In which antivaccinationist Ginger Taylor is taught a lesson, and not by Orac

If I seem like a jerk, it is because I have been listening to the same irrational arguments over and over again.

Weird because we've been listening to your same admittedly irrational arguments, but nobody in this thread comes off as more of a jerk than you. Wonder why that is?

Those who are unvaccinated pose a minimal risk to the rest of the community.

Are you serious? Tell that to one of the 9120 people who got Pertussis in CA in 2010 largely due to unvaccinated children.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24082000

Dentists and everyone else who supports water-fluoridation are wrong. It is ethically and scientifically unacceptable.

So are you in favor of the government removing flouride from water in areas where the natural concentration is equivalent to the recommended supplemental dose?

Ron Paul is right. Those who are unvaccinated pose a minimal risk to the rest of the community.

How do you know that? What data do you have that this is true?

Delysid: How do you know those cell phone reviews weren't paid for by the companies who make cell phones? The fact that you're willing to believe anything you read on the Internet marks you as someone too unsophisticated to talk about political theory.

The State is accountable to voters. The reason they have a "monopoly" is because we have a means of dealing with them if they become corrupt.

I strongly suspect Delysid is nowhere near as good as he thinks he is. Dentistry requires critical thinking and patience, he has neither. Getting through college requires humility and a willingness to learn, he has neither. All he can do is stamp his feet like a small child and demand things he has never earned.

@AdamG

Yes, naturally occurring fluoride should be removed. Tens of millions of people worldwide suffer from skeletal fluorosis worldwide because of this. We shouldn't be drinking fluoride in naturally fluoridated water just as we shouldn't be drinking arsenic in naturally arsenated water. There is no reason to drink fluoride. It has no positive health effects other than its tpical role in hardening dental enamel. Hydrogen fluoride (produced from gastric acid) is quite nasty to enzyme function and calcium fluoride is not easily removed from the body.

Did you actually read the journal you linked? The resurgence has been widely attributed to waning acellular immunity and the conclusion was vaccine rejection may have been 1 of several factors.

"largely due."

Yeah way to spin that.

The resurgence has been widely attributed to waning acellular immunity and the conclusion was vaccine rejection may have been 1 of several factors.

Um, no. If you had actually read beyond the abstract, you would've seen that NME clusters were the largest contributing factor to the overall model. Nobody claims that NMEs are the sole contributing factor to the outbreak. I know this is hard for you to understand, because Epidemiological models are complicated, and you believe complicated models are false because they are complicated.

Additionally, if you'd read the paper (or followed the literature on this issue at all) you'd know that this is just another in a long line of studies implicating NMEs in outbreaks of several different diseases across several different states. In particular see references 15, 16, 21, 27, 28, and 29.

The resurgence has been widely attributed to waning acellular immunity

I'd like to highlight the disingenuous tactic Delysid is using here. Aside from the fact that he straight-up copied and pasted the above quote from the article, it's from a summary of the state of the knowledge on this topic before the contributions of this paper. The box literally right below says this:

What This Study Adds:
This study provides evidence of spatial and temporal clustering of NMEs and clustering of pertussis cases and suggests that geographic areas with high NME rates were also associated with high rates of pertussis in California in 2010.

And you accuse me of 'spinning?'

@Gray Falcon

LOL. I thought you were showing some potential until that comment. You are correct- I currently suck at dentistry. My biggest obstacle right now to getting better is dental school. The nightmare bureaucracy of dental school can only be described as a clusterfuck. The amount of time we have to spend dealing with paperwork and red tape is astronomical. As I've said before I would love to drop out of school and work for a private dentist as an apprentice. Dentists learn how to do dentistry once they get the hell out of the system. The DDS is an obstacle.

I've tolerated a 1000 comment barrage of childish insults and I'm still getting accused as being impatient.

The State is accountable to voters? You mean those same dumbass voters who you think are too incompetent for the free-market? And I'm the one who can't think critically? LOLOL

@AdamG

Now you are trying to accuse me of not understanding the science of vaccination or following the literature? This thread should be renamed "Delysid vs. every dishonest logical fallacy that everyone else can throw at him."

I said non-vaxxinators pose MINIMAL threat to the vaccinated. I did not say zero.

You said "LARGELY DUE." This journal did not say "largely due." I copied and pasted what it said in the article because something went horribly wrong the first time you read it and when you tried to summarize it.

Yes, you are spinning it. Are we in another debate regarding the meaning of words in the English language?

It's common knowledge among libertarians that progressives will alter the English language itself if necessary.

I must be stupid for subjecting myself to this thread.

Another sign of Delysid's immaturity: He's more concerned with the words used than the meanings behind them. Besides his brazen nitpicking in #1006, consider his use of the phrase "free society". Even though he can't prove that this anarchistic society can provide freedom to anyone (for example, people can forced to change their religion or risk being unable to find a home or a job), he still believes it is a free society because people have the right to engage in religious discrimination. It is a definition of freedom any despot will appreciate.

@Gray Falcon

Good points. Without the government enslaving we might be enslaved in a free society. We need a government to discriminate against us otherwise in a free society someone might discriminate against us. We need a government to rob us because in a free society someone might rob us.

In Orac's insane asylum freedom actually means despotism!

Delysid, are you currently mining salt? Has your family been killed by death squads? Are you able to attend school despite being an atheist? Tyranny is not being held up to real standards. You're not a freedom fighter, you're just a small child whining about not getting what he wanted, willing to lie and insult people when they correct you.

News flash: Most of us do know that government corruption and inefficiency exist. You are not the very first person on planet Earth to notice them. We are working to improve things by fixing what we've got. You are looking to burn down everything and dance in the ashes, unaware that when you finish, you will have nowhere to sleep.

Yes, naturally occurring fluoride should be removed.

By whom?

Yes, naturally occurring fluoride should be removed.

Amazing. The workings of the diseased gLibertarian mind in its full flower. I thought it was up to all those Bengalis who are going to be underwater in a few years to choose not to live in the Brahmaputra delta. Why isn't it up to people who live in high-fluoride areas to live somewhere else? Could it be a complexion issue?

@Delysid

I’ve tolerated a 1000 comment barrage of childish insults

Says the one who has called those who disagree with him on this thread stupid, insane, self-righteous, lazy, dictators, stupid (again...that one seems to be a favorite of yours), delusional, brainwashed, Statists, despots, etc. Why not just come out and Godwin the thread by calling us Nazi fascists?

Meanwhile, reasonable questions are posed to you which you repeatedly fail to answer with anything resembling evidence or logic.

For example: give an example of Libertarian theories being implemented in the governance of a country where it has actually worked.

Or this, why do you take Federal loans instead of paying for your school yourself or seeking loans from private businesses or foundations?

And on the topic of this comment:

Those who are unvaccinated pose a minimal risk to the rest of the community.

I'd suggest you take a look at just about every outbreak of disease. Measles is a good one to look at. A single person who is unvaccinated may pose a minimal risk to the rest of the community. A small group of unvaccinated pose a greater risk. A larger cluster of unvaccinated pose quite a significant risk to the community. And with measles, it does not take a large number of unvaccinated, at all, to be a significant risk to the community. For diseases where the vaccine is less effective, the risk posed by the unvaccinated is even greater.

So Ron Paul was horribly wrong (more than just the vaccine refuser are at risk), and so are you (there is greater than minimal risk, dependent on the number of unvaccinated, the virulence of the disease, and the efficacy of the vaccine).

Now here's a nice hypothetical for our libertarian.
Delysid, you are opposed to mandatory vaccination while you believe in strict liability. Now I suppose that, just as it is in our system today, neglect of foreseeable consequences would be a significant element in assigning liability in your utopia.
So here goes. You have a child who hasn't been vaccinated against rubella. Infected but not yet symptomatic, he transmits the infection to a pregnant woman whose medical status doesn't allow her to be vaccinated. She gives birth to a terribly damaged child who will need expensive care for life. You are then liable for not vaccinating your child in the face of the foreseeable consequence of your child becoming infected and spreading the infection to others who are vulnerable. If the infection your unvaccinated child spreads causes a death, you should be prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter.

The worst thing about Delysid is that he has no knowledge of what the word "freedom" means. Does he think that a Senator dreamed up the Child Labor act just to make things harder for businesses? Does he believe that the Pure Food and Drug act was a capricious whim of the moment? Does he think that the outlawing of discriminatory hiring practices was done out of malice? How can he not know the work and effort ordinary people put forth to get those laws made, so that their children could be free to be children, so that they could be free from fear of contamination, so that they could be free to work where they were able. And most disgusting of all, he dismisses their rights in the name of "freedom".

I must be stupid for subjecting myself to this thread.

The first four words of that sentence are the most honest thing you've said so far.

As for the rest of it, no one's subjecting you to anything. You keep coming back here. Go back to your sandbox of freedom with the other Ron Paul fanbois if the conversation here is not to your liking. I have to say it has been interesting watching a Paul cultist in full spate. You guys are more programmed than Scientologists.

Something that I assume is a quote from Delysid (only skimming, and I ignore him): "Yes, naturally occurring fluoride should be removed."

Oh deer. I guess he will save money by not giving fluoride treatments. Perhaps he will embrace lots of dental woo. Perhaps he will have a thriving practice removing dental amalgams because they contain mercury!

Oh, I did notice something about "private licensing." Yeah, I am interested to see how that works. I will note that the dentist I have been going to for thirty six years is retiring. Over the years he has changed his practices because he actually gets updated information and continuing education. I don't know if this is related to licensing, but it does relate to his personal opinion that his patients get the best treatment.

Fortunately he has pulled in a replacement that he and his staff (which includes a couple of his family members) approved of for skill, patient interaction, ethics and similar off beat sense of humor. I don't think they would have approved of Delysid.

Scrolls up thread and sees this: "I said non-vaxxinators pose MINIMAL threat to the vaccinated. I did not say zero."

Oh deer. I see he does not really pay attention, nor does he know that babies under the age of one year are quite vulnerable because many vaccines are only given after they turn one year old (MMR, varicella), and others take several months of doses to be maximally protective (DTaP, Hib, IPV).

He seems to want to pick and choose his science. That is not exactly the sign of someone who is a critical thinker, it is more of someone influenced by politics more than academic rigor. That is not something you want in any kind of real medical field.

And here, we were about to welcome Delysid to Respectful Insolence, just because he posted a nice rebuttal to Ginger Taylor. Then, he starts blathering about subjects he knows nothing about.

I suppose the girls in Podunk Ohio and the denizens of The Daily Paul are impressed with the boy anarchist/"soon-to-be-a-doctor"/dentist's apprentice, but we aren't...color us underwhelmed with his intellectual prowess.

"I must be stupid for subjecting myself to this thread."

(Translation)

I may (or may not), be finally flouncing off.

He seems to want to pick and choose his science. That is not exactly the sign of someone who is a critical thinker, it is more of someone influenced by politics more than academic rigor. That is not something you want in any kind of real medical field.

Just to bring this full circle, I'm reminded of what Delysid said to Ginger Taylor:

Science is apolitical. You are trying to politicize science and you are manipulating others using dipshit celebrities to spread your propaganda

It's sad that he can't recognize when he himself makes the same mistake. I've always thought that the key to skepticism is the ability to be wrong, and to be ok with being wrong. To be honest, this is a trait that I didn't fully understand until graduate school, which in many ways is designed to put you in scenarios where you're wrong all the time. I wish Delysid was able to go a few rounds with a thesis committee, I wonder if that would change his perspective on how to construct and defend logical arguments.

Chris, I take out mercury amalgam restorations based on radiographic interpretation and clinical examination because there is often rampant recurrent caries pulpal and interproximal to them. I will not not place them in my dental practice because they are hideously unaesthetic and no longer superior in longevity to composite or ceramic when they are placed correctly and maintained with adequate oral hygiene. It is also not fair to my staff to expose them to the mercury vapors released during the setting and placement of the amalgam restoration. Old school dentists had a life expectancy significantly shorter than the general population thanks to decades of exposure to various chemicals.

This is not my opinion.

But of course I am a quack now apparently because I oppose mandatory vaccibations. Measles has a mortality rate of 0.3% but we must all panic and demand for unethical authritarianism to save us.

Statism. It's such a great idea that it must be mandatory.

I SUPPORT PRIVATE LICENSES AND STANDARDS.

But not meaningful private licenses or standards, since you also believe failing to be privately licensed and/or failing to adhere to private standards should not stop anyone from practicing dentistry.

A license that isn't required to engage in the licensed activity isn't actually a license.

Some silly dental student: "This is not my opinion.'

Provided without any kind of citation. Yep, he is a dental quack.

"Measles has a mortality rate of 0.3% but we must all panic and demand for unethical authritarianism to save us. "

Why is that acceptable when it is easily preventable? You do know that is thirty deaths out of a hundred cases of measles. Multiply that by four million children born in the USA each year, and that means you are okay dokay with about 13000 kids in the USA dying from measles each year (remember the population of the USA has tripled since the early 1960s). Before the first not so great vaccines were introduced in the early 1960s almost every kid under age fifteen got measles.

You are not just an idiot, you are evil.

You are correct JGC. I think anyone should should be able to practice dentistry without permission from the State. This goes for any other type of medicine. I also think people should be free to build sell own cars and airplanes. And create and sell their own smart phones. None of this should require a State license.

In the current system the State protects shitty doctors. I'm sure you have read Orac's rants about medical licensing boards.

Oh, great I screwed up the math. Never mind.

But still if we assume every child gets measles by age fifteen and .3% will die....

... that means 4,000,000 kids born per year (new susceptibles) * .3/100 (0.3% deaths per cases) = 12000 measles deaths per year. How is that a good thing?

Hmmm, by some strange time machine miracle the boy anarchist/"soon-to-be-doctor"/dental apprentice who is not licensed posts as though he actually is a licensed dentist and actually has a dental practice....

"Chris, I take out mercury amalgam restorations based on radiographic interpretation and clinical examination because there is often rampant recurrent caries pulpal and interproximal to them. I will not not place them in my dental practice because they are hideously unaesthetic and no longer superior in longevity to composite or ceramic when they are placed correctly and maintained with adequate oral hygiene. It is also not fair to my staff to expose them to the mercury vapors released during the setting and placement of the amalgam restoration. Old school dentists had a life expectancy significantly shorter than the general population thanks to decades of exposure to various chemicals."

Bullsh!t

Prove that composite or ceramic restorations are longer lasting that amalgam fillings.

Prove that "your staff" is exposed to dangerous mercury vapors.

"This is not my opinion."

Whose opinion are you referring to. Those opinions are not the opinions of the American Dental Association, the World Health Association and other dental licensing groups throughout the world...

http://www.ada.org/1741.aspx

So much for the safety of composite dental fillings in pediatric populations.

Tsk, tsk...Delysid. You ought to go to reliable sources, instead of relying on Joe Mercola and Mark Geier.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/07/11/peds.201…

Dental Composite Restorations and Psychosocial Function in Children

Nancy N. Maserejian, ScDa,
Felicia L. Trachtenberg, PhDa,
Russ Hauser, MD, ScD, MPHb,c,d,
Sonja McKinlay, PhDa,
Peter Shrader, MAa,
Mary Tavares, DMD, MPHe, and
David C. Bellinger, PhD, MScb,f,g

+ Author Affiliations

aDepartment of Epidemiology, New England Research Institutes, Watertown, Massachusetts;
bDepartments of Environmental Health and
cEpidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts;
dVincent Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts;
eThe Forsyth Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts;
fDepartment of Neurology, Children’s Hospital Boston, Boston, Massachusetts; and
gHarvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Resin-based dental materials may intraorally release their chemical components and bisphenol A. The New England Children’s Amalgam Trial found that children randomized to amalgam had better psychosocial outcomes than those assigned to composites for posterior tooth restorations. The objective of this study was to examine whether greater exposure to dental composites is associated with psychosocial problems in children.

METHODS: Analysis of treatment-level data from the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial, a 2-group randomized safety trial comparing amalgam with the treatment plan of bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (bisGMA)-based composite and urethane dimethacrylate–based polyacid-modified composite (compomer), among 534 children aged 6 to 10 years at baseline. Psychosocial function at follow-up (n = 434) was measured by using the self-reported Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC-SR) and parent-reported Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL).

RESULTS: Children with higher cumulative exposure to bisGMA-based composite had poorer follow-up scores on 3 of 4 BASC-SR global scales: Emotional Symptoms (β = 0.8, SE = 0.3, P = .003), Clinical Maladjustment (β = 0.7, SE = 0.3, P = .02), and Personal Adjustment (β = –0.8, SE = 0.2, P = .002). Associations were stronger with posterior-occlusal (chewing) surfaces, where degradation of composite was more likely. For CBCL change, associations were not statistically significant. At-risk or clinically significant scores were more common among children with greater exposure for CBCL Total Problem Behaviors (16.3% vs 11.2%, P-trend = .01) and numerous BASC-SR syndromes (eg, ≥13 vs 0 surface-years, Interpersonal Relations 13.7% vs 4.8%, P-trend = .01). No associations were found with compomer, nor with amalgam exposure levels among children randomized to amalgam.

CONCLUSIONS: Greater exposure to bisGMA-based dental composite restorations was associated with impaired psychosocial function in children, whereas no adverse psychosocial outcomes were observed with greater urethane dimethacrylate–based compomer or amalgam treatment levels.

Guess what lilady, I OPPOSE STATE MEDICAL LICENSES. I don’t, however, oppose private licenses. But a private organization should not (and without the guns of the State) cannot stop someone not in their organization from practicing dentistry.

*^*
O^O
Seriously?? I've had three operations in my life. The first was to fix an inguinal hernia when I was in preprimary. The second was to have my wisdom teeth removed and the third was to fix my nose after I had a car crash. In each operation, I was given anaesthesia to render me unconscious and then I was cut with blades.
There is a very good reason why we demand that medical practitioners undergo years of study and constant oversight. The human body, and by extension medicine, is incredibly complicated. If a surgeon or anaesthetist had been incompetent, I would be dead or disfigured. What's stopping a private board becoming the oversight version of a diploma mill?

You are correct- I currently suck at dentistry.

Paging David Dunning and Justin Kruger.

I’ve said before I would love to drop out of school and work for a private dentist as an apprentice.

What's stopping medical practitioners from abusing that by only taking apprentices from rich families in return for kickbacks ar "gifts"? It's been pointed out to you on this very thread that that happened before and that we now have oversight from multiple doctors to prevent that from happening again.

@ Julian Frost: I'm beginning to believe we are dealing with a Thingy-type troll, who claimed to have a (an imaginary) career as a health care provider. After a while you get a feel for the attention-seeking trolls who have serious emotional disorders and/or are burnouts from drugs.

We already know how measles affected healthy kids in the developed world, before the single antigen, then the multiple antigen MMR vaccines were licenses, in terms of morbidity and mortality...and how many millions of children have died in Africa and other underdeveloped areas of the world, because they were malnourished and did not have access to clinics and hospitals, once they contracted measles:

http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/a-look-at-each-vac…

"Measles is a disease that is caused by a virus. Symptoms include fever, conjunctivitis ("pink eye"), and a red, pinpoint rash that starts on the face and spreads to the rest of the body. The rash lasts about five days. However, the virus can also cause pneumonia, a consequence that can lead to death. Although some people don't think of pneumonia as a common consequence of measles, it is actually quite common. Some older children infected with measles suffer from encephalitis (an infection of the brain), which, in many cases, causes permanent brain damage."

(My older cousin contracted measles and was left with permanent neurological sequelae, before measles vaccines were licensed)

And...

"The effectiveness of the measles vaccine has been dramatic. In 1962 (one year before the first measles vaccine was made available in the United States), 4 million people were diagnosed with measles, 48,000 were admitted to hospitals and 3,000 people died."

Then there are the sad cases of children infected with the virus before one year of age, who years later developed SSPE and who died painful, lingering deaths...

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/tag/sspe/

Delysid - how many economics courses have you taken?

Do you know what an externality is?

@AdamG

I know this is hard for you to understand, because Epidemiological models are complicated, and you believe complicated models are false because they are complicated.

This - externalities make economics and ethics complicated, so Delysid ignores them. He is literally a Simpleton - he can only think in the simplest of terms and flies into a rage when confronted by anyone who is capable of understanding complexity..

An anti-flouridation kook as well - crackpot bingo!

So, at the end of the day, Delsyid's posts can be summed up with the following, "I'm not allowed to do whatever I want, when I want - thus Government is Bad, Bad, Bad....."

Wow, what a deep thinker.....I am reminded of those young, deluded souls I would see around campus shilling for Lyndon LaRouche - so firm in their convictions that we were about to enter a state of global economic collapse and only the words of Lyndon could prevent financial catastrophe....

@Delysid

Still waiting for your responses to these:

Give an example of Libertarian notions being put into practice in the governance of a country and it actually worked.

Why do you take Federal loans rather than paying for your education out of pocket or seeking financial aid from foundations or private businesses?

In your utopic vision, what is to stop private licensing organizations from becoming, in essence, diploma mills, issuing worthless licenses to incompetents playing at being doctor or dentist?

Also, I'd just like to ask, what, in your opinion, should be the consequences of choosing not to vaccinate? If the free market is what should dictate things, then what should happen if someone refuses a vaccine for their child, who then gets sick and spreads, for example, rubella, to a pregnant woman, whose child is consequently born with congenital health issues resulting in needing lifelong medical care?

Oh, and one thing I meant to comment on earlier regarding your "how does someone choose a cell phone?" and using initial hits on Google to support your argument. If I type "alternative medicine" or "homeopathic medicine" into Google, the first page is replete with pro-altmed or pro-homeopathy sites. Using your standards, that must mean that altmed and homeopathy are valid treatments.

You are correct JGC. I think anyone should should be able to practice dentistry without permission from the State. This goes for any other type of medicine.

Anyone who wants to, without without training and without regard to competence should be free to hang out a shingle and start performing brain surgery? That's really your idea of an improvement over the status quo?

Words fail me.

In the current system the State protects shitty doctors.

For the sake of argument let's assume that's to some degree true: the solution to the problem wouldn't be to create a system where nobody attempts to protect anyone, Delysid.

Ron Paul is right. Those who are unvaccinated pose a minimal risk to the rest of the community.

This sort of idiotic claim irritates me on a personal level because that "minimal risk" put my son in the hospital for several weeks and almost killed him. A pertussis vaccine safety scare in the UK in the late 70s and early 80s reduced vaccine coverage enough to allow large outbreaks to occur. My son couldn't be vaccinated for medical reasons, and was infected, leaving him coughing until he turned blue and fighting for breath. He was lucky, several other children died - one outbreak alone resulted in 102,500 reported cases and an estimated 36 fatalities. The vaccine scare turned out to be unfounded.

Without the government enslaving we might be enslaved in a free society.

If you truly believe you are a slave, not only are you delusional, but you also deeply insult the many people on this planet who truly are slaves, not to mention the millions who have died as slaves in misery over millennia. You haven't the faintest clue how coddled you are and to what degree you owe your comfort and freedom to your government, as flawed and inefficient as it no doubt is. If you don't like paying taxes, move to a part of the planet where you don't have to. No one is stopping you, are they?

I'm going to try to understand how Delysid's 'free market forces' would address the problem of incompetent doctors/dentists in a society where a license to practice was unnecessary. The most likely mechanism I can see is:

Doctor A is not competent (i.e., is marketing an inferior product).

Dr. B is competent (markets a superior product).

Competition results in Dr. B capturing the greater market share, eventually driving Dr A's inferior product from the marketplace..

The problem is that this mechanism is in place right now--thefree market forces will operate whether or not a barrrier to entry (in the form of licensing or certification) is also in place. What licensing requirements will do, however, is prevent the evidence of a physician's or dentist's "product inferiority" from taking the form of dead, crippled or toothless former clients.

I presume Delysid believes that if state certification of doctors were eliminated, then some combination of the following would happen:
- If certification were desired by the public at large (or by insurance companies that provide medical or malpractice insurance) some private companies would arise to perform this function. This would be sort of like Underwriters' Laboratories or IEEE. Different people (or insurers) would place different values on services performed by doctors certificated by different companies and those not certificated at all.
- If data were desired by the insurers or public, then private organizations would collect information and provide ratings which could be used to make informed decisions. This would be not unlike Angie's List or Consumer Reports or Yelp.
- While anyone could call him/her/itself a doctor or dentist and open a practice, the incompetent would be weeded out quickly by a series of bad Yelp reviews or a decision by insurers to blackball them - or by bankruptcy due to lawsuits from injured patients.
- People would need to do some research before picking a doctor or dentist to ensure they were competent, not merely a good fit and in their insurer's network. This could involve reviewing the certifications (if any), education (if any), apprenticeships (if any), and any patient reviews.

In short, buying professional services from a doctor or dentist would be just like buying a personal computer.

People would need to do some research before picking a doctor or dentist to ensure they were competent, not merely a good fit and in their insurer’s network. This could involve reviewing the certifications (if any), education (if any), apprenticeships (if any), and any patient reviews.

And this is still no guarantee. People lie about their education and qualifications. Dodgy companies often use similar sounding names to reputable firms. Companies have been busted posting favourable reviews of their products/services. Finally, it can take a long time to weed out incompetent/dishonest suppliers/providers.
I'd rather have what we have now.

The apprenticeship system in American medicine was one of the reasons smart doctor wannabe's went to Europe for their medical training in the late 19th/early 20th century. The results of the American system were inferior and European medical schools were widely acknowledged to be the best.

I refer you to Bleed, Blister and Purge, Gangrene or Glory,or the first few chapters of Barry's The Great Influenza.

One could argue that this preference for European medical schools was an indication of the market at work, but unfortunately presence of more qualified MDs in the US did not succeed in driving the badly-trained ones out as demand far exceeded supply.

@MO'B

To add to your summation, if you fall for slick advertising or don't have the requisite expertise to adequately evaluate the quality, well, you should have educated yourself better. If you wind up dead or permanently injured because you were not able to determine that the physician or dentist was incompetent, then that's your fault. The scammer or incompetent is not at fault. Buyer beware.

Another mechanism I hear touted in addition to market forces is the threat of lawsuits. However, that relies upon government enacting regulations, which Delysid has already shown he's averse to. And we already have examples of individuals who are not deterred in the least by the threat of lawsuits, so we know that does not work to ensure quality providers.

Shay:

The apprenticeship system in American medicine was one of the reasons smart doctor wannabe’s went to Europe for their medical training in the late 19th/early 20th century.

Then there were the folks who would take a few course, call themselves doctors and charge folks for lots of dreck. The most famous being the John Brinkley.
Charlatan: America's Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam by Pope Brock is a great read.

"People would need to do some research before picking a doctor or dentist to ensure they were competent, not merely a good fit and in their insurer’s network. This could involve reviewing the certifications (if any), education (if any), apprenticeships (if any), and any patient reviews."
This does not work well in a situation where you have no choice. If you are in the military, or on Medicaid, or incarcerated, or already in a hospital and having complications, or cut out of your burning car at 3AM, you have to hope that whoever you draw meets at least minimum competency standards, and not depend on someone's fear of potential lawsuits to get adequate treatment.

And here's something to consider when you expect religious congregations to provide the social safety net:
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/7361/churches_don_t_…

I’d rather have what we have now.

And in fact, what we have now is all of this (Angie's list does include physician reviews, there exist multiple other rating services online that specialize in health care providers, there exist multiple non-governmental (i.e. private) professional associations such as the AMA, AAP, APA, FAAP, etc. whose members must demonstrate appropriate training and valid certification, etc.) plus licensing requirements to prevent individuals from falsely claiming mastery in a medical profession they do not in fact possess.

All eliminating licensing would do is strip a layer of protection (and the primary layer at that) away.

@JGC

And we already have one shining example that an AAP fellowship affiliation is not a guarantee of a quality physician.

With repect to lawsuits after-the-fact being a solution, how would a jury possilby find physician to have failed to meet standard-of-care in a system where define standards of care either were not be defined, or where multiple private agenices defined multiple conflicting standards of care?

@JGC

A very good question. Delysid? What do you say?

@1044 He is the reason that particular organization came to mind...

@105 should read “a system where standards of care were not defined or multiple private agencies defined multiple conflicting standards of care”

I run a garment factory. I want to pay children between 10 and 13 years of age 40 cents an hour to work 12 hour days cutting fabric, running sergers, hand-sewing garments, etc.

I’ll be a reasonable employer—they’ll get the same 15 minute break every 3rd hour, plus 30 minutes for lunch (if they’ve brought any with them) adult workers do. (All bathroom visits are of course expected to be done during these breaks, not on company time.)

By doing so I predict I can undersell competitors by 35 to 45%, therefore profit!

Should society erect any barriers to my managing my business and employees in this manner? If not, how would free market forces address this situation?

(I suppose I should first ask if, from a Libertarian perspective, this situation would even be considered a problem that needs to be addressed.)

@JGC - sounds like a Libertarian Dream....if the kids don't like it, they can find work elsewhere.

It is an insane campaign. The mechanism of action of fluoride is topical. When the campaign first started in the late 40′s, it was thought that the mechanism of fluoride on tooth enamel was systemic, and therefore at least somewhat justified in drinking it. Those days are long gone.

Whoops. (This isn't the paper that I was trying to remember, but I'm in a hurry.) A moment's thought should have revealed the possibility that systemic fluoride might, you know, affect the concentration in saliva. Or that data between the introduction of water fluoridation and commonplace use of topical fluoride might be relevant.

You are correct- I currently suck at dentistry. My biggest obstacle right now to getting better is dental school. The nightmare bureaucracy of dental school can only be described as a clusterf[]ck.

Yah, I'm still wondering why you said you had 18 months left at what should be the start of your third year.

The amount of time we have to spend dealing with paperwork and red tape is astronomical.

You've still failed to explain this claim in any coherent fashion. If your dental school is taking Medicaid patients, then I imagine somebody knows perfectly well how to bill them. On the increasingly wobbly assumption that you're not simply making things up, the only explanation I'm left with is that this is essentially a practical component of your training and that you're really bad at it.

Perhaps you imagine that you wouldn't have to deal with insurance companies were you in private practice. Frankly, I suspect most people would consider this to be a value-added service. I'm certainly going to choose a pharmacy that bills my insurance directly over one that tells me to do it myself because they're too stupid to figure out, for example.

I truly don't understand why anyone would consider fluoridation of water to be mass medication but not chlorination of water. Both have beneficial effects on public health that are not dependent on systemic effects (though that's debatable in the case of fluoride, see Narad's last comment). The ingestion of both fluoride and chlorine in water at the target concentrations carry a tiny risk, in the case of fluoride mostly cosmetic, and considerable benefits. I don't see a huge difference in principle between them apart from semantics.

Besides, no one is forced to drink fluoridated water. You can buy unfluoridated water from a different supplier e.g. fluoride-free bottled water which you will find is sold at a very low price at your friendly local supermarket. You could also dig your own well, which I believe is quite popular in the US, or get a filter that will remove it. Isn't that the libertarian way?

If anyone thinks that no state has ever run on libertarian principles, think again: the apartheid-era Republic of South Africa was. In fact, I can't think of a more libertarian society, not even the Confederate States of America.
The white South African population wasn't discriminating; they were merely exercising their right not to associate with other kinds of people.
Nor were they hoarding all the best things for themselves; they were merely exercising their rights to the property and wealth they had won for themselves through hard work, prudence, and more and better firearms (the possession of which was also their right).
You just have to look at it the right (or Right) way. Coincidentally, the South African currency was called...wait for it...the rand. And their great hero was popularly known as Oom, or Uncle, Paul.

Both have beneficial effects on public health that are not dependent on systemic effects (though that’s debatable in the case of fluoride, see Narad’s last comment).

I get the impression that fluoride → stomach → saliva is still considered to be a "topical" effect.

Anyway, this (PDF) isn't what I was trying to remember either, but it was in the results the last time I wondered about this, which must have been around five years ago. A related question that comes back is the clearance time for fluoride-based dentifrices, which was shorter than I expected.

The point of this hazy reverie is that the conclusion I eventually came to is that the relatively steady boost due to fluoridated water, even if modest, was probably worthwhile in terms of nudging things toward 0.04 ppm salivary concentration.

Of course, I also let Yankee imperialism get the best of me and forgot about fluoridated salt, which would seem to go a fair way to plainly demonstrating that ingestion works just fine. The full text of PMID 16379137 is readily available if one searches on the title.

Perhaps D. also files such simple research under "mountains of paperwork" or something. In that vein, I'll go ahead and point out PMID 16263039, which happily lies in the spooky realm of econometric data and employs the incomprehensible voodoo of "Monte Carlo simulations."

Narad,

I get the impression that fluoride → stomach → saliva is still considered to be a “topical” effect.

That is also my impression, though it is in a gray area of semantics, in my opinion (it's that inside/outside distinction again, though this time biological). It's interesting that continual exposure to fluoride is required to maintain the advantages of fluoride.

I wonder how essential fluoride is to normal bone and tooth development. Perhaps it's like aluminum, in that no one is ever completely without it, so it's hard to tell.

ORD:

If anyone thinks that no state has ever run on libertarian principles, think again: the apartheid-era Republic of South Africa was.

I hope you are being sarcastic. Speaking as somebody who grew up under apartheid (I was born in 1976) I can tell you that that is not true.

Narad you are a dumbass. Your attempts at a superfluous vocabulary just makes it even more pitiful.

So you know more about dentistry and dental school than someone who does it? I'm glad you took a break from autofellatio to impart your wisdom on to us.

Perhaps if you learned how to interpret a calender you could use your genius to count to 18, starting from this month and ending at April, 2015.

You have no idea what red tape and paperwork is involved. I'm not going to get into it because I already spend way too much of my life dealing with it. We spend more time filling out paperwork and navigating the labyrinth of the bureaucracy than we do working in a patient's mouth and diagnosing.

Pulling down your pants and operating orally on your own penis might be a simple process, but it takes several hours of paperwork and other bureaucracy compliance just to do a cleaning. A minimum of 9 signatures need to be obtained by 6 people and over a dozen forms need to be filled out and a patient has to wait 2-3 hours before an extraction can be conducted. Depending on the bureaucratic congestion this process can take 4 hours. In private practice, which still has it's own necessary bureaucratic requirements, the non-medical issues takes only a few minutes.

But of course Narad, god of his own genitalia, with no experience in dentistry whatsoever, knows more than I do.

Also, the mechanism of action of fluoride for erupted teeth is almost predominantly topical. This contradicts the scientific opinions of the 1940's and 50's when the public water fluoridation campaign was initiated. It's not justified to deliver a topical medication systemically. The prevailing attitude among public health nanny staters is that "something is better than nothing if someone has no other fluoride exposure even if systemic delivery is far more inefficient and effective than topical delivery." I reject, from a scientific and ethical standpoint, this attitude.

It would be like giving systemic chemotherapy to a patient with superficial basal cell carcinoma because he can't or won't get a surgical excision or topical chemotherapy.

Wow - our troll friend has really gone on the deep end now, hasn't he?

@Lawrence

http://gifrific.com/jennifer-lawrence-sarcastic-ok-thumbs-up/

You really know how to convince an audience, don't you?

In a way, you're exactly the type of person who would embrace the libertarian philosophy - because you obviously don't give a damn for anyone else, do you?

I'm going to have to run #1057 past my friend Sue (who supervises the county health department's dental clinic) for a reality check on Monday.

American liberalism: "I care so much about other people that I'm willing to make the ultimate sacrifice and use the government to give them your money and make decisions on their behalf. I'm such a compassionate humanitarian because I vote and support the government."

@Shay

Why don't you ask someone who actually works for a dental school.

@ Lawrence: I told you we are dealing with a Thingy-type troll...who is definitely NOT "a-soon-to-be-doctor" or a dental student.

Ha, ha. I worked in a public health clinic which provided dental care to Medicaid patients and none of what the potty-mouthed troll stated, is true.

Also, the mechanism of action of fluoride for erupted teeth is almost predominantly topical.

Perhaps you missed the part where that was pointed out. The simple fact that you are not able to muster a single rational comment about either the material presented or, indeed, to say anything at all about fluoride kinetics, I think, in conjunction with the still unexplained six-month term boundary mismatch, makes it highly unlikely that you are a third- or fourth-year dental student in good standing, if you ever were at all.

Quick: One nerve block has several approaches, one of them uncommon in normal practice. Identify the nerve, name the approaches, and specify what the indication is for the uncommon one.

@lilady

Now you are calling me a liar? You can take your ignorant raging idiocy and fuck yourself in your your senile, menopausal cunt. I just wish I this was in person so I look you right in the eyes and smirk in your rhytidal face when I tell you to suck my potent dick.

I might be an asshole, but I am not a liar.

^ Scratch that "either"; it's left over from a hasty revision.

@Narad

I'd tell you to fuck yourself as well but it is obvious you do this too much already.

Why don’t you ask someone who actually works for a dental school.

Better yet, why don't we see what information OSU provides? Or look at the statements of a former dean?

"We are training dentists to understand diversity, be prepared to provide treatment to underprivileged populations and understand the problems experienced by this patient population," said Dr. Jan E. Kronmiller, Dean, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry. "Loss of Medicaid support for these adults would have a significant impact on our curriculum."

Perhaps you'd like to explain this discrepancy.

I’d tell you to f{}ck yourself as well but it is obvious you do this too much already.

You lose.

1066: Proof that there are no female libertarians except for Ayn Rand (and she wanted to be a man) and why the best response to 'I'm a libertarian' is going far far away. I've never met one libertarian who actually, deep in his shriveled little heart believed that women are human, and really, it's best to assume they[re all assholes, as you won't be disappointed in them.

Orac: Can you shut down this thread and quarantine the asshole please?

Delysid: "Now you are calling me a liar?"

Well it has been obvious for a long time that you just make stuff up. Starting with your odd renditions of history since the first of October when the comments were in the 300s.

I think my favorite was the depiction of Accuweather as something more than a media company that does not rely on the National Weather Service, when I had actually asked "Do explain what private company has taken over weather forecasting, which includes launching satellites." Take note of the last two words in the sentence.

Which the main reason I have been mostly scanning the comment thread and skipping your lunacy.

@Narad

Explain to me the proper procedure for autofellatio. What us the ideal pressure to place on the testivles? What are the indications for digital insertion rectally? Is it contraindicated to ingest sildenafil and inhale alkyl nitrites?
Perhaps you would like to explain.

[Lilady: "..potty mouthed troll.."]
Delysid: #1066.
Oh my, you really are going to have a great "chair side" manner, aren't you?

Yeah, I think this one has run his course.....

Orac?

Explain to me the proper procedure for autofellatio.

You have had over an hour to respond to a straightforward test of your claim that nerve blocks are a day-in, day-out thing for you. Even if this is one that you're not familiar with, that is plenty of time* for you to have simply consulted the resources that any bona fide dental student would have to hand or be readily able to locate online.

You then could have dashed any skepticism and happily been smug about it. Instead, you had a complete meltdown, leaving nothing but a puddle of fetid goo. I'd lay odds that some other commenter answers this before you out of sheer boredom with your tantrums.

So, in case the "superfluous vocabulary" was too much for you, all signs suggest that yes, you are a liar.

* L-rd knows it didn't take me much longer two weeks ago.

@PoliticalPig

Censorhip is the weapon of the brainless. If you are offended that is your problem. Oh the irony of you appealing to a man to silence my opinions while you spew sexist and bigoted hate speech.

I pegged the Tidy Bowl Boy weeks ago, for the phony "soon-to-be-a-doctor"/"dental student", he professes to be.

I nailed him up-thread about his libertarian views, his purported financial aid loans paid for with my Income Tax dollars, his b.s. about removal of amalgam fillings/replacement with composite fillings (see my posts at #s 1025 and 1026) and his most recent deranged posts about the paperwork involved with dental work for Medicaid recipients.

Let's not forget the real students at OSU School of Dentistry, who are concerned about childrens' dental health:

https://www.facebook.com/OSUDentistry

"I might be an asshole, but I am not a liar."

You're an asshole AND a liar, Delysid.

Note that the only "sexist and bigoted hate speech" on this thread was Delysid's, unless you count the bizarre definition created by right-wing extremists. Also, in Delysid's society, what's to prevent someone who was offended from challenging the offender to a saber duel, or simply beating him with a stick?

@Narad

Here's everything I know about nerve anaesthesia.

http://selfsuck.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Main_Page

We certainly have a "master debator" here.....

Here’s everything I know about nerve anaesthesia

Keep squirming, babycakes. Do you think your fellow travelers from the Daily Paul would appreciate a heads-up about the spectacle?

Gray Falcon: Saber duels sounds like something I could get behind.

Delysid: Boy, I sure got your number, didn't I? The fact is, you hijacked this thread, and steered it so far off course the only option is to scuttle it. I guess you don't subscribe to the theory that sauce for the goose is fitting for the gander; since you were the one who led with an attack on lilady, I just responded in kind. Hope you enjoy being sad and alone for life, bub.

@Julian Frost:
I both was and wasn't being sarcastic. Some Afrikaners defended their crimes in terms that were not very different from some of the things libertarians in the US say.

"I might be an asshole, but I am not a liar."
The correct responses to the above are "Yes, you are" and "Yes, you are."
You are also a sexist sack of shit, who resorts to name-calling and general nastiness when you can't defend the garbage you spout.
As for autofellatio, I suggest that you're doing it wrong. You need to wrap your lips around the tailpipe of an auto and inhale deeply. People will be far more complimentary to you than they are now - "De mortuis nihil nisi bonum."
You are obviously a sheltered child who has not yet heard of a place known as the real world. Prepare for a shock when you encounter it. It will not be very nice to someone with your views and behavior. I predict that within five years of leaving dental school you will be asking your clients "Do you want fries with that?". Your attitude will probably cost you that career too.

Frankly, I think Delysid's banking on getting banned in order to trumpet the "they're trying to silence the libertarian TRUTH!" meme.

Given than Delysid is failing to actually bother anyone with run-of-the-mill, unimaginative profanity, there seems to be little need to ban such a gadfly. The thread will eventually close on its own -- late December, if I recall Orac's 90-day rule correctly.

Thanks guys (and pgp) for coming to my defense, but it is not necessary.

Sad to say, that Delysid is a troll who has some serious emotional issues. When confronted with the bare truth for all the deranged lies he has spouted here for weeks, he cannot or will not "man up" and resorts to spouting filth.

Meanwhile, I've been having some fun with the Dachelbot and her cronies here...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/16/rate-of-autism-rises-in…

@Everyone

LMFAO at all of you. Nice predictions about my future failure. I don't understand the "real world?" Right. I better leave my country club sometime and take a safari through the lalaland that you all apparently occupy. I guess that is what I did in this thread. Progressive elitist whackjobs are everywhere but this blog has the worst infection I've ever seen. It's even worse than Krugpot's Conscience of a Liberal. I read Orac's blog months before I ever made a comment because I read the moronic ramblings of the people here and didn't bother. Go ahead and ban me. I'm getting bored anyway. You all can go fuck yourselves (except Orac).

Hide behind your anonymity and use the mob mentality to make yourselves feel better about your own hypocrisies and failures. I've had some hearty laughs at your expenses.

I suspect scottynuke is correct.

*double take* Did Delysid just say that everything he knows about nerve blocks is on a site about how to suck one's own genitals? Logically that would mean that when he does this "several times a week"...well, his poor patients, on a variety of levels.

Delysid illustrates the reason I can't bring myself to vote Libertarian even though I sympathize with the "people should be able to pretty much do their own thing as long as they don't interfere with each other" position and would like the government to be much smaller and more efficient at delivering value to the people. While I agree on principle with certain things, I also recognize that, with the people we have now and all their complexities, a Libertarian Party administration would be a clusterfeck.

@Gray Falcon:

"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Geeze, I leave this thread for some time and it descends into madness....

Can we finally lock this, please?

ORD @ #1053:

You mentioned the Confederacy in that semi-sarcastic post about apartheid-era South Africa as being a fine example of libertarian principles in action. Now, bieng this blog's resident American Civil War buff, I can thell you that the CSA was a miserable failure, which was fighting just as much amongst itself as it was against them damnyankees.

One thing has puzzled me: what is up with Southerners and their penchant for squabbling and fighting amongst each other? First all those antebellum pistol duels, and then they can't get their act together during the ACW - what gave back then?

Now, bieng this blog’s resident American Civil War buff,

Them's fightin' words, Luke.

@Lucario:
I see that you caught my point, and I hope everyone did, that the old South Africa and the CSA both appealed to a warped version of libertarian principles, often using the same sort of language that wouldn't sound strange coming from today's libertarians.

From what I've heard, many of the arguments in favor of slavery consisted of either claiming that plantations would go under, and stating that the Federal government was overstepping it's authority. Never mind that Northern farms ran perfectly fine without slave labor, and that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 overstepped numerous Constitutional boundaries. As with modern libertairian arguments, they talked incessantly about prosperity and freedom, without mentioning whose prosperity and freedom they were protecting.

Well..in fairness, northern farms HAD to run without slave labor, which may have been why northern farmers were more apt to embrace technological innovations such as the McCormick reaper.

According to CW historian Bruce Catton, ante-bellum pro-slavery arguments were chiefly centered on Southern fears of an insurrection. Without the restraints imposed by the institution of slavery, newly freed slaves, it was firmly believed, would rise up and massacre their former owners.

Nat Turner did the abolition movement no favors.

A real world example of how Delysid's private certification agencies would work, courtesy of Ron Paul (Rand Paul's son):

Ron Paul describes himself professionally as a board certified Opthamologist. Most people would assume that meant certification by the American Board of Ophthalmology. Not so--his ABO certification lapsed in 2005.

Since then, he's been certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, an organization he founded and one where he is the president, his wife the vice-president, and his father-in-law secretary. (Need we mention the National Board of Ophthalmology is not recognized by the American Board of Medical Specialties, the American Medical Association or the Kentucky Board of Medical Licensure?)

Still, it's sufficient to let him claim "board certified" for business purposes (i.e., attracting paying customers who think they're getting an ABO certified physician.)

@Shay- Of course. How could I forget how much outright racism was used in support of slavery? Never mind the number of bloody revolts led by white people against white people.

Also, it appears the end of slavery is a large-scale government intervention that encouraged innovation, rather than stifled it.

@JGC- It's pretty sad when one can be used as an example of a flaw in one's own logic.

" I read Orac’s blog months before I ever made a comment because I read the moronic ramblings of the people here and didn’t bother. Go ahead and ban me. I’m getting bored anyway. You all can go fvck yourselves (except Orac).

Scottynuke is correct. The Troll is hoping to be banned, so that he could brag that his enlightening political viewpoints caused the banning.

(Prior comment stuck in moderation for quoting the vile Troll)

”I read Orac’s blog months before I ever made a comment because I read the moronic ramblings of the people here and didn’t bother. Go ahead and ban me. I’m getting bored anyway. You all can go f*ck yourselves (except Orac).

Scottynuke is correct. The Troll is hoping to be banned, so that he could brag that his enlightening political viewpoints caused the banning.

@Gray Falcon:

Another way to look at it is that Southerners' terror of a slave rebellion was a tacit admission of how horrible the institution was.

"If I were treated as I treat my slaves, would I try to seek revenge? Hell, yeah!"

JGC,

Since then, he’s been certified by the National Board of Ophthalmology, an organization he founded and one where he is the president, his wife the vice-president, and his father-in-law secretary.

That reminds me of Dara O'Briain's 'toothiologist' (his rant is always worth a watch).

As an aside, O'Briain's spiel on "symptoms you should not ignore" is spot on. Just this morning I got a helpful brochure from the NHS advising me not to ignore blood in my urine. Who knew? Am I wrong to think that perhaps people who ignore symptoms like that are just natural selection in action?

@JGC - I believe Ron Paul is the father and Rand Paul is the son - I realize it is hard to tell these odious amoral asshats apart.

So, just out of curiosity, Orac, did you finally end up bringing the banhammer down on Delysid for his last fit of pique?

Woo hoo! Over 1100 comments that means that even yours truly gets free airline miles!

@ JGC:

I'm glad you included that tale to demonstrate how these folks operate- pun intended-

Rand** IIRC is the younger one and he wot set up his own
certiification board ( opthal) ; Ron was/is an OBGYN. I understand that jr also accepted US monies ( ?Medicare/Medicaid?) for eye surgeries.

-btw- the libertarian's comments were as crude as they were vicious and desperate.

** not named for Ayn- it's short for Randal (sic)

Delysid must have chosen to become a dentist when someone said "dental crowns" and he thought he heard "dental clowns" and said "I can do that".
Something our toothiologist friend fails to recognize is that the standards accepted for licensing and certification in professions and trades are mostly set by private bodies. Plumbers decide who can call himself a master plumber. Physicians in the various specialties make up the certifying boards.
Here's where his apprenticeship crashes to the ground:
you're looking for a dentist. "Doc, where did you do your training?"
"I apprenticed under Dr. Sleazetoes in Gatorbutt, Mississippi."
"Who trained him?"
"Dr. Bitemeister, of Cowpants, Montana."
"And he trained...?"
"Under Dr. Thinkless, in Petomane le Mineur, in Quebec."
"I haven't heard of any of them. But Dr. Smilegood across the street went to NYU Dental. That I've heard of. See ya 'round, Doc."
Waiting for a few brave souls to try the new dentist in town, who was trained by who-knows-who in who-knows-where, and who might or might not be capable and up to date doesn't cut it. Sure, there are bad professionals, and there are state regents and professional conduct boards that fail at their jobs, but at least there's someone setting at least minimal standards and making some attempt to enforce them. If all certification was provided by completely private bodies without the force of law, the bad apples will just thumb their noses at them. Then who will stop the incompetent or criminal practitioner before he or she kills or maims?

I'm a toothiologist now? Weird. I guess if people accuse me of being a quack and lying about studying and practicing in one of the top universities in the world that must make it true. In Orac's Insane Asylum evidence is irrelevant as long as the popular delusions of the mob are unanimous. Accusing me of toothology goes right with the rampant progressive wahoo racism allegation and all of the other poison in the well.

The nemesis of progressives is the mirror. This thread has 1100 comments because the reflection I presented is infuriating and irrestible to those who refuse to accept it. I was being praised when I applied cold logic to Ginger Taylor's nonsense. The same logic here brought me jeers of hate.

I guess if people accuse me of being a quack and lying about studying and practicing in one of the top universities in the world that must make it true.

It's not as though you were accused of missing a dental frat party.

Delysid:

I was being praised when I applied cold logic to Ginger Taylor’s nonsense. The same logic here brought me jeers of hate.

"The same logic"? Given how flawed your arguments here have been, you must have found yourself on the right side of the vaccination debate by sheer chance.
As for the "jeers of hate", pot, kettle, black. Your arguments in support of libertarianism were torn apart and you have been abusive from comment #125. Here are some more.
#991

You aren’t even trying to comprehend a point of view different from your lunacy.

#1057

Pulling down your pants and operating orally on your own [redacted] might be a simple process

#1066: you abused lilady and I'm not repeating your vile rant here. You did the same to Narad in #1073. A few comments on, you linked to a website named "$elf$uck".
We're a scrappy lot here. Bring bad thinking, and it'll get torn apart. Abuse us, and we'll nail you.

#1108 Actually, this thread had so many posts because you have nonrational beliefs and people have taken a great deal of time to pick them apart and show that they are not rational.

I still think it's unfortunate you happened to be the representative of libertarian thought on this thread.

Someone who treated others as individuals with different politics, belief systems and backgrounds rather than a single uniform mass with uniform beliefs may have been more successful.

Your strong emotional attachment to libertarianism hasn't stood you in good stead either, as you seem to view attacks on it as attacks on you. In the future, it would help you if you were to distinguish between the two.

It would also help you to eliminate some emotionalism from your argumentation--insults such as "retardation" and calling everybody "soclaists" and the like don't add anything rational to the discussion. If you have nothing rational to say, it's actually less harmful to your arguments to say nothing than to clearly illustrate you have nothing to argue.

@Khani

Indeed. The most telling thing in this whole thread is that when reasonable questions were put to Delysid, he ignores the question and instead goes for an insult. He shows he does not have a rational, logical argument. None of the questions posed to him have been answered, even after hundreds of comments.

Sorry, Delysid gets no pass for his behavior, throughout this thread, from me.

He's a proven liar and a filthy-mouthed troll. His political leanings have nothing to do with how he was treated here...although he will lie about that as well.

I personally believe that he has severe and untreated mental health issues, quite possibly exacerbated by substance abuse. I don't care what his issues are, he's a Troll who uses the anonymity of the internet to get his jollies.

In Orac’s Insane Asylum evidence is irrelevant as long as the popular delusions of the mob are unanimous.

Really, you couldn't have gotten it more wrong if that were your intent. Evidence isn't irrelevant--it's critical, which is why we kept asking you for some evidence--any evidence, really--that your proposed unregulated free market would perform as well if not better than the current system where regualtory agencies exist, tax revenues underwrite public health and social welfare programs, etc. A example from history of a society where free market principles had performed successfully,for example.

At the least you should be able to describe how your unregulated free market society would address problems such as caring for the most vulnerable members of our society, ensuring safe working conditions, eliminating explotive child labor, guaranteeing the safety and purity of foods, drugs, etc. as well or better thanthe current system where government agencies (OSHA, FDA, etc.) which provide regulatory oversite now do.

You couldn't even do that. In fact, in a brief moment of honest dialogue you admitted you had no solutions to offer, but believed that somehow, through the magic of the free market, surely other people would find answers.

So don't come crying that anyone here considers evidence irrelevant, when you haven't brought any evidence to the table in the first place.

I didn't agree with The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge back at #98. Now I do.

You know, this whole thing with Delysid reminds me of recipient of the 2009 Richard Dawkins award, Bill Maher. Another person who was right (mostly by chance) with regard to some of his religion-related opinions, but spectacularly wrong when it came to medicine, among other topics.

Q: Would you like to explain your new political movement? You're a hamburgertarian, is that right?

A: Yes, I'm starting a new political party, called the Hamburger Party. Our main precept is that we are all born with the inalienable right to hamburgers, obviously, and that government is the main reason we don't all have as many hamburgers as we want. We believe that by abolishing government, we will ensure there are hamburgers for all. Isn't that great?

Q: Well of course, everyone likes hamburgers, but there do seem to be quite a lot of hamburgers around, especially compared to some other countries and historical eras? Don't things seem to be working fairly well with the current system?

A: Other countries are irrelevant, because Americans don't live there; foreigners' history and religions make them behave differently to normal people. The hamburgers we enjoy are despite government, not because of it. The less government we have, the more hamburgers we will have.

Q: How will the hamburgers be produced and distributed? Who will pay for them?

A: If the market is left alone, without interference, a state of balance will develop in in which everyone will have as many hamburgers as they want. It's self -regulating.

Q: But how will this happen? Why wouldn't one person hoard all the hamburgers and keep them all for himself? Or sell them to people for a profit?

A: That's not my problem, other people will come up with solutions. That's the beauty of the free market, it regulates itself so that everyone gets hamburgers.

Q: How could this possibly happen? What mechanisms are they for this to happen?

A: I can't believe how stupid you are. You have been completely brainwashed into believing that government is the only way to get hamburgers. You are a foolish person with unusually prehensile autoerotic abilities.

Q: I'll ignore the weird sexual insult, though it makes me begin to suspect you are mentally unstable. In other times and places where there has been no governemt control, a few rich people take all the hamburgers, and everyone else has to buy them. Hamburgers become a commodity and a luxury, and people with no money end up with no hamburgers at all! Why wouldn't that happen here?

A: How is what has happened in the past the fault of hamburgertarianism? It has nothing to do with the society that we will have, everyone will have hamburgers in a hamburgertarian society, and that's all there is to it.

Q: But you haven't explained how this works!

A: What are you, some sort of brainwashed sheep that can't even imagine having a world in which everyone has hamburgers? You must have a terrible prejudice against hamburgers; you hamburger hater. I expected you to show some intelligence, but you are just as stupid as all the other people who point at me and laugh. [Exits ranting]

I never could get libertarianism, but that may be partly because I have odd tastes in comics, mostly Japanese ones where the hero is someone with a rather limited skill set, usually very effective at beating up baddies, but not much use elsewhere. What's more, maintaining said skill set requires extensive work that often precludes other means of employment, forcing them to live off of another person's paycheck. They are usually tolerated, if often forced to do odd chores, simply because their skills are useful in situations where baddies do appear, an event that occurs with alarming frequency.

@Krebiozen

You win the thread.

“I swear by hamburgers and my love of them that I will never make hamburgers for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to make hamburgers for mine.”

Ronald McDonald Shrugged

@Krebiozen - a well read and coherent hamburgertarian (which should be someone who practices and promotes the cuisine of Hamburg, but I digress) would state that it is not a stated goal of his movement that "everyone will have as many hamburgers as they want."

Edith, you didn't have to dredge up an Ayn Rand quote on our behalf. It just seems like it's too much self-flagellation for our entertainment.

M.O'B.,

@Krebiozen – a well read and coherent hamburgertarian (which should be someone who practices and promotes the cuisine of Hamburg, but I digress) would state that it is not a stated goal of his movement that “everyone will have as many hamburgers as they want.”

But we are born with a right to hamburgers, that's self-evident . This is an a priori fact that is recognized by all hamburgertarians. Are you some kind of greeno vegetarian?

In any case, the number of hamburgers a person wants is also self-regulating. In a hamburgertarian society everything regulates itself as long as you leave me alone and let me do whatever I want.

Krebiozen,

In any case, the number of hamburgers a person wants is also self-regulating. In a hamburgertarian society everything regulates itself as long as you leave me alone and let me do whatever I want.

And that, of course, is a fairly good summary of the free-market hambugertarian position. If you find that you cannot acquire hamburgers at a price you are willing or able to pay, you will look for other sources - perhaps you will go in on a calf with your neighbors to increase the hamburger supply, or you will find a hamburger substitute (or "helper")..

The free-market hamburgertarian understands that there can be temporary disconnects between supply and demand, but believes that the incentives built in to the system will cause them to come into balance given time. Naturally, it may not be pretty - the hamburger hoarder may (after initial success driving up the hamburger market) find that (s)he is suddenly left with a warehouse full of hamburgers spoiling slowly as new sources of hamburger, people are more efficient with the hamburgers they do have, or people adopt hamburger substitutes. Likewise, people who cannot find hamburgers in their area may be forced to relocate to more hamburger-rich locations, leaving nonviable "patty towns"** behind.

But difference between supply and demand, in the mind of the free-market hamburgertarian, is likely to happen in ANY system.
** OK, that's a stretch. If you've got a better analog for "ghost town", please fill that in.

Todd W.,
Thanks for the prize, but I'm not sure I want this thread. It's large and unwieldy and has a nasty smell about it in places. Could I have a pony or some airmiles instead please?

Edith Prickly,
Is 'Ronald McDonald Shrugged' the one where the vegetarian heroine falls in love with the mysterious man dressed as a clown who forces her to eat hamburgers?

How adorable that you chose hamburgers, one of the great successes of the market. Perhaps you are aware that in the US you can purchase a hamburger while sitting in your car in less than a minute and for one or two dollars?

But of course in your imaginary straw man fantasy, it goes from free society to THE RICH PEOPLE CONTROL EVERYTHING. Why is this always the assumption?

The exact hamburger example you used directly contradicts this extremist leap.

Here we are again. In the loop. "The government is the alpha and omega who protects the poor from the rich." Yet you offer no proof of this. Despite all of the government redistribution of wealth there is still rampant poverty?

You expect instant perfection from the market to solve society's problems, but why don't you hold government to the same standard?

McDonald's and other fast food is the best source of nutrition the homeless and poor have.

But of course those evil plutocrat capitalists just want to exploit them imma right? Government loves the poor so much.

I can summarize the defense of statism by everyone here quite concisely.

Step 1: Free-markets
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Plutocracy

The government, according to Orac's Insane Asylum, is supposed to protect us from this imaginary plutocracy strawman, yet the wealthiest counties in the United States are directly because of the Federal government.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/tomvanriper/2013/04/25/americas-richest-cou…

Statism: the brilliant idea that we give a small group of people the right to kidnap, steal from and kill people, so that we can be protected from people who kidnap, harass, steal and kill people.

McDonald’s and other fast food is the best source of nutrition the homeless and poor have.

Well and truly spoken like an infantile megalomaniac with no experience of either.

McDonald’s and other fast food is the best source of nutrition the homeless and poor have.

I'll pass that along to the ladies at the local Mennonite soup kitchen.

@Everyone

I want to clear up some confusion. I was not calling any of you an autofelliator except for Narad. He's at it again.

@Shay

Oh the Mennonite soup kitchen? But I thought the government is god of the poor?

Delysid,

How adorable that you chose hamburgers, one of the great successes of the market.

I'm so glad you liked it. I have a well developed sense of irony, hard-won after many years of dealing with crappy life experiences. However, I was expecting you to entirely miss my point, and I'm not disapppointed.

Perhaps you are aware that in the US you can purchase a hamburger while sitting in your car in less than a minute and for one or two dollars?

I am aware of that. Perhaps you are aware we have them in the rest of the world too. I could hop into my car (if I had one) and pick up a Big Mac within about ten minutes, despite it being a little after 2 am here. As a matter of fact I have bought hamburgers of one sort or another on four continents. I think the lamb burger at the Wimpy in Delhi was my favorite, but I digress.

But of course in your imaginary straw man fantasy, it goes from free society to THE RICH PEOPLE CONTROL EVERYTHING. Why is this always the assumption?

History. Example after example after example of this happening.

The exact hamburger example you used directly contradicts this extremist leap.

How so? My reductio ad absurdum was an analogy between the inherent right to "liberty" (to own and protect property) and the inherent right to have hamburgers, and the ability of the free market to magically make either available, like the way pencils magically appear.

Here we are again. In the loop. “The government is the alpha and omega who protects the poor from the rich.”

I'm perfectly willing to look at alternative ways in which the poor can be protected from the rich. I want to live on a planet where no one is hungry and everyone has adequate clothing and shelter. If libertarianism can provide this, tell me how.

Yet you offer no proof of this.

There is abundant proof. In almost every historical situation where there have been no controls a powerful few have seized control and exploited everyone else. There are a few exceptions, like the odd benign dictatorship, but not many. If you can explain how libertarianism can prevent this from happening, please do.

Despite all of the government redistribution of wealth there is still rampant poverty?

Not in my country there isn't, at least no one is starving, there are places where the homeless can find food and a bed for the night, and everyone with a low enough income is entitled to financial support from the government, and everyone gets adequate medical care. I'm not so sure about the US, but I do know it's a great deal better than some places in the world I have visited.

You expect instant perfection from the market to solve society’s problems, but why don’t you hold government to the same standard?

No, I don't expect perfection. I just expect some rational explanation of how libertarianism would work in practice to prevent employers from exploiting their workers, landlords from exploiting their tenants, drug companies from marketing dangerous drugs, irresponsible corporations from polluting rivers, cowboy builders from building houses that are unsafe, quack doctors from setting up their own regulatory boards, all the other things that people have brought up on this thread and many more.

I know that a democratically elected government is crappy in many ways, but after many years of exploring various political ideas I have come to the conclusion that it's a better way of organizing things than any others I have come across. You haven't done very well persuading me otherwise.

So, how would libertarianism work in practice to make things better than they are now? It's a fairly simple question, but after more than 1,100 comments I still have no idea.

I want to clear up some confusion. I was not calling any of you an autofelliator except for Narad. He’s at it again.

Perhaps you could also clear up where I have "engaged" you in any fashion that would allow you to take refuge in half-witted tantrums about politics.

(Or with constantly crediting me with either having an enormous schlong or being some sort of yoga master as an attempted insult, whatever.)

"But I thought the government is god of the poor?"

Strawman. Try again.

@Krebiozen

I get the impression that Delysid has likely not read The Jungle. I wonder what solution his utopic vision of Libertarian wonderfulness would offer to deal with the situation raised in that book.

I wonder if the Troll's mommy knows the filth that he spouts on the internet to women on the internet and to random strangers on blogs:

”I read Orac’s blog months before I ever made a comment because I read the moronic ramblings of the people here and didn’t bother. Go ahead and ban me. I’m getting bored anyway. You all can go f*ck yourselves (except Orac)."

I think I read somewhere that after "The Jungle" was published, the government sent out several inspectors to assure the public that conditions at the factories were not as bad as in the book. They were right: Conditions were much worse. Of course, this was when formaldehyde was used as a meat preserver and infant medicine could contain opium.

Actually, here's an article from the New York Times about the Neill-Reynolds report that led to the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F10F13FD395512738DDDA…

I don't expect Delysid will bother reading this, but it's an interesting archived article.

#1130 "by everyone here"

Oddly, no. Again, not everyone here is part of some big monolithic group with identical political beliefs.

People used different methods speaking with you, and not all of them even necessarily disagreed with libertarianism.

For example, I only showed that your viewpoint is nonrational.

That is your viewpoint specifically. I did not show anything about libertarianism in general or anything about the rationality of libertarianism. I didn't even try to do this.

Had your viewpoint been shown to be rational, the next step would have been to question whether it is representative of libertarianism, or at least, a strain of libertarianism.

Only after that would I have engaged with actual libertarianism.

I never got to do that, because I don't bother arguing when people have nonrational viewpoints that cannot be changed.

Is there a killfile for Outlook pro 2013 rss reader?

Alain

Delysid, I consider you an honorary toothiologist because you'd accept a system of informal apprenticeship training with no attempt at ensuring competence or standardizing practices. You may be an aspiring practitioner of quality dentistry (although your attitude suggests otherwise) but you'd consider inflicting chancy dentistry on the rest of us. Since even dentists need dentists, will you trust your oral health to someone trained by someone you've never heard of in some locale you've also never heard of? Of course, if you talk to people in realspace the way you talk to us here, you're going to be in desperate need of major dental reconstruction sooner or later,

Yeah the fictional muckraking propagandist book the Jungle by the communist Upton Sinclair is such a trustworthy source. /s

http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Meat_packing

The large packing businessmen in Chicago supported government oversight as a means of stomping out smaller competitors. Classic case of regulatory capture and using the government as a weapon against competitors.

This is why I oppose state dental licensing. It is against my own interests but is still unfair and unethical for the State to intervene in the market in this way. I do everything I can to educate the society about evidence-based medicine but I support the right of quacks to "practice" medicine as long as the relationships are voluntary. May the best science win in the market place of ideas.

Delysid, what's to prevent larger businesses from hiring people with big heavy sticks to drive out competitors?

Perhaps you are aware that in the US you can purchase a hamburger while sitting in your car in less than a minute and for one or two dollars?

No. That $2 thing you thinking about is not a hamburger.

A real hamburger is a thing of joy. Ground chuck,cooked to a dark brown, with a crunchy crust, between a toasted bun, simply dressed, is a symphony of favors and textures. Just lettuce and tomato, Heinz 57, french fried potatos, big kosher pickle, and a cold draft beer, is paradise.

That $2 bait and switch mirage is a textureless, flat flaxored lump of something evil, that will keep you alive, but it is not a hamburger. It is only fit children, dogs, and the uneducated.

Do not take hamburgers from strangers.

Shay and Luke: I'm rapidly coming to the opinion that the US needs to downsize, and a lot of the states in Ol' Dixie are at the start of my list. Seriously, do we really need Texas? Or Missisippi?

Man, here I was thinking Delysid was simply a fervent True Believer – turns out he'll intentionally inject another unrelated and obvious-sh!tstorm comment, then link to a Wiki knockoff that only cites Libertarian sources.

Check and mate, Delysid, this game's yours. Well played.

Also, Delysid, the Mises institute has a page where it declares children to be nothing more than the property of their parents, to be sold or discarded as desired:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp

@ORD

i'm not inflicting anything on anyone. That is the whole point of voluntaryism/libertarianism.

I practice evidence-based dentistry. One of my patients works for a chiropractor and believes in some woo, but she accepts my recommendations and treatments and is impressively compliant and rational. When she asked about it I explained to her how topical fluoride works, the story behind the mercury amalgam "controversy" and why they do not pose a health threat to her. The first time she sat in my chair her gingiva was so inflammed it bled on soft contact with the probe. Now that she has been under my perio care for a few months her periodontitis (and gingivitis) is almost gone. The positive results are apparent to her and I.

I'm not offended by you calling me an "honoray toothiologist" because it is so off-base I shouldn't have even explained myself.

But I have to ask. How many believers in woo have you treated with evidence-based medicine?

@Kreb

A high percentage of the homeless in the US are OBESE. According to one study only 1.6% of the homeless population is underweight.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22644329

Lack of nutrition is not the problem. The market has been so successful at providing cheap nutrition that over 30% of the homeless population has TOO MUCH NUTRITION.

So what is cause ofthe shelter problem? For one, the US federal government has millions of acres of undeveloped land that could be used for housing. Property taxes force everyone to earn some type of income to remain on the land, sometimes extremely high amounts (like in Manhatten). Monetary inflation screws people like my 92 year old grandmother whose savings have

been wiped out by decades of currency destruction. There will always be a certain percentage of homeless in any society, as some people have psychiatric problems that prevent them from maintaining a shelter, but what is blocking those who are willing to work? It is not the market. It is givernment red tape and legislative compliance.

You asked me what is stopping people from building shoddy buildings, but what is stopping them now? The worst housin in the US are public housing projects. Do you think the government is providing (or requiring) quality work?

Does a driving license ensure skilled drivers? Or is it a mostly pointless exercise to extract money to the State?

There are shitty dentists and physicians with state licenses. Orac knows this quite well. There will inevitably be crap work being conducted in a free society without government control, but there is crap work work being done under government control. So what is the best way to handle this? My answer is market competition.

A number of comments back, someone mentioned xkcd. I decided to look at it. Here's a very recent comic, called Ayn Random.
Hope I haven't borked the link.

@Khani and Kreb

Evidence-based science does not apply to politics. "Political science" is not a science. There will always be more "evidence" in support of government programs compared to markets because government has unlimited resources through theft from society in which to justify itself.

Government is not burdened with the need to offer quality service, outdo competitors, or profit. Taxes come in regardless of the actions of government, and even then politicians greatly outspend tax revenue and put the country and the people in debt. One might be tempted to rebuttal with the democracy argument, but the re-election rate is approximately 80% for Congress. government has no real accountability. Private businesses are forced to offer constant quality or they are bested in the market.

@Delysid:

i’m not inflicting anything on anyone. That is the whole point of voluntaryism/libertarianism.

In #467 you quoted Milton Friedman as saying "One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results." Libertarianism has marvellous intentions that anyone could get behind, but history shows that it has ghastly results.

@Julian

So you are twisting Friedman's quote to mean the exact opposite of his point about horrible government programs with encouraging names?

I'll do the same thing. When Karl Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" he was really defending CAPITALISM by pointing out that the laws of supply and demand ensure that that goods needed by the needy will be produced by the producers and that the goods produced by the producers will be purchased by the needy and that government intervention is not only unnecessary, but harmful.

In Orac's House of the Indigent Insane words have no meaning, context is non-existent, and speculation is fact.

"Twisting"? What an odd thing to say. Friedman was pointing out that good intentions do not automatically mean good outcomes. How was I twisting his words?

Delysid,

Lack of nutrition is not the problem. The market has been so successful at providing cheap nutrition that over 30% of the homeless population has TOO MUCH NUTRITION.

I never suggested it wasn't. I pointed out that in countries in the developed world with functioning governments no one is starving. I said I don't know about the US because I don't know about the US - I haven't visited for several years. I hear horror stories about people having their welfare cut off after years of unemployment, poverty and tent cities but I don't know how reliable they are.

The rest of your comment suggests to me that you have some problems with your government in the US. I think you would benefit from a more socialist government, like some of those in Europe. In France, for example, the government is afraid of the people, whereas in the US, it seems to me, many of you are afraid of the government.

Anyway, I really don't see how less regulation would help in any of those areas.

Evidence-based science does not apply to politics. “Political science” is not a science.

Why not? Because you say so? Argument by assertion again? Why can't we use the scientific method to find out which method of government works best? Why can't we use evidence from history to inform our decisions about the present?

No wonder you reject evidence; you want to base everything on blind faith and ideology, and to ignore everything we have learned about human behavior and politics over the past two thousand years. You are incapable of seeing how utterly blinkered you are, and yet you project this onto everyone else. I find this very strange indeed.

@Delysid

My answer is market competition.

Yeah, we get that, but you still haven't explained how, nor provided evidence that that would work better than the current situation (marketplace + varying degrees of government regulation).

Nor have you answered any of the other questions that have been posed to you.

#1155 No one said anything about political science. No politics, no science and no political science were mentioned.

If no logic and no evidence would change your mind about a belief, it's not a rational belief.

I think Delysid considers this less a matter of science and more a question of right and wrong. Notice how often he brings up ethics. However, his understanding of right and wrong is incredibly shallow. For example, he opposed regulatory agencies because of the possibility of corruption. It never occurs to him that if large businesses are going to try and corrupt the government to force out small companies, then they'll simply take other options without regulation: Selling cheap, shoddy goods fraudulently marketed as high quality is a classic one, as is price-fixing. Given he also intends to remove police forces, they could simply hire armed men to drive small businesses out of town. In other words, his society built on the free market cannot even guarantee a free market will exist.

Here's a little bit of Delysid facepalm that stuck in my memory, but I didn't give it any thought at the time:
"Hide behind your anonymity and use the mob mentality to make yourselves feel better about your own hypocrisies and failures."
If anyone here is hiding behind the anonymity of the 'Net, it is you, Delysid. You fail to respond to legitimate criticism and when someone pokes a hole in your pet beliefs, you respond with nasty, crude remarks. You were the first one to call names here, then you complain when you get your own tossed back in your face. You count on your anonymity when you make comments that would get you put down, put out, or punched out if you made them face to face, and you make them to anyone who disagrees with your ideology. You behave as if any criticism is a threat, rather than an occasion for dialogue - as if your beliefs were more like a religion.
I have been positing problems with your apprenticeship concept, as have others, but ever since you started to draw fire for it, you have not offered any rebuttals. That has been your pattern with almost everything,

@Gray Falcon

I don't understand how you are still failing to grasp anything regarding libertarianism. The only thing in your last comment that was correct is that I care about right and wrong.

I don't oppose government because it mightbe corrupt. Government could be occupied by the smartest and most ethical human beings alive (lolololololololol) and it would still be wrong. Please try to understand the fallaciuosness of your argument. YOU support government because thebmarket MIGHT be corrupt. Everything you explained about what I supposedly think was your projections of your own feelings about what might happen in a free dociety.

The government is undeniably corrupt. Even the most hardcore socialists recognize corruption (but they feel the failure of government is due to the wrong people beong in power rather than the system itself). You seem to be non-demoninational pro government. Support of arbitrary power as long as it claims to be well intentioned.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” CS Lewis

Delysid, pay attention. One, having a government is not the same as tyranny. If this were a tyranny, you would have been killed a long time ago as a troublemaker, and possibly a few family members for good measure. We are a constitutional democracy, we have rules against that kind of thing. Two, my philosophy of right and wrong is best expressed by great author Eiichiro Oda:

You made my mate cry. Now I'm going to kick your ass.

- Monkey D. Luffy
I judge right and wrong by whether an action causes real harm to others, not because it is wrong in principle. Constitutional democracy isn't perfect, but so far, it's worked better than everything else we've tried, so I'm sticking with it.

We are a REPUBLIC. God damn.

Old Rockin Dave supports the government despite incorrectly naming the type of government he supports. LOL.

@old Rockin Dave

You are not informed enough about Republicanism in the US to vote responsibly. If you are in fact old this is shameful.

Educate yourself before you spew any more ignorance, or worse, vote. I shudder thinking that you vote. People in this blog are worried about quacks practicing medicine when it is a far bigger problem for our society that the people in this blog vote. The founding fathers tried to limit voting to avoid the exact socialist democracy shitshow the government has turned into.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism_in_the_United_States

Delysid,

Are you trying your best to be thick or does it come to you naturally?

Inquiring mind want to know.

The government has not killed me. How benevolent of them. I guess I should just love the government and support whatever they do. As long as they don't kill me I should accept whatever they do imma right Old Rockin genius?

I'm not Dave. And I'm not saying you should accept whatever they do, I'm just saying you shouldn't use emotionally charged words where they don't apply. Now, here's an emotionally charged word that does apply: Delysid, you are a liar. We never said you should support everything the government does, we only said that anarchy is a terrible solution. That's it. Do not put words in our mouths. Do that in person, and that's a good way to get people to put fists in your mouth.

My apologies to Dave. I mis attributed Gray Falcon's comment.

Calling me a liar again eh? I said in several other comments I would support a Nightwatchman State for military and a court system with police. You lied by accusing me of otherwise.

Is there anything the government does that you do not support?

The war on drugs, for one thing. The use of unmanned drones.
And I quote you from earlier in the thread:

A fire department, court system, and sheriff would be the last functions of a government I would abolish, yet that seems to be the first thing statists cry about whenever questions the authority of the State

That implies that yes, you would abolish such things. And even with a police department, that doesn't prevent one business from driving out all the others through price fixing and deceptive marketing, and forcing all its workers to convert to their religion.

War on Drugs is my number 1 issue so I'm glad we agree on that.

Hypothecally yes I would consider abolishing all government, but that is abstract and not in the realm of possibility nor concern. I'm most concerned with the abolition of post 1900 agencies. The FDA, which has been fiercely defended here, is a major force in the drug war. I strongly support responsible drug use (the dose makes the poison) but it is not the federal governments role to make these decisions about chemicals, through the FDA DEA or whatever other 3-letter acronym.

Price fixing is government action! In a free system prices cannot be fixed without force. Monopolies in the market are always are always temporary. Using government, the ultimate monopoly, to stop other monopolis is foolish to me. As long as there is free competition there won't be price fixing. It is the law of supply and demand.

And of course, Delysid hasn't even bothered to look up the phrase "price fixing". The Wikipedia definition:
Price fixing is an agreement between participants on the same side in a market to buy or sell a product, service, or commodity only at a fixed price, or maintain the market conditions such that the price is maintained at a given level by controlling supply and demand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

No mention of force or government at all. Seriously, how can anyone say "In a free system prices cannot be fixed without force. " and be able to feed and dress themselves? Can't he even think about all the propaganda he gets fed for even a minute!

I got the term confused with Fixed pricing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_pricing

Good. Now tell me, what can the free market do about price fixing? Oh, and don't use sources like the Cato Institute, their policies were what started the recession in the first place.

And here I thought the War on Drugs involved the DEA, CIA, etc., but not FDA.

Delysid, could you please describe the state of medicine before FDA was established? What, specifically, do you see as being wrong about FDA regulation of drugs, medical devices and biologics?

Delysid says:
"Old Rockin Dave supports the government despite incorrectly naming the type of government he supports. LOL."
I have never named the type of government I support anywhere in this thread. You are LOL'ing out your ass.
He also says about me:
"You are not informed enough about Republicanism in the US to vote responsibly. If you are in fact old this is shameful." Actually, I have not mentioned the Republicans anywhere in this thread. You need to cut back on your nitrous oxide intake.
Do come back and comment here again when your frontal lobes are fully grown in.

Price Fixing is taken care of by game theory (essentially a variant on The Prisoners' Dilemna). While price fixing may be done successfully for a while, something will come along to disrupt the agreement. Examples would include:
- a new supplier enters the market
- people stop buying the commodity
- one party to the agreement decides that it's in their interest to no longer abide by it.

Old Rockin' Dave: If this were anyone else, I'd simply mention that he did recognize his mistake earlier in the thread. However, given that he was attacking me on a distinction only made by those who want to look smarter than they are, his own playing fast and loose with words, his mistaking "price fixing" for "fixed pricing" and not bothering to address anything, and his general crudeness, I'll just say he deserved that.

Mephistopheles O'Brien: While price fixing might go away on its own, so do house fires. I'd much rather deal with it before the damage spreads.

@ORD

I apologized for the confusion. Gray Falcon's comment was very similar to others you have made. I was in the lab and only half paying attention to this thread.

@Gray Falcon

The difference between a republic and democracy is not subtle.

I encourage you to please watch this JBS video. It has some mild Christian undertones in the fist few minutes, but overall it is an outstanding explanation of the American Republic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIdOv0A8cvE

Sorry, but citing the John Birch society is an automatic lose condition here.

BTW I don't agree with every aspect of this video, particularly JBS's explanation of anarchy, but overall it still explains some important concepts.

Sorry, it's still from a source that thinks the USSR still exists, I can't accept it. Try again.

"Government could be occupied by the smartest and most ethical human beings alive (lolololololololol) and it would still be wrong. "

Why?
Assume a government, comprised only of the elected representatives representing the smartest and most ethical members of the society they represent, working to enusre the well-being of all members of that society.

By what rational argument would that be a bad thing?

@Gray Falcon

Watch the video. It's a logical fallacy to blindly reject information based on who says it. Overview of America is a great overview of the concept of republicanism.

@JBC

You are confused about what is "rational." Please tell me, how government work to ensure the "well-being of all members."

How can that possibly be true? What does "well-being" mean? Who is defining this? Is well-being the same for every single person? You are the one being irrational.

Perhaps you are an adherent of the "greater good." Again, what does this mean? My idea of of the greater good is inevitably different from yours, or from Orac's. My idea of the greater good is often different from the majority. Does this make me wrong? This is the Appealing to Popularity logical fallacy.

Let's say Delysid is the government of Orac's Insane Asylum, and I notice that every member has a serious medical problems in which they need organ transplants. Let's say ORD needs a liver transplant, Gray Falcon needs a heart transplant, and JBC needs a pancreas transplant. Let's say there is outrage that the market is not providing these organs needed to save these 3 lives.

Since I am Delysid, benevolent dictator, I want to save the lives of ORD, Gray Falcon, and JGC. I realize that with some forced redistribution, I can sacrifice one other member in order to save three. So I drag Orac, who has had a good long life according me, and we kill him and harvest his organs, saving 3 lives in the process.

Sacrificing the rights of 1 person is ethical as long as it benefits the well-being of 3 others, right? Why does Orac have a right to his own body? The social contract argues that I have authority over him.

Maybe we could even hold a vote. Orac votes against forced organ harvesting, and ORD, JBC, Gray Falcon and myself vote in favor. That is 4 to 1 in favor of a small sacrifice for the greater good. That is democracy in action.

Is this ethical?

Perhaps my organ harvesting of essential organs example is too extreme (although this happens with prisoners in China), but how are organs any different from other property?

Orac is a rich doctor. Is it ethical for Delysid, the benevolent dictator voted in democratically, to forcefully confiscate other property, say a car or his bank savings, in order to give it to ORD, Gray Falcon, and JBC in for their well-being to help the greater good? What about non-essential organs like plasma, or 1 lung? Is that ethical? Orac has to intake energy in order to produce new plasma (which takes labor) in the same way that he has to labor to buy a new car. What is the difference? Why in America is it considered ethical to take his money by force for redistribution but not his tissue?

Delysid the democratically elected benevolent dictator is clearly the most intelligent and ethical person in Orac's Insane Asylum, so that means that the only rational argument is to support my arbitrary authority, right?

BTW keep in mind that, by definition, the people whose behavior your proposed government composed of the smartest and most ethical human beings alive must include the most ignorant and least ethical people alive.

Delysid: It's not a logical fallacy to reject information from known unreliable sources, especially if that source is known for deliberate deceit.

"My idea of the greater good is often different from the majority. Does this make me wrong?"

Nope, just irrelevant.

Democracy can be _such_ a pain.

And of course, Delysid's discussion fails to take into account constitutional protections. The Bill of Rights, for example, was added to the US Constitution to allay the fears of some states that majority opinions might try to outlaw the minorities. Given that Rhode Island was founded by a group who separated from the Puritans after deciding they were too extreme, this was a valid concern.

@Delysid

Do you really want to start playing the logical fallacy game? 'Cause if you do, you might want to clean up all those straw men you built.

On a more serious note, your "benevolent dictator" scenario can be just as easily applied to any governmental system, as well as any anarchical system. Just replace the benevolent dictator with, say, a company. Free market, right? What's to stop the company from doing exactly what you criticize?

Here's a "strict liability" issue to ponder, namely that of accumulated small effects. Let's say that it's determined that auto exhaust containing lead negatively affects the brain development of children exposed to it (as it did). Now, who has the 'strict liability"? The millions of motorists who have little other choice (as they once did not)? The gas stations that could have made an effort to offer unleaded gas (which was in short supply and at the time didn't perform as well)? The refineries and distributors (who, after all, were giving the public what it seemed to want)? None of them have a very big chunk of the liability, yet the harm has been done, and to many people.
To me, this is a clearcut case for a government to step in. The cause of the harm is diffuse, the problem is widespread, and the free market was both incapable and unwilling to stop or remediate it, yet something had to be done. It was a problem caused by most of the population and it affected directly or indirectly most of the population. That means that to work a solution must give an irresistible incentive to get the product off the market. That incentive could only be the force of law. When Amoco first introduced unleaded gas in all grades, they didn't do very well. Only those wet, soft-headed, tree-hugging environmentalist types (Danger: Sarcasm in use here. Avoid flames.) were going out of their way to buy it. Motorists didn't want to pay more and/or risk a hit in performance. Refiners didn't want to change their formulas and equipment. Gas stations didn't want to offer two different types of gas, one of which could damage engines made to run best on the other. What could make them change but laws?

@Old Rockin' Dave: So in other words, it was really one big coordination issue. The net results would be an improvement for everyone involved, but if only one party acted, they would be at a disadvantage. A reverse prisoner's dilemma, if you will. In this case, the US government was the coordinator.

It seems those who support progressive democracy think that people are too stupid at doing everything except choosing which people are intelligent enough to make decisions for them.

@Gray Falcon

Libertarians are NOT against coordination! Give me a break!

“The argument for liberty is not an argument against organization, which is one of the most powerful tools human reason can employ, but an argument against all exclusive, privileged, monopolistic organization, against the use of coercion to prevent others from doing better.”
― Friedrich A. von Hayek

@Delysid

Grey Falcon was not saying that Libertarians are against coordination. He's saying that ORD's scenario was a situation which required coordination, but the coordination of which did not come from the free market/market forces. In other words, that was an opportunity for a Libertarian approach to show it could work, but it failed. It's a situation where the individual actors were too focused on their own personal benefits, that none were willing to take the risk to improve the situation for everyone. As Grey falcon pointed out, it's another Prisoner's Dilemma.

So, are you ever going to address the points that are actually being made and the questions that are actually being asked of you, rather than your straw man interpretations of them?

@ORD

There is more than one side of the story. I see you have chosen the side of the heroic government saving us because the greedy capitalists wouldn't act like tree-hugging hippies, but the government was the most powerful defender of TEL for decades. It seems to me that government propaganda prolonged the inevitable decline of TEL. It's the same situation with smoking. Progressives love to point out the dangers of smoking and how Big Tobacco lied, but the Surgeon General of the US defended it for decades. THE GOVERNMENT LIED.

Also, there are environmental downsides to catalytic convertors (the main reason for removing tetraethyllead from gasoline). Again, there is more than one side to the situation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#Negative_aspects

Delysid, don't make claims without providing evidence from reliable sources. You have given us absolutely no reason to trust you or your sanity. The only claim you make in #1201 that has a source only shows that a catalytic converter can cause problems, but not nearly as severe as the ones they are meant to prevent.

You are confused about what is “rational.” Please tell me, how government work to ensure the “well-being of all members.”

Numerous ways: by regulating commerce, by regulating the food and drug industries, by setting standards and licensing technical occupations, by regulating the creation, use and disposal of hazardous wastes, by levying taxes to underwrite the costs of regulatory bodies as well as providing funds to maintain the military, state and federal police agencies, emergencey responders (fire and medical), child protection agencies, OSHA, to underwrite SNAP programs, etc. Society as a whole benefits from all of the above.

My idea of of the greater good is inevitably different from yours, or from Orac’s.

From your posts it seems less that you have a different idea of the greater good than you don't believe your personal behavior should be constrained in the interests of serving the greater good, or you should be required to contribute fnancially to provide for the greater good.

So I drag Orac, who has had a good long life according me, and we kill him and harvest his organs, saving 3 lives in the process.

Nice strawman--build it all yourself? Surely you're not going to suggest that this is valid analogy which describes the operation of every government system either extant or possible. China, as you note, is an outlier, and is roundly condemned for acting unethically.

But let's consider your analogy as it would apply to your preferred unregulated free market society. In our current system, there are multiple state and federal regulations which would oppose this practice. In your unregulated, government-free, police-free, free market soceity what exactly would oppose individuals forming companies which hired thugs to abduct, physicians (who were not subject to constraint by licensing boards) to sacrifice individuals and harvesting their organs, and factors to sell those organs for whatever price they could command in a market without regulation or prohibition?

Is it ethical for Delysid, the benevolent dictator voted in democratically, to forcefully confiscate other property, say a car or his bank savings, in order to give it to ORD, Gray Falcon, and JBC in for their well-being to help the greater good?

In your imaginary would of benevolent dicatorship there may be no restraint on what president for life Delysid could do, but in the real world that isn't the case. In some circumstances it might be ethical to compel the forfiture of a car or garnishment of wages--for example to return the car to a lienholder in the event of default on an auto loan, or garnishing wages if one owes mandated child support.

Why in America is it considered ethical to take his money by force for redistribution but not his tissue.

You keep referring to ‘taking money by force’—I’m not aware that the government is in the practice of mugging citizens on the street and taking their money. If by ‘take money by force” you are referring to the collection of tax revenues, in accordance with law, to underwrite state and federal policies established by the authorities they freely elected, then the answer is yes. After all, they accrue real material benefit from those policies.

I’ll also note that it’s inappropriate to describe taxation as taking money by force by your own expressed libertarian standard: taxpayers aren’t being forced but are in voluntarily agreement to be subject to taxation. After all, as you’ve stated previously if someone doesn’t want to pay taxes he’s free to go elsewhere where he won’t be taxed, just as in your example an employee working for less than minimum wage in unsafe conditions is free to ‘go elsewhere’ to find employment.

Same reason one can own a car but not a slave: you're trying to suggest an equivalence btween two fundamentally different entities. You are rather than possess your body: you possess rather than are your money. Money is fungible, individuals and their tissues are not.

@JGC - as you pointed out, Delsyid is free to immigrate, if he hates the government so much to any of those other "libertarian" paradises that exist all over the globe, showing us how our "love" of the government is backwards & inept, right?

I mean, I'm sure, if this theory is so fantastically self-evident, then there must be plenty of places around the world, both current and past, where we can point to where this has been tried and proven to be an outstanding success, right?

I'm sure that Delsyid will have no trouble providing those examples to us for review, correct?

Well, we're waiting.......

@Gray Falcon

Do you mean "reliable" sources like hysterical anti-corporation left-wing propaganda? Literature about the history of TEL is overwhelming pro-government centered. This is a major problem of revisionist history. Finding criticism of the government's role in negative public health affairs is practically impossible.

Why do you think the government allowed the major oil corporations to use TEL as the anti-knocking agent until the 1960's despite knowing the health hazards in the 1920's?

Here is a conspiracy theory for you. The American military war machines are powered by oil and benefited greatly by TEL as an anti-knocking agent.

Of course if you read left-wing historical interpretations it is always the same story- Big Bad Evil Corporations profiting off of poison until the hero Federal government saved us all.

I don't have a source I will link to. I gathered the information from reading a few left-wing propaganda pieces and filtering out the blatant confirmation bias.

Are the Big Oil corporations innocent? Of course not. But the government is every bit as guilty. Banning TEL was just them covering their own asses decades later when alternative anti-knocking agents could be used to power the war machine.

Delysid may try to claim that he does support having a public police force, but his post on #776 proves he isn't very consistent about his beliefs:
When should you shoot a cop? “That question, even without an answer, makes most law-abiding tax payers go into major conniptions.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cElTyqJkMEw

Sorry, that last part was a quote from him. Regardless, he seems to change his position whenever he feels like it, and tries to convince us, despite the fact that we can read the rest of the thread, that he always held that belief.

Finally, there's Delysid's rant at #1205. Several paragraphs of accusations, not one jot or tittle of evidence. Does he seriously think we believe him, especially since he can't see the difference between fighting a city-wide fire and wiping oneself? I guess it can't be helped that reality has a left-wing bias.

#1204 Lawrence...do you mean emigrate?

How can that possibly be true? What does “well-being” mean? Who is defining this? Is well-being the same for every single person? You are the one being irrational.

A hilariously ironic statement in the face of this intoning of occultist wisdom:

Government is not burdened with the need to offer quality service, outdo competitors, or profit.... Private businesses are forced to offer constant quality or they are bested in the market.

How can that possibly be true? What do "quality" and "bested" mean? Who is defining this?

Emergent, universal absolutes are just fine in D.'s cosmology so long as he recognizes them as part of the cast of his preferred, spooky Ring Cycle, definitions most certainly not required (cf. "value").

(Leaving aside, of course, the fact that the core platitude is patently false, as a cursory examination of, say, the long-standing and deplorable retail, dining, and entertainment landscape in the very neighborhood of the Chicago School, the patrons of which have finally decided to go comically whole-hog with in the central planning department. Again.)

"Examples? Examples? We don' need no steenking examples!"

@JGC - all Delsyid has done is pointed out the areas in which government has a "less than stellar" track record" as proof that his "ideal" would be better.......we've heard that story before - where quacks will point to failures in medicine as a means of "proving" that their way is better....again, without offering even a shred of proof that it would be the case.

I don’t have a source I will link to. I gathered the information from reading a few left-wing propaganda pieces and filtering out the blatant confirmation bias.

Translation: I ignored everything that I didn't like and came to my own made up conclusions that agreed with my a priori opinions.

Here's a fun fact about government and cigarettes- military servicemen (including conscripts) were given millions of them as part of their rations from WWI until the Vietnam War.

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/kirkwood/kirkwood39.html

The Federal government didn't publish the Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States until 1964, nearly 50 years after causal links between lung cancer and smoking starting becoming apparent. Nearly half of the US population thought that smoking caused cancer by the 1950's.

Now of course left-wing propaganda portrays government as the savior. Time magazine and other left-wing muckraking rags remind us of the Camel and Marlboro turn of the century tobacco advertisements, but fail to acknowledge the government's role in tobacco use proliferation.

Left-wing revisionist history is maniacal and relentless. It whitewashes anything that opposes left-wing agendas. Google searches are so one-sided for left-wing propaganda it is comical.

No wonder so many people are enamored by the State.

Isn't Lew Rockwell a creationist?

I should also note that Lew Rockwell his numerous links to articles by Sam Francis, a notorious white supremacist. Perhaps the reason Delysid keeps seeing people play the "racism card" is because he hangs out with racists:
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-…

Delysid,

Progressives love to point out the dangers of smoking and how Big Tobacco lied, but the Surgeon General of the US defended it for decades. THE GOVERNMENT LIED.

The British Doctor's Study strongly suggested a link between tobacco smoking and lung cancer in 1956. In 1964 the US Surgeon General reported (slow-loading PDF) that tobacco causes lung cancer and is a main contributor to bronchitis stating, "Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action" When were the decades that the Surgeon General defended it, knowing it was dangerous?

catalytic convertors (the main reason for removing tetraethyllead from gasoline).

Seriously? You really believe that this was why leaded gas was phased out, nothing to do with lead toxicity? Where do you get all this laughable misinformation from?

Yeah, I know this seems like a "guilt by association" fallacy, but many of Delysid's sources have close ties to white supremacist organizations, and Delysid himself has been in favor of allowing discriminatory hiring practices. One wonders whose liberty these "libertarians" are really fighting for.

"Isn’t Lew Rockwell a creationist?"

...and a homophobic HIV denialist, a racist and a host of other "qualities" that the "soon-to-be-a-doctor/dental student/anarchist" reveres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell

What about D's 92-year-old grandmother, who has been the beneficiary of Medicare for at least 27 years. Does his aging grandma know how he posts filth at women on the internet?

@lilady & Gray Falcon

STOP POISONING THE WELL.

Just because a person is wrong about X does not make him wrong about Y. Kary Mullis believes in aliens visiting Earth and astrology, does this make him wrong about PCR?

God dammit stop with these terrible arguments. Orac pisses me off about some of his political views but I defend him without restraint when it comes to quackery. It's the same thing with Ron Paul. Or literally anyone who is right about something. Occasionally I even agree with Mike Adams (not that often).

Delysid,

The Federal government didn’t publish the Smoking and Health: Report of the Advisory Committee to the Surgeon General of the United States until 1964, nearly 50 years after causal links between lung cancer and smoking starting becoming apparent.

The history of tobacco is an interest of mine and has been for quite some time. I know about the Nazi research, of course, and how it was ignored, for obvious reasons. Where were the causal links between lung cancer and smoking "becoming apparent" before this? Apparent to whom? There's nothing on PubMed earlier than 1946, and early reports were case studies and speculation, not solid evidence.

Nearly half of the US population thought that smoking caused cancer by the 1950′s.

Really? Evidence? Why would they have believed this? In 1950 in the US, Wynder and Graham published a study titled 'Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma; a study of 684 proved cases', which hardly suggests that the science was settled. A study in the BMJ the same year was similarly tentative in its conclusions, and pointed out that the apparent increase in lung cancer might not be a real increase, but could be due instead to improved diagnosis. These were all retrospective studies, strongly suggestive of a link, but with all the weaknesses this implies. It wasn't until the prospective 1956 British Doctor's Study was published that the evidence began to look more than suggestive.

With the benefit of hindsight it's easy to criticize various governments for dragging their feet about tobacco. I tend to think that the influence of Big Tobacco in this has been somewhat overblown. I can understand governments not wanting to do anything to reduce a significant source of tax revenues unless they are very sure of what they are doing. I can also understand companies trying to protect their profits, and interpreting any research in the best possible light.

It's hard to see how the tobacco story would have panned out any better in a libertarian society in which, if I understand you correctly, even heroin, cocaine and methamphetamine would be freely available.

Sigh. I read and reread that comment at least three times and still borked the links. Take 2:
In 1950 in the US Wynder and Graham published a study titled 'Tobacco smoking as a possible etiologic factor in bronchiogenic carcinoma; a study of 684 proved cases', hardly suggesting that the science was settled. A study in the BMJ the same year...

Three gems from other articles by R. Cort Kirkwood, the source of Delysid's fun 'facts.' This is purely for amusement, not well-poisoning...Kreb has already demonstrated how this loony's smoking history claims are demonstrably false.

On human-chimp divergence:

The latest claim that chimpanzees are closer to humans than other primates will undoubtedly warm the hearts of evolutionists everywhere. But they shouldn’t start swinging from the trees for joy just yet. It doesn’t mean much, for other animals also share the same genes as Homo Sapiens. In short, it isn’t as if we’ve learned anything new.

On women in the military:

As a practical matter, 99 percent of women are unsuited for combat, and that includes flying combat aircraft and serving on combatant ships. That women do these things doesn't mean they should; it just means the military has been feminized and civilianized, as any military man will admit after a few shots of Jack Daniels at the Officers' Club, and of course, after his commanding officer leaves.

And my favorite, on the separation of church and state:

The [Kitzmiller v. Dover] decision was based on the palpably absurd and well-worn notion that teaching something, anything, about religion in a public school is "unconstitutional" and violates the "wall of separation between Church and State." Of course, it isn’t the Constitution or the First Amendment that prohibits teaching religion in schools. The real prohibitive agent in these cases is the steamer trunk of erroneous case law cited by the judge and hoked up by anti-Christian, leftist courts that would have no power if the locals refused to abide them.

@Everyone

Look, I'm in the middle of two worlds, both of which there are aspects in which I agree and disagree vehemently. These two worlds are the liberty movement and the science world. This is a result of politicized science. I despise when libertarians reject the principles science and I despise when scientists reject the principles of libertarianism.

Science should be apolitical and politics should be ascientific.

I despise when libertarians reject the principles science

You mean like when they are unable to produce any coherent mechanisms through which a libertarian society would accomplish anything, let alone evidence that such mechanisms would actually work?

Delysid, you have no qualms accusing any source we use of bias, without any evidence I might add. Why shouldn't we point out the biases of your sources? The reason why I bring them up is because there is another fallacy you seem to ignore: Argument from false authority. If it can be established that your sources are willing to lie about anything to make a point, then it is not fallacious to reject their claims.

I called the Troll out weeks ago for the phony "soon-to-be-a-doctor"/dental student/ignorant anarchist he is.

He lied about the "dangers" of amalgam fillings/versus the real research about the dangers of composite fillings and could not even read the simple pie charts I provided to him about Federal Income Tax and Ohio State Income Tax.

I'm tired of paying for the Troll's financial aid education loans and his aging grandmother's Social Security and Medicare, because she, according to the Troll, is destitute because of inflation.

Perhaps the Troll doesn't understand that this is a science blog and not an adult porn site. Does he get off by posting links to his favorite filthy porn sites and by calling random strangers "old c*nts" and tell us all to go "f*ck ourselves"?

@AdamG

"Mechanism" does not apply politics. You are proving my point by trying to politicize science. Acetylsalicylic acid irreversibly inhibits the enyzyme cyclooxygenase. That is a mechanism. (And yes this is the example on Wikipedia, but I knew this off of the top of my head and typed this before I did a Google search just to make sure).

You are still projecting the premise of central planning onto what you expect from a free society. I don't want one 1 plan by government bureaucrats, I advocate the opportunity for plans by the thousands, or millions, or whatever other number. I advocate for plans by the many, not by the few.

I've explained this in as many different ways as I've been able. I'll keep trying if you still aren't getting it.

Delysid, there's a good possibility one of those plans will involve the elimination of minorities than someone dislikes.

“Mechanism” does not apply politics.

Nope, try again.

mech·a·nism noun \ˈme-kə-ˌni-zəm\
-- a piece of machinery
-- a mechanical part or group of parts having a particular function
-- a process or system that is used to produce a particular result
-- a way of acting, thinking, or behaving that helps or protects a person in a specified way

I don’t want one 1 plan by government bureaucrats, I advocate the opportunity for plans by the thousands, or millions, or whatever other number. I advocate for plans by the many, not by the few.
I’ve explained this in as many different ways as I’ve been able. I’ll keep trying if you still aren’t getting it.

No. I get exactly what you're saying. What you've completely failed to do is convince anyone here how these 'plans by the many' address larger societal issues like those laid out by JGC in #797.

Follow-up to last post: The Weimar Republic wasn't exactly a strong government. Also, Hitler never did obtain power by democratic election, he used a series of backroom deals.

@Kreb

Here is one source about the 44% percent believing smoking caused cancer in 1958. It was a Gallup poll. The source I linked to is extremely biased towards government and said "A Gallup Survey conducted in 1958 found that only 44 percent of Americans believed smoking caused cancer, while 78 percent believed so by 1968" but I interpreted this differently.

To me it is quite significant that nearly half of the population was already aware of the relationship between smoking and lung cancer years BEFORE these so called great achievements in public health via government.

http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/NN/p-nid/60

@AdamG

What are the mechanisms of government programs exactly?

How does government work? How are they accomplishing the goals? They SAY there is improvement, but what is the evidence? How much money taken from government is actually to the destination and working once it gets there?

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer it." Thomas Sowell

**Typo

I meant to say "how much money taken by government actually makes it to the "intended" destination and works as intended once it gets there?

Delysid,

Here is one source about the 44% percent believing smoking caused cancer in 1958. It was a Gallup poll.

That was just 2 years after the publication of the British Doctors Study which convinced a lot of people of the risks. Only 6 years later the Surgeon General of the US stated that "Cigarette smoking is a health hazard of sufficient importance in the United States to warrant appropriate remedial action". I don't see that as evidence that, "the Surgeon General of the US defended it for decades. THE GOVERNMENT LIED".

How would a libertarian society have dealt with a problem like that exactly?

Delysid@1233: Of course, it's not like employment, crime rates, or fire damages can be measured numerically. Seriously, have you considered the possibility of thinking before posting?

As someone living in the UK that Thomas Sowell quote made me laugh. I would rephrase it:

“It is amazing that people who think that paying for doctors, hospitals, medication and a non-profit government bureaucracy to administer it would somehow cost more than paying for the same doctors, hospitals and medication, but also paying for hundreds of different bureaucracies to administer it, and paying the profits demanded by the shareholders of the various private companies and insurance companies providing these services.”

Has Sowell not heard of economies of scale? Isn't it likely that one organization can buy millions of doses of a drug, as just one example, more cheaply per dose than a private company can buy hundreds of doses? Isn't this one reason that US health care is the most expensive in the world but one of the least efficient?

It is rather amusing how Delysid keeps asking for evidence that a government can accomplish something, ignores the evidence provided, and then absolutely refuses to provide anything resembling evidence to support his own notions that some sort of Libertarian utopia could be at least as effective as a government.

That was just 2 years after the publication of the British Doctors Study which convinced a lot of people of the risks.

Depends where you mean (PDF). Correlation of political leanings with propensity for THE GOVERNMENT to have LIED is left as an exercise for the reader.

Narad,
It's fascinating that so many people in New Delhi believed that smoking caused cancer back in 1958, which suggests that smoking wasn't common. When I was there a few decades later, it seemed that most men smoked*, and I remember a couple of Indians telling me that smoking was good for the health, except in "excess". That still seems to be the case - Wikipedia tells me that, "According to a 2002 WHO estimate, 30% of adult males in India smoke". I blame Bollywood.

* That was at a time when I saw a fruit beer advertised with "no natural ingredients" as its tag line, so I wonder about the influence of western companies seeking a market.

It's a scientific fact that Cuba has a better healthcare system than the US. LOL. Opinion surveys and government collected and reported data is so scientific. LOL. The WHO, which openly promotes socialized medicine, is the gold standard of trustworthiness when reporting about US healthcare. LOL

Opinion surveys and government collected and reported data is so scientific. LOL.

How about Science? Are they unscientific as well? LOL.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5978/572.full

I'm surprised you didn't link to Michael Moore .

LMFAO.

Communist Cuba is scientifically proven to be better. COMMUNISM IS SO GREAT. The US should do it!

Delysid,

It’s a scientific fact that Cuba has a better healthcare system than the US. LOL.

Perhaps you would be willing to share the evidence that has convinced you this is so ridiculous it makes you laugh out loud. I could do with a laugh, as my country is apparently about to be flattened by Hurricane St. Jude. Here are some numbers:

Life expectancy at birth m/f (years) Cuba: 76/80 USA: 76/81
Probability of dying under five (per 1 000 live births) Cuba: 6 USA: 7
Probability of dying between 15 and 60 years m/f (per 1 000 population) Cuba: 119/75 USA: 131/77
Total expenditure on health per capita (Intl $, 2011) Cuba: 430 USA: 8,608
Total expenditure on health as % of GDP (2011) Cuba: 10.0 USA: 17.9

A triumph of the free market? LOL Do you have any evidence that any of this data is in any way unreliable, other than it is on the WHO website? Any reason at all to believe any of this is wrong?

Opinion surveys and government collected and reported data is so scientific. LOL.

Opinion surveys have become more and more sophisticated and more and more accurate over the past few decades. When was the last time we were surprised by an election result that hadn't been predicted accurately by pollsters? The accuracy of polls has taken all the fun out of elections. Do you have any evidence that "government collected and reported data" has been manipulated or is otherwise inaccurate?

The WHO, which openly promotes socialized medicine, is the gold standard of trustworthiness when reporting about US healthcare. LOL

You must have good evidence to support your belief that the WHO is untrustworthy, and alters data to support its socialist agenda. Where is it?

I think your LOL is simply an expression of your own prejudices, not from any real reason to disbelieve the data, simply because it doesn't fit with your beliefs. We see this over and over with people so absolutely convinced of something (coffee enemas cure cancer, homeopathy works, radiation is good for you, sugar causes all disease, fasting cures all diseases...) that they simply cannot believe any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. They accuse people of being shills paid to distort the evidence, of covering up the truth, and they claim that there is a vast conspiracy to stop reality from looking the way they know it is because the voices in their head tell them so (that last should be in ALL CAPS, but I couldn't bear to do that).

Prove me wrong with some evidence. Go on, think for yourself, you can do it!

I’m surprised you didn’t link to Michael Moore . LMFAO.

Trans. "When the data contradict my prejudices, even the most prestigious science journal in the world is laughably unreliable."

The life expectancy of Utah is 80.2 years and the life expectancy in Nevada is 78.1. Utah is ranked #10 while Nevada is #36. Those two states have nearly identical health care systems and demographics and border each other. EXPLAIN THAT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy

Or you know, life expectancy is a terrible measure of a health care system.

And if you believe the numbers reported by communist Cuba, you are a FOOL.

Do you know how many pairs of rubber gloves dentists are assigned per day? According to my ex-girlfriend's family who currently practices there (half of her family is physicians and dentists practicing in US and half in Cuba), they usually have one for the entire day, sometimes two or 3 if they are stingy and save up some.

Cuba has a few beautiful hospitals for tourists. communist party members, and communist documentary film makers. Cubans themselves are banned from using these. What does the WHO have to say about these?

Right now the Cuban government gives physicians and dentists 15 or so dollars for a month. Oh but they have free healthcare! Imma right?

Also, I don't care how "prestigious" Science is. When they start promoting communist Cuba all credibility is lost.

Peter Agre might be a great biochemist, but he is a typical socialist political hack. He is a laughable Obamabot, forming Science and Engineers for CHANGE.

Political propaganda has no place in a Science journal.

And your proof that that article in Science is "political propaganda"?

Perhaps Delysid could hang his toothyologist shingle in that libertarian paradise known as Somalia.

Krebs - I went through a similar thing here in the socialist paradise of the Great White North and after reading a great chunk of this thread, I have no reason to think a libertarian gubmint would do any better because it will be filled with and lobbied by people who will be every bit as craven and corrupt as the current lot.

"the do any better" is in reference to healthcare,, BTW

@Al - again, if Delsyid is so upset with the current set-up, he should be free to emigrate to the wide variety of successful libertarian paradises around the globe, right?

Delsyid - and what were those again?

Delysid- If you're going to complain about us dismissing your sources based on a history of delusion and deceit, could you please not dismiss our sources because they come to conclusions you dislike?

It's become clear that for Delysid, fallacies hold the same place that sins have for religion extremists: There's things to condemn others for, but not things to avoid oneself. For example, consider his mentioning "Argument to moderation" in #680. I never made any statements of the sort, I was calling him out for his use of false dilemma!

Also, I don’t care how “prestigious” Science is. When they start promoting communist Cuba all credibility is lost.

The longer this thread goes, the more Delysid sounds like Ginger Taylor.

Has Delsyid actually answered a single one of our questions yet?

Did it just start babbling about Cuba out of the blue?

The life expectancy of Utah is 80.2 years and the life expectancy in Nevada is 78.1. Utah is ranked #10 while Nevada is #36. Those two states have nearly identical health care systems and demographics and border each other. EXPLAIN THAT!

Nearly identical demographics? According to http://quickfacts.census.gov/
White population
Utah 91.8%
Nevada: 77.1%

Median household income
Utah: $57,783
Nevada: $55,553

Persons below poverty level
Utah: 11.4%
Nevada: 12.9%

Persons 65 years and over
Utah: 9.5%
Nevada: 13.1%

Could these differences explain a difference of 2.7% in life expectancy? I think they could.

Or you know, life expectancy is a terrible measure of a health care system.

That's true, you can't just blame health care, general social care among some parts of the population is to blame as well. Infant mortality is arguably a better measure, though that suffers from the same effects of social care as life expectancy, but that seems to be better in Cuba too. Despite the appalling rubber glove shortage.

And if you believe the numbers reported by communist Cuba, you are a FOOL.

Why is a Communist country any less trustworthy than any other? Anyway, these are not figures reported by Cuba, these are figures compiled and checked by the WHO and by UNICEF. There isn't an iron curtain that prevents WHO and UNICEF from visiting Cuba to check these figures for themselves. How does Cuba manage such a huge conspiracy to distort these figures.

@Narad - no idea why he suddenly decided to spew about Cuba....

@Lawrence - Remember, Delysid thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a Communist. Hence all the references to Cuba: He thinks that somehow, it serves as a counter-example to our statements, even though nearly all of us disapprove of dictatorship. Mind you, he's simple-minded enough to think that the only reason someone would make rules is to have power over others.

Narad,

Did it just start babbling about Cuba out of the blue?

My fault I think. I pointed out that some more socialist countries in Europe provide more cost-effective health care than the free market does in the US, and I linked to a league table of countries, which included Cuba.

Somalia Ayn Rand Roads Shareholder-Profits Your'e a Racist. A liberal debate robot would be easy to program. Somalia Ayn Rand Roads Shareholder-Profits Your'e a a Racist.

Delysid, it would be easier if you actually bothered to read what we say, rather than rely on childish mockery. Perhaps the reason you keep hearing those arguments is because we have a legitimate point, one that you never address.

Infant mortality? Another TERRIBLE modality for judging a health care system. Lies, eamned lies, and statistics.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/276952/infant-mortality-deceptiv…

Delysid, his only source was a ten-year old paper speculating on the possibility of bias, but not giving much evidence of it.

Delysid: "The life expectancy of Utah is 80.2 years"

Nonsense, Utah has already survived for 117 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah

Infant mortality? Another TERRIBLE modality for judging a health care system. Lies, eamned lies, and statistics.

I have written about this here before, and I don't think you can dismiss the higher infant mortality rate in the US (as compared to other developed countries, not the rest of the world, I should stress) as being due entirely to different ways of measuring it.

One of the major contributors to infant mortality is prematurity, which is strongly influenced by poverty and poor antenatal care. There are large numbers of women in the US, especially Black and Hispanic women who live in poor social conditions and who get lousy antenatal care. I love the US, but the huge underclass there is shameful.

This is getting away from my point, which is that a country like Cuba seems to be doing a reasonably good job of looking after its population while spending a tiny fraction of the amount the US does:
Total expenditure on health per capita in $ Cuba: 430 USA: 8,608. That's a 20-fold difference.

What do you consider a good measure of a country's health and well-being? Not life expectancy it seems, nor infant mortality,

Oh, and do you really think a right-wing rag like 'The National Review' is more reliable than 'Science'?

Both life expectancy and infant mortality are horrible indicators of anything.

Even healthcare spending itself is not necessarily a negative thing. It should be up to individual people about how to spend their money, not politicians or bureaucrats. If someone in the US spends a few thousand dollars to get crowns on several teeth and someone in France just extracts them, is it outrageous that the American spent more money on health care? Of course not.

But if we are stuck in the eternal logical fallacy that the State is the alpha and the omega and all evidence always defends more State intervention then discusssion is pointless.

Socialists will criticize the American healthcare system for spending too much and then turn around and criticize it for pending too little. It is about one thing-CONTROL. It is always about control. The government must control everything because only government spends just the right amount. This is what is so sickening. "I just care about the poor so much that I want the government to control society." No, you don't. You care about the authority of government so much that you will sacrifice any part of society to increase government power, epecially the poor.

I pointed out that some more socialist countries in Europe provide more cost-effective health care than the free market does in the US, and I linked to a league table of countries, which included Cuba.

Right, I saw that, but Cuba's No. 28. A body would have to be desperate, a complete imbecile, or both to seize upon that for a bout of self-soiling apoplexy.

Whoa Narad used the word apoplexy in a sentence. He is like a total genius you guys. He might be the smartest person to ever use the internet.

Narad serioulsy I know you know how brilliant you are, but seriously you are just amazingly intellectual. If you join government we will have to call it Godverment.

Hey Narad here is some free medical advice. If you create too powerful of a vacuum orally while stimulating yourself go to the ER if you develop a priapism lasting over 4 hours.

Hey Narad here is some free medical advice.

I was talking about you, not to you. Mind your place.

A little angry huh? Stress can cause erectile dysfunction. Light a candle, dim the lights, and don't let me ruin your therapy session with little Narad.

You could be a little more understanding, Narad. It's hard for him to see his monitor through the spittle.

Peaches, if I were angry, I'd just send a copy of the thread someplace or another you wouldn't appreciate but would remember.

Now, if you don't mind, I'm afraid I'm going to have to turn you off to properly appreciate the rest of the denouement.

*plonk*

Delysid, it isn't about control. It's about human life. Are you incapable of understanding any but the most selfish of motives?

Delysid,

This is what is so sickening. “I just care about the poor so much that I want the government to control society.” No, you don’t. You care about the authority of government so much that you will sacrifice any part of society to increase government power, epecially the poor.

That is one of the weirdest things I have read from you, and that's saying something. Why would I or anyone else commenting here want to increase government power just for the sake of it? How would that in any way benefit me or them?

You seem to assume that everyone has the same fetishistic attachment to an ideology that you do.

@Gray Falcon

It is 100% about control. Socialism is defined as State control over the means of production. This jibber jabber about "life" is just emotional propaganda. A facade. That's why socialized medicine is called "universal" health care. It is meant to appeal to emotional thinking and feelings rathervthan reason.

I care very much for life.

Do you understand any emotion besides your own selfishness? "I want to be controlled and ruled over, therefore everyone else must be ruled over and controlled as well."'

It is amazing to me how you can accuse me of being selfish over and over and still remain oblivious that you are advocating the most selfish ideology in the history of mankind- statism (and the worst aspects of statism, socialism).

Delysid, are you God? Can you see the human soul? Do you have the right to decide what other people think and believe? Perhaps if you learned what other people believe in, you might actually understand.

@Lawrence

Has Delsyid actually answered a single one of our questions yet?

As we near 1300 comments, nope. Delysid still has provided zero quality evidence to support anything he's said, let alone answer legitimate questions posed to him in any manner resembling a serious answer.

In reality, Delysid isn't even a Libertarian. He's simply a Contrarian.

@Gray Falcon

Are you kidding me? "Do you have the right to decide what other people think and believe?"

NO! NO! That is the point of all of this. Now you are twisting this around like I"m somehow infringing on your rights?!

"Delysid and other libertarians are bullies! They won't let me control their lives! Libertarians are so selfish! They won't let me spend their money for them!"

This is unbelievable. You have to be trolling me now. There is no way anyone is so dense and so intellectually dimwitted as to sincerely think what you are saying.

@Todd W

What questions have I still not answered? I have answered everything.

How else do you expect me to say it? It all comes down to ethics.

If I storm into your house, with my government credentials, and put a literal or metaphorical gun to your head in order to confiscate your money and other property for the "greater good of society," does this make it right? Do you have to prove with scientific evidence that this is wrong? What if I'm not a government agent? Is it still just as right or wrong?

I can show proof of all of the wonderful products I give to children with the money I take directly from you. What evidence can you show that proves that society is better off with you keeping your own money?

Delysid,

It is 100% about control. Socialism is defined as State control over the means of production.

I don't think anyone here has proposed an entirely socialist state, not even me. Personally I think a welfare state is a good idea, and I think some other public services are best provided by the state. I'm not proposing state ownership of everything, only health care, public transport, criminal justice, education, and roads, none of which are "means of production", and perhaps public utilities, energy and water. I also think the US people and her economy would do better under a more generous welfare system i.e. if she were more socialist than currently. By the way, even under the NHS a person can choose to pay for more expensive dental care than they would get from the NHS, the same in France.

This jibber jabber about “life” is just emotional propaganda. A facade.

I suppose that's why so many of us writing here are in the 'caring professions', to keep up the facade that we care about people's health and wellbeing when really all we want is a bigger and more powerful government. All those years working for the NHS for a lower wage than I could have earned in the private sector was just a facade designed to stop people from seeing I was really just empowering the government. I hadn't even realized just how cunning I am.

That’s why socialized medicine is called “universal” health care.

Oh I see, living in the UK where we have "universal" health care, I thought it was called that because everyone living here has access to it and it is free at point of care.

It is meant to appeal to emotional thinking and feelings rathervthan reason.

Of course, "universal" is so much more emotive a word than "socialized", especially in the US, where no one has a knee-jerk negative reaction to any word beginning with "social".

I care very much for life.

I'm sure you do, but I think you support an ideology that would, if put into practice in the US, for example, rapidly result in a very large amount of human misery.

It is amazing to me how you can accuse me of being selfish over and over and still remain oblivious that you are advocating the most selfish ideology in the history of mankind- statism (and the worst aspects of statism, socialism).

I am certainly oblivious to that. How is a form of government that provides a welfare state and the means for redistributing wealth "selfish"? Based on previous performance I'll brace myself for a rant about Stalinist Russia.

Perhaps if you thought of yourself as a part of society and (potentially) government, you wouldn't see yourself as being bullied and coerced by an authority figure. How is/was your relationship with your father? Just curious.

@Kreb

How exactly is "health care" different from any other sector of society? Is medicine NOT a good? Is it somehow exempt from the laws of supply and demand?

Why don't you want socialism for everything? If socialism works in those sectors you named why doesn't it work in the others?

Also my relationship with both of my parents is great and always has been. What an insulting question. Fun fact. My parents were both public-school teachers in two different communities. They had such low-regard for the pitiful results of public schools (which they knew first-hand for decades) that they sent myself and my siblings to private schools. It wasn't a political statement. Observational fact from decades of experience in the socialized educational system you are so fond of.

Delysid:

What questions have I still not answered?

To refresh your memory:
How would a libertarian state deal with price fixing?
How would a libertarian state prevent blood feuds?
How would a libertarian state deal with the large number of displaced people following a major catastrophe?
Would the magical free market fund less flashy, but still essential basic research?
What evidence would convince you of anthropogenic climate change?
How do you deal with those too ill to work, to poor to afford health care, who fail to save money for old age, who get addicted to the freely available addictive drugs in your utopia, who steal from others, who teach their children dangerous nonsense, who plot to kill others, who invade your country with an army, who refuse to pay for a road but now try to use it etc. etc.?
Explain how the free market would address the problem of a single parent who is unable to command a sufficient income to provide for herself and her child.
How would you prevent abuses of power in a libertarian society?
Consider your example @ 393 of how the market creates wealth, involving fish, a spear, woven huts, etc. What happens if, instead of trading the fish Narad has caught with his captial (the spear he made) for the shelter representing Orac’s capital, Narad instead uses that spear to take Orac’s hut by force? How exactly would market forces act to either prevent that loss or to return Orac’s capital to him?
Name a successful libertarian state.
If you have answered these questions, please point out at which comments you did.

cleanup for protein spill in comment 1267

still strawmanning and eliding reality I see

Gubmint always spends the right amount? Imagine the following in bold 48pt comic sans with cycling flashing neon colours:

LOL

The provincial red clowns here in the middle of Soviet Canukistan decided to be green and replace dirty coal fired hydro plants with cleaner natural gas. Zo, they knock down, rather than refit, existing infrastructure and put in a park. Green.

Since the area still needs a generating station, they make deals with the kind freemarketers and ignore their constituents - twice. As a result, hydro bills are going up to pay for the $1.1B or more we owe for nothing. The previous blue clowns had privatised this sector with cries of "competition = lower power rates", so this raise in rates has quite shocked this monkey.

Meanwhile, the blue clowns federally have misplaced $3B, no idea where it went, after running up the highest deficit in histoire since the last fiscal conservative merde in a suit.

For all the jabbering aboot feelings, nothing more than feelings, liberal feelings, one can feel an almost palpable hatred emanating from this one

Price fixing. This has been explained how the market corrects by game theory.

Blood feuds. That is a stupid question and irrelevant.

Major catastrophe. FEMA is horrible. But what would the the US do without FEMA? That would be like the dark ages before 1978! CHAOS!!!

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=417

@Julian Frost

How would the "magical" free market pick cotton without the slaves?

Free market science versus government science.
http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-free-market-and-scientific-re…

Free rider problem.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-free-market-and-scientific-re…

No evidence will convince me that PLOITICIANS should solve gloal warming issues. Who ate these magical god politicians progressives are so enamored with? "People in the free market are terrible but politicians are smart and ethical." Lol

Don't quite understand how Delsyid is confident that corporations won't start acting like governments on to themselves, if they should have free-reign....given the experiences we've had with little or no regulation in the past....

Again, please point to where your theories have been tried and found to be successful?

How would the libertarian state deal with the problems posed by the generation of chemical, radioactive and bio-hazardous waste?
How would the libertarian state ensure employees maintained safe working conditions in their factories/mines/etc.?
How would the libertarian state prevent employers from engaging in exploitive child labor practices?
For that matter, how would the libertarian state prevent children from being commodified?
How would the libertarian state ensure adherence to building codes, such that a single builder could not place surrounding homes/facilities at risk of fire?
Speaking of fire, how would the libertarian state address the necessity of ensuring available emergency services (fire, medical, etc.)?
How would the libertarian state provide the transportation infrastructure (highways, bridges, tunnels, etc.) necessary for interstate commerce?
How would the libertarian state ensure the safety, efficacy and purity of drugs and medical devices manufacturers offer for sale?

And of course the fundamental unanswered question:

Given that in even the presence of government ‘force’ (i.e., strong regulation and a judicial system capable of punishing offenders) we observe that people still behave unethically, what evidence suggests they’d behave as well (let alone any better) in its total absence?

So Delysid fails to answer most of the questions that I aggregated, gives inadequate answers to the two he does answer, then strawmans by asking:

How would the “magical” free market pick cotton without the slaves?

As Gray Falcon pointed out, while price fixing goes away on its own, so do house fires. The price fixing by South African bakeries was exposed when an astute shopowner saw that all 3 major South African bakeries hiked their prices in the space of less than a week.

Sorry I had to go do some oral surgery. Try Google.

How does the State do these things? The State has failed ti solve any of these problems, but I'm supposed to predict the future? The market is not one thing. How about with nuclear waste we have some competition to see who can do it best? The government doesn't have the need to profit and is never punshed for making mistakes? Oh we blew a trillion dollars in taxes? Pay us more taxes or go to jail.

That article about the free market made me laugh:

The discovery of the structure of DNA was largely a product of private action.

How so?

O.T. Avery, while working on a cure for pneumonia at the privately funded Rockefeller Institute in the 1940s, became the first person to learn that DNA was the molecule of inheritance.

Nothing to do with the efforts of Watson and Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge (publicly funded), and Franklin and Wilkins at King's in London (also publicly funded)?

How about with nuclear waste we have some competition to see who can do it best?

Great idea. I know a bloke with a wheelbarrow who says he can dispose of it very cheaply.

I think you’re playing a semantic game here, by responding “The state has failed to solve these problems” when the question you’ve been asked is “How would your libertarian state deal with these problems?”

Currwently the state deals with ensuring the safety, efficacy and purity of marketed drugs and medical devices with agencies vested with regulatory authority ,such as the FDA. It deals with ensuring workplace safety with agencies vested with regulatory authority, like OSHA. With the generation of radioactive, chemical and bio-hazardous waste with OSHA again and also the EPA. It deals with exploitive child labor with laws regulating employment; with contractors endangering communities with laws establishing building codes.

And of course with the creation and maintenance of judicial systems capable of punishing violators.

The state deals with protecting the most vulnerable members of our society by providing public assistance such as SNAP programs, etc.

Is there room for improvement? Of course. But the question we’re asking you is how your libertarian state would address these problems as well or better than the current system does now. For example, what does public health policy look like in your libertarian state?

The impression you’ve given me is that your libertarian state wouldn’t even consider many of these problems to be problems in the first place.

SNAP? You mean that cute welfare program that hands 70 billion dollars straight to JP Morgan?

http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/FoodStampsFollowtheM…

How about with nuclear waste we have some competition to see who can do it best?

What exactly is stopping anyone from competing right now?

How did you fail to note the link you provided identifies the activities of the commercial businesses (food manufacturers, food retailers, and banks) which profit from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program as a problem, not SNAP program itself.

If anything your link suggests the need for greater t oversight and regulation, not eliminating all regulation and oversight.

One wonders if Delysid's solution to cavities involves the extraction of all teeth.

How does the state solve the problem of cavities, Grey Falcon? The state has failed to solve the problem--people still get cavities!

No one will get cavities in free market societies. If they even think they’re going to get cavities they’ll just take their teeth somewhere else.

@JGC

I think you’re playing a semantic game here, by responding “The state has failed to solve these problems” when the question you’ve been asked is “How would your libertarian state deal with these problems?”

Exactly. That's all Delysid has done in this thread. Instead of answering the questions asked, he takes a straw man approach and answers questions that weren't asked. He's no different than a Creationist, arguing that "evolution doesn't explain X, therefore God!"

Delysid's sole justification for his stance is "Government hasn't solved X in a way that I like, therefore Libertarianism!"

@JGC

One way the American State has tried to stop dental caries is by mass medication with the fluoride ion in the public water supply. Amazingly, even most of Western Europe, governments which I mostly disagree with, recognized the ridiculousness of this practice ethically and scientifically and ended the practice of public water fluoridation decades ago.

I've been getting linked to quackery by some people in this thread, so I want to remind everyone that I am NOT a chemophobe and I treat patients quite frequently with fluoride therapy when it is indicated, usually in the form of prophylactic polishing paste or resin-modified glass ionomer in large molar restorations. I am against putting fluoride in the public water supply, not in administering patients with fluoride in individual treatments.

On a side note, I am not a huge fan of mercury-silver amalgams and will avoid them in private practice, but I understand they are quite harmless biologically and environmentally when the reaction is set and stable, but I find it interesting that several Scandinavian countries have banned their use as dental restorations. I obviously disagree with this prohibition on ethical grounds, but it is amusing to me that these countries also recognize the potential (minimal) hazards of mercury-amalgam to dentists, staff and patients when placing these restorations and to the environment during cremation while the US government defends their use so vehemently.

State-run programs in the US that have attempted to improve community oral health have not been successful economically and the means have certainly not justified the ends. Head Start has failed to make any significant improvement in childhood caries (unless one only considers self-evaluation propaganda by the Federal government) and Medicaid only increased access to care for children and adults by 10% or so despite billions of dollars of tax money being spent on them.

I am quite familiar with some of the epidemiology studies that supposedly defend these Federal programs, as I not only read them but was TESTED on them, but I openly called BS and challenged several of my professors about them (with ethical arguments and counter-epidemiology studies).

No one can or will promise that "in a free-market no will get get caries." That's like saying "in a free-market no one will develop noninsulin dependent diabetes mellitus." It's a matter of genetics and environment and personal behavior.

In my opinion the Nanny State contributes to oral diseases and health ignorance. For instance, the Federal government subsidizes tens of billions of dollars annually in grains. There is a causation between a high-sugar diet and dental caries.

Government campaigns such as public water fluoridation and Head Start and Medicaid discourage personal responsibility in health. What is the incentive to put forth effort in one's (or one's children) health when dependent on the government? Nanny State programs encourage ignorance.

It is sad for me to work in pediatrics and see young children with rampant caries. I'm uncomfortable extracting teeth in both children and adults (especially teens and 20 somethings).

Government force through a Nanny State cannot help them. Mass medication cannot help them (as evidenced by nearly identical DMF indices comparisons of the US and Europe). There are exceptions of course, but for the most part it is up to people to help themselves. Even young children can be taught the importance of oral health care and take of their own health to a strong extent. Dentists are trying their best to help people help themselves through medicine and education, and no profession tries to eliminate itself more than dentistry, but it takes individual effort from patients.

The market has provided unprecedented opportunities for society in oral health. Tooth brushes, floss, antiseptic mouthwash, and other dentrifices in Western culture are ubiquitous and cheap. Dentistry, which has largely avoided the costs of socialism that has plagued the rest of medicine, continues to be of ever higher quality and affordability. This should make perfect sense to those who understand economics from the lens of the free-market, as honest competition produces excellence. Implants, for example, are a fraction of the cost (relative to inflation) from only a decade ago. Implants, of course, aren't subjected to the price manipulations of government and insurance (which derives its power from government legislation). This is what happens in the market. The laws of supply and demand.

@Todd W

You are dead-wrong. If the government (particularly socialist redistribution of wealth) worked perfectly for every single person (which is laughably impossible), I WOULD STILL OPPOSE GOVERNMENT FORCE.

It is just an inevitable sequela due to the nature of government that it fails miserably at its endeavors (and even when it succeeds it comes at a great, unjustifiable price). I require zero "scientific' evidence to oppose government.

I believe in voluntary relationships, therefore libertarianism.

I made a huge mistake in this thread of playing the statism slavery game. "Prove to me scientifically why you shouldn't be my slave. Prove to me why government shouldn't control you." Has a government assessment of government policy ever concluded that their intervention was NOT successful?

This is the logical fallacy with which statists always try to claim victory.

A free society is default. This is trying to prove a negative.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Bastiat

@Todd W

You are dead-wrong. If the government (particularly socialist redistribution of wealth) worked perfectly for every single person (which is laughably impossible), I WOULD STILL OPPOSE GOVERNMENT FORCE.

It is just an inevitable sequela due to the nature of government that it fails miserably at its endeavors (and even when it succeeds it comes at a great, unjustifiable price). I require zero "scientific' evidence to oppose government.

I believe in voluntary relationships, therefore libertarianism.

I made a huge mistake in this thread of playing the statism slavery game. "Prove to me scientifically why you shouldn't be my slave. Prove to me why government shouldn't control you." Has a government assessment of government policy ever concluded that their intervention was NOT successful?

This is the logical fallacy with which statists always try to claim victory.

A free society is default. This is trying to prove a negative.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Bastiat

@Todd W

You are dead-wrong. If the government (particularly socialist redistribution of wealth) worked perfectly for every single person (which is laughably impossible), I WOULD STILL OPPOSE GOVERNMENT FORCE.

It is just an inevitable sequela due to the nature of government that it fails miserably at its endeavors (and even when it succeeds it comes at a great, unjustifiable price). I require zero "scientific' evidence to oppose government.

I believe in voluntary relationships, therefore libertarianism.

I made a huge mistake in this thread of playing the statism slavery game. "Prove to me scientifically why you shouldn't be my slave. Prove to me why government shouldn't control you." Has a government assessment of government policy ever concluded that their intervention was NOT successful?

This is the logical fallacy with which statists always try to claim victory.

A free society is default. This is trying to prove a negative.

“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?” Bastiat

Delyisd:

It is just an inevitable sequela due to the nature of government that it fails miserably at its endeavors (and even when it succeeds it comes at a great, unjustifiable price).

Old Rockin' Dave @ 314 gave a list of government successes. Others have pointed out the contribution of DARPA to the internet and how gene mapping was kicked off by government contributions.

I require zero “scientific’ evidence to oppose government.

Evidence? We dun need no steenkin' evidence!

Prove to me why government shouldn’t control you.

And once again, you confuse regulation and oversight with dictatorial control.

Has a government assessment of government policy ever concluded that their intervention was NOT successful?

Yes. Outcomes Based Education was used and then abandoned in South Africa after the evidence showed it wasn't working.

GAAH!

Here is a very good comparison of a successful government intervention vs. market-led intervention that is also extremely timely.....

During the Great Depression, large numbers of Americans were at risk of defaulting on their mortgages and facing foreclosure. To assist, the government set up a program to work directly with the homeowners and the banks to negotiate better terms, appropriate payment schedules, and other interventions to keep people in their homes. The banks were also protected, because they weren't forced out of business by a tidal wave of mortgage defaults.

When the program ended, not only was the rate of foreclosures kept at a minimum, but it also ended up generating a profit for the US Government (truly a win, win, win for everyone involved).

Compare that to the 2008 - 2013 period, where government intervention was kept to a minimum, with very little effort made to truly assist homeowners or work with the financial institutions to make the necessary corrections to prevent foreclosures (with over 350 banks going out of business, merging or being bought by other, less struggling institutions).

Again, history shows us that Delsyid's "theories" don't hold water and certainly don't automatically mean that things will be better (whether it be for the individual - unless that individual has acquired sufficient resources to manipulate events to their advantage, or corporations, which certainly only work for their own benefit).

This isn't to say that the government is always right - because time and time again, we've said that it isn't - but at least we can say that, unless there is an alternative to our current system - that what we have today is the best we've got - and the goal should be to always seek improvement and balance between the needs of the individual, the needs of business, and the requirements for government vs. an open and fair economic system.

Again, I ask Delsyid - where has his type of society been tried & been successful?

@JGC #1295 and #1297 -- There's another three-letter government agency involved, one that has a great deal of technical expertise in protecting people (including Delysid) when civilians use radioactive stuff (or want to safely store radioactive waste). :)

@Delysid

Take a look at your posts again. You focus on how you think government has failed on various topics, yet you do not provide any evidence that Libertarianism would be any better than, let alone as good as, government.

Is there any form of government you'd support? If so, what roles would it fill? What would it do?

Delysid,

I believe in voluntary relationships, therefore libertarianism.

That's a very silly non sequitur. I believe in voluntary relationships, therefore democracy. As far as I'm concerned I have a voluntary agreement with my government and the society I live in to obey their rules and laws and to face the consequences if I don't (and I get caught). If there is anything I don't like there is a democratic process I can use to change things, or I can go to another country. No one is forcing me to live where I do, but if I want to live here I have to abide by the local rules, the same as anywhere I happen to travel to.

If anyone doesn't like living in a democratic society they are free to move to another part of the planet where there is a political (or taxation) system they do like. Lots of people do this already, they are called tax exiles.

Are there any experimental libertarian communities anywhere? Surely a group of libertarians could club together, buy an island somewhere and set up their own libertarian community. I for one would be fascinated to see how that developed. However, I have a suspicion that most libertarians aren't prepared to put their money where their mouths are. Most libertarian literature seems to be mostly about constructing complex trains of logic resulting in weird consequences all based on questionable precepts and assumptions.

I'll quote again the introduction to Nozick's 'The Ethics of Liberty':

[...] Nozick's libertarianism was, and claimed to be, no more than just an interesting thought. He did not mean to do any real harm to the ideas of his socialist opponents. He only wanted to throw an interesting idea into the democratic open-ended intellectual debate, while everything real, tangible, and physical could remain unchanged and everyone could go on with his life and thoughts as before.

Mental masturbation, one might call it, with the intention of irritating "socialists" (that appears to be a blanket term for non-libertarians) but with no practical applications.and nothing useful to contribute.

scottynuke @1309

yeah, for some reason my mind drew a total blank with respect to the NRC

I think part of the problem people like Delysid have is a difficulty understanding concept of "implied contracts". The various laws of the land can be seen as such: You benefit from interstate highways and police officers, and so you pay the taxes. Libertarians will claim they never consented to any agreement.

However, if one enters a restaurant and requests a meal, then one is expected to pay for the meal. Saying "I never agreed to pay for this" will not go over well. As mentioned earlier, a bar with a cover charge can claim someone's money for simply walking inside the premises. One can dispute such contracts: For example, if the cover charge is not posted clearly, or the amount being spent on public works is clearly less that the amount going in. Disputing the concept itself, however, is not a good idea.

@Kreb

You believe in voluntary relationships, therefore democracy? That makes sense to you? What about when the majority decides to use force (which happens daily in politics?) Argumentum ad populum?

The tragedy regarding libertarianism is that a socialist community can exist peacefully in a larger libertarian society (aka communes), but a libertarian community is NOT permitted under a socialist government. If a group of libertarians join together and decide not to pay taxes they are declared terrorists by the government and invaded. In socialism everyone must be controlled.

There a movement called the Free State Project where thousands of libertarians are moving to New Hampshire to try to influence state politics. They are having success. I am considering making the move out there.

@Gray Falcon

I understand political science far better than you do. You don't have to go into a restaurant. The restaurant is not going to go to your house and arrest you for not eating there.

It is ridiculous to compare this to government. Now the Federal Government has declared that everyone has to purchase health insurance. Simply by existing you are breaking the law if you don't pay.

The social contract is a joke. The founding fathers tried to establish a Republic of states and counties so that local governments could form their own laws and have some competition, but progressive tyrants have since destroyed the 10th amendment and now seek to pass all laws through the Federal government.

It's a disgusting mindset to have a small group of people in DC making laws for 300 million people.

@Delysid

As with the restaurant patron, you do not have to live in a country. You can go elsewhere. So what's the problem with the country having certain rules for those who choose to live there?

Oh, and I'll ask again: Is there any form of government you’d support? If so, what roles would it fill? What would it do?

Here in the US, if you don't make that much money and you suffer a serious illness, you had two options: Die of disease or die of penury. But at least you were given a choice.

Delysid@1283:

"My parents were both public-school teachers in two different communities. They had such low-regard for the pitiful results of public schools (which they knew first-hand for decades) that they sent myself and my siblings to private schools."

Then why can't you spell?

That Free State Project is interesting. My sister-in-law lives in Dover, so I'll have to warn that she is about to get swamped by libertarians. If a sufficient number of libertarians do move there it will be very interesting to see how it unfolds. If it does happen, I predict disaster within a year, but I would be happy to be proved wrong.

As I have stated before, a libertarian society in which everyone behaves ethically and responsibly sounds lovely. The problem is there is a significant number of people who do not behave ethically or responsibly without being coerced to do so. Even then a large number do not. There are approximately 7 million people under correctional supervision (prison, probation, parole or jail) in the USA, which must surely tell you something.

I don't think Delysid's coming back anytime soon. He's probably still reeling from the knowledge that most non-libertarians aren't the stereotypes he learned in his forums, and don't respond well to him suggesting otherwise. Mostly likely he left to rebuild his dwindling supply of cognitive dissonance.

That Free State Project is interesting.

I especially like the part where people who have no intention of moving anywhere can sign up to help "Trigger the Move," and all the "solemn intent" that it represents.

I've been on a surgery rotation. It's adorable though that people here think that they have made any impact on me whatsoever. I'm surrounded by dumbass statists everywhere and I'm bombarded with progressive propaganda (though I have a large network of varying degrees of like-minds that keeps me encouraged).

You all mostly repeated the same tired arguments I always hear. Somalia, I'm a racist, I hate poor people, people are bad so we need a government of people are bad so we need a government of people, Ayn Rand, and so on. There were a few new twists that I had to think about and do some research on (mostly by Chris), but overall not really.

I'm still a libertarian. Not one person changed any of my viewpoints. This is extremely unlikely unless we are talking about the nuances of minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, two viewpoints I oscillate between depending on my mood.

All of you, unless you work directly for the State, presumably live your lives as libertarians. Most people do. Somehow there is a wide misunderstanding and mass hysteria that the government is the force keeping society orderly, so millions of people who live 364 days a year as libertarians vote on election day for tyranny.

Surgery rotation? Doing what? Mopping the OR floor?

Delysid, if you had bothered to read our posts, you would have noticed that we mostly asked questions about how your "free society" would deal with real-world situations, which you responded to with scatological insults. Do you think dishonesty impresses us? Do you really think anyone is going to believe your lies? Do you realize anyone can simply scroll up to see the truth?

And I don't work for the state, but I don't live as a libertarian. I use roads paid for by taxes, am protected by state police and fire departments, and know that nobody can build a rending plant in our neighborhood. Compare that to your "free society", where one would likely need a gas mask and three weapons on hand at all times.

Surgery rotation? Doing what?

Has spring come early in Columbus? (PDF)

An interesting look on how libertarianism 'works' in real life:

http://www.alternet.org/how-ayn-rand-ruined-my-childhood

"Not one person changed any of my viewpoints."

Well, yes. You said no evidence or logic could make you change your viewpoints. Therefore your viewpoint didn't change. I didn't even bother engaging the actual argument for that reason.

So, we're all ganging up on you, but we're all secretly libertarians who secretly agree with you, if we'd only admit it, and we all secretly act like libertarians when no one is watching because secretly we all know you are secretly right!

Congratulations, you are become Greg, the destroyer of intelligent thought.

@Politicalguineapig, I read that article. Frankly, her dad comes across as a psychopath. "I've got mine so f*** everyone else!" It strikes me that libertarianism and psychopathy fit each other like hand and glove.

Somehow there is a wide misunderstanding and mass hysteria that the government is the force keeping society orderly, so millions of people who live 364 days a year as libertarians vote on election day for tyranny.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that perhaps, just perhaps, it is true that the government is the force keeping society orderly. Maybe that's one reason why societies have governments. I'm certainly glad to have some sort of law enforcement where I live, because of the crime that occurs every day. Without any police I can only imagine that it would be worse, but I suppose that's my limited imagination.

I can imagine a private police force, that I could choose to pay for or not. But then why should I pay for the police to get rid of the drug dealers and prostitutes who have recently decided to move into my local area, for example, when my neighbor hasn't bothered? Funding a police force through central taxation seems a lot simpler and fairer to me.

By the way, I still chuckle quietly to myself when I see the USA described as "tyranny". "Help, help, I'm being oppressed!"

@Delysid

As Khani points out, you are starting to sound an awful lot like Greg.

minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, two viewpoints I oscillate between depending on my mood

Ah, so sometimes you're a statist, and sometimes you're an anarchist? Thanks for answering what form of government (if any) you think there should be. Now for the second half of my question: when you're feeling statist, what specific role should the state play? What level of government action is allowable?

I can imagine a private police force, that I could choose to pay for or not. But then why should I pay for the police to get rid of the drug dealers and prostitutes who have recently decided to move into my local area, for example, when my neighbor hasn’t bothered?

Krebiozen, good point. There's also the question: what's the difference between a private police force and a mafia?

Julian: Good point. As I said earlier, a lot of libertarians seem to like the movement because they feel that the state impedes them from being as creeptastic and awful as they want to be.
I also think that a lot of libertarians fundamentally misunderstand society. They seem to think we are all tigers growling at each other in the night, not that we're social animals and have evolved rules so we can function and survive as a species.

All of you, unless you work directly for the State, presumably live your lives as libertarians.

You're now saying it's possible to live one's life as a libertarian even in a democratic republic where markets are regulated and 'government force' is all pervasive?

Why do you see such a critical need to abandon this system to embrace an unrelgulated free market liberatarian state, if that's the case?

An article published on Alternet denouncing Objectivism (not libertarianism) that says "my brother hogged the mashed potatoes" is exactly the level of intellectualism I've come to expect from Orac's special education blog.

Kreb needs the police to protect him from drug dealers and prostitutes (both victimless "crimes" against the State). If the government is the source of order, I can only assume that it is the only force stopping Kreb from smoking crack and banging prostitutes. Because principles are not intrinsic and free will doesn't exist right? The State is the alpha and the omega?

@Todd

I have answered this no less than 3 times now.

I am both a statist and an anarcho-capitalist because I am of the belief that a population of a certain size will always force some form of a government on society and that "pure" anarchy is just theoretical. I view anarchy as a limit in calculus in that we can't reach it, but that we should always be approaching it. I am also of the belief that a government that only has a function of a court system would be functionally indistinguishable from a private court system.

@Narad

I was tempted to upload proof with my Oral and Maxillofacial department surgery security card with identification numbers blocked out, then came to my senses and realized screw you. I had class all morning and I'm my next shift starts in a few minutes.

I'm amused that people here are calling me a liar and downplaying dentistry. Dental students aren't treating cases as complicated as the OMFS residents and specialists obviously, and it isn't thoracic or neurosurgery, but it is surgery nonetheless. The professional degree historically was called a Doctor of Dental Surgery for a reason.

Simple extractions make up the bulk of my cases, but I did a surgical extraction of a grossly carious #18 with symptomatic irreversible pulpitis and symptomatic apical periodontitis. There wasn't enough solid enamel or dentin on the crown for leverage for elevation of the remaining root so I had to prepare a buccal triangular surgical flap and access the root by cutting a trough with the drill.
Oh yeah and IA blocks and infiltration do little to stop the sensation of pressure and the patient had a large periapical abscess and was fully conscience. Bleeding was profuse due to the inflammation and having taken aspirin earlier for the pain.

And all of this was taking place in the back of the mouth.Delivering the root tip and tying of the last suture was a good feeling.

But I guess that is no different from mopping the floor.

Delysid:

An article published on Alternet denouncing Objectivism (not libertarianism) that says “my brother hogged the mashed potatoes”...

Did you read past the first page? Her father refused to support her mother and had to be forced to pay alimony by the courts. If the courts hadn't intervened, she, her brother and mother may have had serious problems.

Kreb needs the police to protect him from drug dealers and prostitutes

That whooshing noise was the sound of the point going over your head at full speed. Drug Dealers and prostitutes mean drug addicts and johns, and people do need protection from them.
Get it?

I am also of the belief that a government that only has a function of a court system would be functionally indistinguishable from a private court system.

Can you provide an real-world example of a functional private court system for comparison, Delysid?

1332 Delysid "...exactly the level of intellectualism I’ve come to expect from Orac’s special education blog."

Sexism before, and now ableism.

Exactly the level of discourse we're used to from you, who will not change his mind regardless of the type and amount of evidence.

Delysid @1332

exactly the level of intellectualism I’ve come to expect from Orac’s special education blog

Why are you even posting here?

Are you trying to be provocative deliberately, to evoke emotional responses?

Do you think you’re trying to educate people? Or are you just entertaining yourself?

I've been following this thread for more than 1,300 replies now, and I still don't actually know what Delysid believes.

Oh, I get that he or she hates the idea of government (that is, a body vested with special powers); what I don't get is why that particular form of collectivism is different from the de facto power of any other collectivist institution.

Similarly, I don't get why such collectivist action isn't the natural outgrowth of "unregulated markets," or even what unregulated markets are supposed to be. By their very nature, players regulate markets; I'm not sure how government actions are supposed to be of a different kind than the individual actions.

It's almost as if Delysid assumes that power only flows from the government, and never from individuals -- as if he or she assumes some natural force will keep individuals from trampling each other's rights, but that force is somehow powerless before a government. It'd be one thing if he or she eschewed the concepts of rights altogether; then there'd be some harmony to the theory. As it is, it's a hot mess that I can't make heads or tails of.

@Mewens- That's because you're assuming he's actually interested in a coherent theory or functioning society. More likely, he's started with his goals (becoming a dentist without going through dental school) and developed a political stance around them.

Let's face it, between his esoteric definitions, habit of partial quotation, and brazen ableism, Delysid's become the next Th1Th2.

Delysid,

Kreb needs the police to protect him from drug dealers and prostitutes (both victimless “crimes” against the State). If the government is the source of order, I can only assume that it is the only force stopping Kreb from smoking crack and banging prostitutes.

As Julian Frost pointed out you appear to miss my point. I can look out of my living room window most evenings recently and see drug dealers doing business less than 20 yards away. It's quite interesting to watch, a bit like a real life version of The Wire, though we try not to let them know we are watching, for obvious reasons.

My wife stumbled upon a junkie prostitute shooting up in our communal garbage area a couple of days ago - it is normally locked but someone must have forgotten. Presumably these people have been moved on form wherever they were doing business before. This appears to be the free market in drugs in operation, but drug dealing is very competitive and it brings other crimes, such as prostitution,and because we live right on the boundary of two gang territories we have had two gang-related shootings within a half mile radius of our home, one 5 yards from my front door.

I don't want this going on in my neighborhood - would you? My neighbors have children, which makes this even worse. I don't want to leave the area, and don't have the resources to do so even if I wanted to. Short of getting together with my neighbors and forming some sort of vigilante group, getting the police to deal with this problem seems like the best solution. It's what we pay our taxes for, among other things.

Because principles are not intrinsic and free will doesn’t exist right? The State is the alpha and the omega?

Using my free will I voluntarily choose to pay taxes to pay for a police force that deals with crime, though sometimes less effectively than I would like. What's the libertarian solution? Gangs of vigilantes with guns and baseball bats? I'll stick with my trusty London bobbies thanks.

JF: It actually got worse. Her father tried to force her to emancipate herself, so he could make her pay rent and bills.

I know, PGP. My eyebrows nearly shot off my head at that point.