the subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/psychiatry-makes-war-on-b_b_103337.html
The above is a really interesting article — the phenomenon of “racing thoughts” is something he never saw when he first entered practice. Now he sees a clear link between this manifestation and the over-drugging of our kids.
As for corporate funded research, there is a libertarian view: “let it flow, leave it alone, man!” There is a view of the extreme left: “All must be regulated”. Then there is a pragmatic approach: Business left completely unchecked, raw capitalism, results in disaster (as just one example, witness the environmental effects in Taiwan and HK; or the oligarchy in Russa, completely unchecked robber barons).
There is nothing innately wrong with government providing regulation — to a reasonable level. Commerce (and societies) cannot survive without basic law and order, and basic regulation is simply an extension of that that. It’s the ground rules for a fair marketplace.
That doesn’t mean one condones silly policies such as price controls or other forms of heavy-handed regulation. But there is certainly a logical and reasonable middle ground.
The sad truth is that the FDA’s senior political management is completely owned by Big Pharma.
Wow, and I thought I was the only one who was saying “something is wrong” with 15% of the kids in our local public school here being on Adderall or Ritalin for “ADHD”. Now there’s a bunch being put on these extremely powerful antipsychotics. It’s good to see other similar comments on this blog.
Fwiw, Dr. Peter Breggin has some interesting points on the subject.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-peter-breggin/psychiatry-makes-war-on-b_b_103337.html
The above is a really interesting article — the phenomenon of “racing thoughts” is something he never saw when he first entered practice. Now he sees a clear link between this manifestation and the over-drugging of our kids.
As for corporate funded research, there is a libertarian view: “let it flow, leave it alone, man!” There is a view of the extreme left: “All must be regulated”. Then there is a pragmatic approach: Business left completely unchecked, raw capitalism, results in disaster (as just one example, witness the environmental effects in Taiwan and HK; or the oligarchy in Russa, completely unchecked robber barons).
There is nothing innately wrong with government providing regulation — to a reasonable level. Commerce (and societies) cannot survive without basic law and order, and basic regulation is simply an extension of that that. It’s the ground rules for a fair marketplace.
That doesn’t mean one condones silly policies such as price controls or other forms of heavy-handed regulation. But there is certainly a logical and reasonable middle ground.
The sad truth is that the FDA’s senior political management is completely owned by Big Pharma.
Does anyone here think that the explosion of ADD and ADHD may be connected to how our kids receive information these days? Kids’ TV and music videos with the edit cuts every two seconds do not exactly encourage young brains to concentrate for very long on anything, and kids spend more time watching that stuff than they do reading books or talking with their parents or observing nature.
Jack ‘em up and dope ‘em out…
Does anyone here think that the explosion of ADD and ADHD may be connected to how our kids receive information these days? Kids’ TV and music videos with the edit cuts every two seconds do not exactly encourage young brains to concentrate for very long on anything, and kids spend more time watching that stuff than they do reading books or talking with their parents or observing nature.
Jack ‘em up and dope ‘em out…
So all I ever hear from conservatives and Morgan’s ilk are that everything is OK. Don’t touch a thing. If someone starts complaining about unfairness, tough shit. So I want to know, do they REALLY think this country is doing so well? Do you REALLY think 50% of the public on medication is a GOOD thing? Giving drugs to kids under 10- that’s GOOD??? It’s not hard to discipline a kid without violence or fear of CPS. You don’t need drugs, that’s for sure.
So when we start talking about these issues, instead of discussing the ISSUE, these folks only combat the method of attacking the issue. It’s so old, predictable and tired.
So all I ever hear from conservatives and Morgan’s ilk are that everything is OK. Don’t touch a thing. If someone starts complaining about unfairness, tough shit. So I want to know, do they REALLY think this country is doing so well? Do you REALLY think 50% of the public on medication is a GOOD thing? Giving drugs to kids under 10- that’s GOOD??? It’s not hard to discipline a kid without violence or fear of CPS. You don’t need drugs, that’s for sure.
So when we start talking about these issues, instead of discussing the ISSUE, these folks only combat the method of attacking the issue. It’s so old, predictable and tired.
I don’t know guys – kids keep getting smarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
We certainly need a centrist approach, but we need to admit and remember that generally the kid situation is better than it was 10 years ago, 20 years, etc.
And I think we’d see many positive effects if we stop intellectualizing it and just starting saying, “don’t give that shit to your kids.” Let people start with a negative connotation of it, and let the doctor try and convince the parent it is ok.
I don’t know guys – kids keep getting smarter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
We certainly need a centrist approach, but we need to admit and remember that generally the kid situation is better than it was 10 years ago, 20 years, etc.
And I think we’d see many positive effects if we stop intellectualizing it and just starting saying, “don’t give that shit to your kids.” Let people start with a negative connotation of it, and let the doctor try and convince the parent it is ok.
In any case, government oversight means WE oversee. We get to elect GW out of office and that will change the oversight process. With a corporation paying for everything we get psychiatrists hiding they’re paid for opinions and marketing disguised as research. The other side of this however is a diligent media. WE again are part of this in the internet age. Keep a critical eye on all powers that be and we ought to stay afloat…
In any case, government oversight means WE oversee. We get to elect GW out of office and that will change the oversight process. With a corporation paying for everything we get psychiatrists hiding they’re paid for opinions and marketing disguised as research. The other side of this however is a diligent media. WE again are part of this in the internet age. Keep a critical eye on all powers that be and we ought to stay afloat…
When you say “don’t give that shit to your kids” Morgan, who the hell cares what you think? I don’t mean this in a derogatory way, I just mean that people listen to studies and expect this research to be independent. You might be smarter than everyone else but you’re not accredited by Harvard…
When you say “don’t give that shit to your kids” Morgan, who the hell cares what you think? I don’t mean this in a derogatory way, I just mean that people listen to studies and expect this research to be independent. You might be smarter than everyone else but you’re not accredited by Harvard…
Kids may test smarter, but I don’t see them as having more common sense. IQ tests only test one kind of intelligence, and perhaps the tests themselves are skewed to a post-modern video-learning style so all we see is higher scores in one narrow field of vision.
As per the US rankings in infant mortality and life expectancy, it would be interesting to see the US ranking in scholastic achievement. I doubt we’re in the top five.
KB,
Something Morgan said set the bells to ringing in my head, after the echo’s subsided I realized it was one of those missing pieces. “cheaters” Socialist are cheaters, they want control of the wealth and power but have none of the responsibilities or investment or hard work that is required for both. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, believe me they are both in their hearts Laze Fair capitalists.
Socialist are like thieves lusting for another’s man’s wealth. Socialist have contaminated our system to the point that we are unable to recreate the beneficial things. Jon mentioned the Marshall plan, interstate highways; I would add the space program for one. These things created wealth, technology and enhanced personal freedoms and added to the quality of life.
We have spent trillions to alleviate poverty only to created dependency, as is the plan. We have spent trillions on education only to see our children sink into ignorance and dependency, as is the plan. The family, where discipline, character and education begin has been reduced to insignificance, as is the plan. That the great unwashed masses can’t recognize the utter bankruptcy of socialism is exactly the point. They now are entitled and dependent, as is the plan.
Big government control visa vie, Social Security, Medicare, farm policies, Dept. of Education and business subsidies, which is only the tip of the iceberg only foster dependency that leads to even bigger government. As is the plan. “The individual is secondary to the community that is the essence of what you believe if you are a socialist”.
When I was fifteen a Lady, an original suffragette, attorney and Cleveland’s first female prosecuting attorney told me exactly that. Nothing has changed, nothing will change, and because socialists still believe to their very sole no matter how many times it fails they just will not believe it. They know what’s best for us.
Show me where socialism has fostered the human spirit, encouraged people to be responsible for themselves and their families, to contribute rather than feel entitled. To take control of their own lives. That’s what the Gentlemen who created this country were about.
Belittling people accomplishes nothing and exposes a bankruptcy of ideas on your part, it doesn’t make your point it only reinforces mine.
If you are a socialist your opinion of me is of no importance. Others are on a case by case basis.
Jon, I do appreciate the opportunity.
Have a nice day
Regards
Rick said, “Corporate philosophy is too often based on the basest of human desires and emotions…win at any cost to the others, greed is good, the customers are just there to be fleeced, and what’s good for the corporation is what’s good for America. NOT…”
And that’s one of the keys to the debate. In a climate of a legal obligation to maximize profits for shareholders we see all sorts of insular corporate decisions (e.g. pushing medication requests by consumers through crafted ads, and promotions to docs to encourage them to go along with the process) that ignore long term benefit for the commonweal. In fact, the commonweal is considered an impediment in some board rooms (but far from all) such as Enron. The bad ones are getting legal interpretations to shore up their questionable business practices and turn them into “due diligence” forcing the more ethical boards and CEOs to defensively adopt similar practices.
At its worst we see industries killing the very budget the conservatives consider sacrosanct: the defense appropriations which are the heart of a strong military.
“The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday declared that cost overruns for Defense Department weapons had “reached crisis proportions,” after government auditors reported that the projected final cost of the Pentagon’s major programs had ballooned $295 billion over initial budget estimates.
The chairman, Senator Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan, also said that he would propose a law creating an independent director of cost assessment at the Pentagon. Mr. Levin said there was a need for stronger evaluation of whether contractors were making unrealistic promises to get programs started, ensuring later overruns and delays.” NYT article
While the military overruns are a combination of gov mismanagement, and private corporations taking advantage of it, the fact would appear that the “market” here is unchecked in any self regulating way. And corporations are going to see it as a business requirement to exploit that lack of oversight.
Unfortunately, Big Pharma has taken a similar path, thanks to the BushCo allergy to enforcing regulations that are on the books, and congress critters of both stripes rolling over for treats by giving Big Pharma the freedom to advertise and the artificial price props of patent extensions. (It’s all market driven you know.) Unfortunately the market is one that is exclusive to the congress critters and the wares are influence on votes and bills that create artificial demand for branded medications that has no checks and balances short of major failure (e.g. Vioxx).
But then, of course, Merck is justified in fighting for the high cost of its products because it has to spend more to promote “tort reform” as well as pay the settlements. Poor Merck.
The point is that too many corporations have been backed into a short sighted growth above all else mentality which creates an even higher need for some form of independent regulation that favors the commonweal’s safety and long term benefit. There is no way that will happen in a totally unfettered market.
PC we cross posted, and I think your “Belittling people accomplishes nothing and exposes a bankruptcy of ideas on your part, it doesn’t make your point it only reinforces mine.” is such an interesting statement.
Where did the belittling occur? Pointing out the Morgan does exactly that in a manner that makes him suspect of believing himself smarter than he is? That’s an observation that I could cite post after post after post of Morgan’s to substantiate. That you feel wounded by the overspray (did I mention you specifically?) is revealing. And bloody ironic.
The simple answer to your rhetorically intended question in your most recent post is Denmark.
And it’s not all or nothing in my world. The individual and the commonweal have to balance to produce the most viable nation. That’s the essence of what Patrick and Rick are saying above. And, socialist though I am, I believe that with my heart and head. An unchecked government is as bad as an unchecked capitalist. Witness what we have now under Bush, then witness what Mao did. Mao, who borrowed the socialist label to put lipstick on his pig of totalitarianism, is much more repugnant to me than the Bush neo-cons, and they are pretty damn repugnant.
So, you just have a splendid day too.
Actions are more important than labels.
P.Cross-It is only in the twisted monologues of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that the notion of government regulation of the pharmaceutical business or the airline business could be equated with “socialism”. You are obviously so young that you don’t realize that when the government mandated that automakers put seatbelts in cars, it was seen as a “public good”. So lay off the socialism con. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Industries in competitive positions are caught in what mathematicians call the “prisoner’s dilemma”. If you run a coal fired power plant you don’t want to install a carbon sequestration system unless all of your competitors have to install it, because it would put you at a cost disadvantage. This is where smart regulation can help, because the utility is externalizing the pollution (i.e. you pay the health bill for your son’s asthma) cost.
Your side is going to have to stop these childish arguments–”the socialists want to take all my money and give it to welfare queens driving Cadillac’s”. It’s an old con, and it has nothing to do with the argument that the government has the responsibility to protect all the people from the greed heads. Do you not think it’s smart for the SEC to bust inside trading?
P.Cross-It is only in the twisted monologues of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity that the notion of government regulation of the pharmaceutical business or the airline business could be equated with “socialism”. You are obviously so young that you don’t realize that when the government mandated that automakers put seatbelts in cars, it was seen as a “public good”. So lay off the socialism con. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Industries in competitive positions are caught in what mathematicians call the “prisoner’s dilemma”. If you run a coal fired power plant you don’t want to install a carbon sequestration system unless all of your competitors have to install it, because it would put you at a cost disadvantage. This is where smart regulation can help, because the utility is externalizing the pollution (i.e. you pay the health bill for your son’s asthma) cost.
Your side is going to have to stop these childish arguments–”the socialists want to take all my money and give it to welfare queens driving Cadillac’s”. It’s an old con, and it has nothing to do with the argument that the government has the responsibility to protect all the people from the greed heads. Do you not think it’s smart for the SEC to bust inside trading?
Jon, smart regulation is important, I repeat, smart regulation is important. Smart tax reform is important. I repeat, smart tax reform is important.
That said, you can’t easily make drugs of any type illegal, especially not with your “me generation” getting older – it is a quagmire of un-smart regulation, wherein the drugs you want are totally fine, and the drugs screwing up your neighbors – you are against. More to the point, if it is legal anywhere in the world, it is legal.
You can limit pharma advertising, and the $$$ will simply leave TV and hit the Internet, good for Google, bad for Comcast.
Look, I’m all for figuring out how much we can take from the economy before it hurts growth, and then favoring certain kinds of behavior, or rather letting you atleast try to favor certain kinds of behavior with tax policy.
But if you only have a certain amount of money to spend, and spending it means you can’t spend it someplace else, what SPECIFIC regulation approach do you think is going to reverse this trend in science. I mean, tell me what the rule looks like, how is it enforced, and what are the punishments?
BTW, Ken – Denmark sucks. jk.
BTW, Ken – Denmark sucks. jk.
Fwiw, interesting writeup on pharma marketing here:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026
Fwiw, interesting writeup on pharma marketing here:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/7026
Yes. But if you participate in the markets, let the buyer beware.
Reasonable regulation especially on industries that can have a serious health and safety consequences. Clean air is important as is water.
That is not what we end up with today. We end up with huge bureaucracies that are consuming us.
I drive Volvo’s, and example of responsible business practices.
I think that reasonable regulation of the pharmaceutical companies is fine but the problem is what is reasonable. as in any regulation.
What mystifies me is that as with drugging of children, people act as if the problem just fell out of the sky, shazam whats this, all of a sudden we can’t control them, they’re acting up in class, assaulting other students, teachers administrators, parents.
The need for these drugs is a consequence of other problems. Big problems.
See what I mean, “childish arguments”
I don’t listen to either, Bortz when I can.
I wish I was: I still don’t think it’s any of the governments business if an adult uses them, just the insurance company.
Ah yes, the famous comedy circuit, the Bortz Belt.
Great lines like “Have you stopped taxing your wife?, or “Take my government, please.”
Always loved the classics.
Jon,
Your general lack of knowledge concerning libertarianism gives you no authority to criticize its views. As a libertarian, I acknowledge that their are weaknesses, certainly no system is perfect, but you need to educate yourself on what libertarians other than Morgan believe.
All joking aside, corporatism is a terrible thing. And don’t forget, it was the FDA who approved these drugs and paved the way for children to use them.
Jon,
Your general lack of knowledge concerning libertarianism gives you no authority to criticize its views. As a libertarian, I acknowledge that their are weaknesses, certainly no system is perfect, but you need to educate yourself on what libertarians other than Morgan believe.
All joking aside, corporatism is a terrible thing. And don’t forget, it was the FDA who approved these drugs and paved the way for children to use them.
Thank god. Always makes me feel terrible that am wearing the damn hat – I keep saying 40% of income taxes, makes no matter.
Danny, perhaps rather than a vague condemnation of Jon’s (and probably my own) opinions re. libertarianism (said opinions being strongly influenced lately by the endless contrarian comments of our resident impotent curmudgeon whose powers of persuasion haven’t affected much in this world) could you enlighten us as to just how libertarianism, as defined by yourself and one or two other like minded folks, might actually work in the real world with real people with real and perceived needs and wants?
I consider myself an ex-libertarian who is still very libertarian on the don’t fuck with me, and I won’t fuck with you level. However I do not see how such a philosophy can work any better than communism, tribalism in a modern world, monarchy, or democracy among illiterates. Any strongly believed political philosophy that does not allow for differences of opinion or understand that there is such a thing as a social contract binding the commonwealth is doomed. There’s this American myth exemplified by the image of the Marlboro man…rugged individualism, a pony, and a gun…John Wayne all the way. That’s all about as real as Indiana Jones. In fact, we are all interconnected. Even the Ted Kozinskis of this country wear trousers made in a factory that came over public roads and were bought with government issued money (unless stolen). The libertarianism presented here would deny that social contract and make the world a much meaner place than it already is.
I think this string moved from the serious to the name calling and back to a rather civil conversation. I really want to avoid the “I topped you” kind of language. We’ve gone six months without it, so lets not start now. If I have been guilty of posting in that matter, I will refrain.
I have tried to think out where this Laissez Faire idea leads. Here are some thoughts.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/gated-worlds/
Although this thread seems to be coming to an end I thought I’d just backup Ken in supporting socialism. I think Jon is right that there is an old socialist con floating round the American political discourse that has little to do with the actual philosophy or practice of socialism.
Although Denmark is a good modern day example, I’d point you to post-worldwar two Britain as a place where socialism uplifted the human spirit. The founding of the NHS, compulsory education (accompanied by free school meals to lift children out of malnutrition), and a host of other reforms that really put our society on the right track, even if there have been many attempts (or inadvertent policies) in the intervening time.
I’m very proud to be part of this tradition.
I meant to say, attempts to derail us in the intervening time.
Although Denmark is a good modern day example
Dear Lord, I grew up in Denmark and can’t disagree more. Socialism fits the Danes well — they are an easy-going bunch of people. But what you have is a vast sea of complacency and lack of drive. No one dare rises up, because the penalties are too severe (taxation).
It’s no wonder that educated Danes are fleeing Denmark, going to high paying jobs in other countries.
No, I did that socialism thing ala Scandanavia. There are parts that are laudible but as the “solution”, it’s not anything you want to see in the US.
And the UK… sorry, I’ve been there like many of you. It’s no fun over there either. That is one unhappy country…
There are good solutions. We have a great country with problems. Going lassaiz faire is not the answer. But there is a reasonable middle ground.
Although Denmark is a good modern day example
Dear Lord, I grew up in Denmark and can’t disagree more. Socialism fits the Danes well — they are an easy-going bunch of people. But what you have is a vast sea of complacency and lack of drive. No one dare rises up, because the penalties are too severe (taxation).
It’s no wonder that educated Danes are fleeing Denmark, going to high paying jobs in other countries.
No, I did that socialism thing ala Scandanavia. There are parts that are laudible but as the “solution”, it’s not anything you want to see in the US.
And the UK… sorry, I’ve been there like many of you. It’s no fun over there either. That is one unhappy country…
There are good solutions. We have a great country with problems. Going lassaiz faire is not the answer. But there is a reasonable middle ground.
Thanks for that blast of Fabian fabulism, Pete. The Dialectical Materialism just uplifted this human spirit.
Thanks for that blast of Fabian fabulism, Pete. The Dialectical Materialism just uplifted this human spirit.
*peering in bag*
I got a rock.
*peering in bag*
I got a rock.
Hugo – the whole point is that there are non-Marxist traditions of socialism, the British tradition coming out of the labour movement being a good example. No dialectical materialism, or any other teleological determinism required.
Alex – obviously your experience of Denmark is better than mine. As a resident of the UK, I’d agree for the most part (we’re somewhat unhappy), but that isn’t because we’re too socialist by any means. A lot of what we’ve got right comes from this political tradition, and a lot of what we’ve got wrong comes from undoing what was done right by it. This isn’t to say everything can be interpreted in these terms, but I think there are lessons to be learned here.
Hugo – the whole point is that there are non-Marxist traditions of socialism, the British tradition coming out of the labour movement being a good example. No dialectical materialism, or any other teleological determinism required.
Alex – obviously your experience of Denmark is better than mine. As a resident of the UK, I’d agree for the most part (we’re somewhat unhappy), but that isn’t because we’re too socialist by any means. A lot of what we’ve got right comes from this political tradition, and a lot of what we’ve got wrong comes from undoing what was done right by it. This isn’t to say everything can be interpreted in these terms, but I think there are lessons to be learned here.
Pete,
On my reading the Fabians were, without exception, bellowing chorusters of The Internationale, but if you trace them back to the “Christian Socialists” of the Victorian Era, then I’d be quite interested in learning more.
Pete,
On my reading the Fabians were, without exception, bellowing chorusters of The Internationale, but if you trace them back to the “Christian Socialists” of the Victorian Era, then I’d be quite interested in learning more.
Hugo- And here I was writing a magazine article quoting Niebuhr and Tillich, so we don’t have to go all the way back to the Victorian era to find the Christian Socialists. Try this one on from Niebuhr (Pete, Rick and Ken, don’t get freaked out):
The gospel cannot be preached with truth and power if it does not challenge the pretensions and pride, not only of individuals, but of nations, cultures, civilizations, economic and political systems. The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation. If there is no power and grace in the Christian church “to bring down every high thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,” the church becomes not merely useless but dangerous.
We Protestants speak critical words about the idolatrous pretensions of the Roman Church. But some of these pretensions are actually more plausible than this miserable identification of the “laws of God” with a particular form of democracy….
Hugo- And here I was writing a magazine article quoting Niebuhr and Tillich, so we don’t have to go all the way back to the Victorian era to find the Christian Socialists. Try this one on from Niebuhr (Pete, Rick and Ken, don’t get freaked out):
The gospel cannot be preached with truth and power if it does not challenge the pretensions and pride, not only of individuals, but of nations, cultures, civilizations, economic and political systems. The good fortune of America and its power place it under the most grievous temptations to self-adulation. If there is no power and grace in the Christian church “to bring down every high thing which exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,” the church becomes not merely useless but dangerous.
We Protestants speak critical words about the idolatrous pretensions of the Roman Church. But some of these pretensions are actually more plausible than this miserable identification of the “laws of God” with a particular form of democracy….
Jon,
Your forthcoming article sounds very cool. I could go as Left as Niebuhr any day, but as is evident even in that quote, his postwar Liberalism was still so rooted in orthodoxy as to be unrecognizable today. STS, I believe, alluded to the “artificial” shifting of the Center, and I think that’s correct. JFK and MLK were among Niebuhr’s admirers, as I’m sure you know, and Dr. King did ultimately take an unapologetically socialist turn of course, but Niebuhr a socialist? Really?
Tillich would be my favorite nominee for Dead President, were it not for Tennessee’s stipulation that it’s the Norwegians’ turn this time.
The concept of “stewardship” does loom in Tillich and especially Niebuhr, but at the time when Niebuhr was the highest flier at UTS, the United States actually was the steward of most of a ruined world, and folks were just beginning to come to grips with the enormity and organization of all that radical evil. Niebuhr spent a lot of time just trying to tamp down American triumphalism, so if only for that reason I can see why you’d look at him now, but it wasn’t just a schtick then, as it has been for the past 40 years. And the U.S. really was even more magnanimous and visionary in peace than it had been deadly and energetic in war. Ignoring that fact has become a part of the schtick.
The thing about the “Christian Socialists” of England, Scotland and Wales in Victoria’s time is that some of them weren’t really Christians and most of them weren’t socialists. But Ruskin & Morris et al, did sound a lot like your string (esp. Rick’s posts) on the loss of quality amidst the globalized over-production of obsolescent stuff. And in the form of the Arts and Crafts Movement, that tradition did of course find its way to Upstate New York, to the Midwest, to California.
Jon,
Your forthcoming article sounds very cool. I could go as Left as Niebuhr any day, but as is evident even in that quote, his postwar Liberalism was still so rooted in orthodoxy as to be unrecognizable today. STS, I believe, alluded to the “artificial” shifting of the Center, and I think that’s correct. JFK and MLK were among Niebuhr’s admirers, as I’m sure you know, and Dr. King did ultimately take an unapologetically socialist turn of course, but Niebuhr a socialist? Really?
Tillich would be my favorite nominee for Dead President, were it not for Tennessee’s stipulation that it’s the Norwegians’ turn this time.
The concept of “stewardship” does loom in Tillich and especially Niebuhr, but at the time when Niebuhr was the highest flier at UTS, the United States actually was the steward of most of a ruined world, and folks were just beginning to come to grips with the enormity and organization of all that radical evil. Niebuhr spent a lot of time just trying to tamp down American triumphalism, so if only for that reason I can see why you’d look at him now, but it wasn’t just a schtick then, as it has been for the past 40 years. And the U.S. really was even more magnanimous and visionary in peace than it had been deadly and energetic in war. Ignoring that fact has become a part of the schtick.
The thing about the “Christian Socialists” of England, Scotland and Wales in Victoria’s time is that some of them weren’t really Christians and most of them weren’t socialists. But Ruskin & Morris et al, did sound a lot like your string (esp. Rick’s posts) on the loss of quality amidst the globalized over-production of obsolescent stuff. And in the form of the Arts and Crafts Movement, that tradition did of course find its way to Upstate New York, to the Midwest, to California.