Anti-THR Lies: Ecig proponents need to learn lessons from other activists

[Uma]

Because we are wholly inconsistent with what we think clean air means in many situations. Arguably all situations.

It is up to the individual.
Constitution assures individual self governing, with no gov interference. Like your air pristine? Wear an oxygen tank. Like you air smoked? The bar's open, Norm!
Nobody has the right to govern other people's individual preferences. Don't like the smoky bar? Don't enter!

Oops, I jumped into conversation before finishing the entire thread. Even so, it's still worth the repeating, I hope.

 

[Kent C]

Your objection that what we have is not true capitalism is about as meaningless as when somebody defends communism by saying that the USSR etc. wasn't true communism. Technically true, but basically useless. It shouldn't impress anyone.

I understand that USSR's communism wasn't perfect for ideologues - unfortunately for about 10 million souls, the "withering away of the state" never happened, but at least the socialism - the economic system - was rather complete - all property belonged to the state and all money went to the state to be redistributed according to the state's intent ("objective" - in caramel's terms).

But why is it that when liberals attack free enterprise, they always bring up actual cases of trade that is NOT free - that is either a monopoly that is set up by state or local politicians - utilities or cable, or cases where gov't subsidies prop up some company. IOW, the case in the USSR is a lot more 'pure' than the cases liberals cite for the free market, which is commonly called a 'straw man argument'.

Right now there's a fairly free market in ecigs - people get what they want, no gov't intrusion into the market - all types of choices and innovations are happening. Prices drop, quality rises in general.

IF the deeming goes through - then it's possible that only cigalikes will be available and either only a few or no flavorings because NPT didn't heed Koch's studies. (and it's just ludicrous that you keep mentioning that Koch (or any private source) is somehow responsible for the National Toxicology Program - a gov't entity, calling any chemical substance as carcinogenic.) The EPA found second-hand smoke to be carcinogenic and you blame Levy/Cato because they proved that it wasn't! So now with ecigs, you'll blame the people and vapers who have been fighting the deeming for bringing the deeming about.

So when your favorite entity - gov't - regulates any industry, you blame the hated 'free enterprise system' for bringing it about Again, my earlier comment about how convoluted your arguments are doesn't really approach the insanity of them.

caramel, by comparison, is only saying that freedom exists by a 'choice in process' - even though that process might include his favorite system - socialism - where using force to take away freedom is one of the choices! Even as convoluted as that thinking is, it doesn't even approach yours. In fact, it's rather tame. caramel would only go so far as to say that there's an 'objective' to using force, where you would blame the victims of the force for bringing it about!! We're in Alice's Wonderland at this point.

 

[BuGlen]

Can we please keep this thread on topic to the context of the linked article in the OP. Thanks!

 

[Kent C]

How does this pertain to the "free markets" discussion?

The discussion is about the objective / outcome of a specific process ("free markets") imposed to commerce / labour market / etc.

No, only you have made it about 'objective/outcome'. And even though that's an attempt to side track, I've answered it and it is part of why I asked the question. The objective in a free exchange between two individuals is that both want to increase their values in the exchange where you as a ecig user want, say, a mod and the seller wants your money (to carry out whatever his/her motive is for selling - support a family, increase business, pay off a debt or buy a yacht). An exchange takes place only when both people feel they have increased their value. If not - no exchange takes place.

When gov't enters into the exchange then they take a piece of the exchange (in taxes) or prohibits the exchange (machine guns) or enforces the exchange (screwed up gas cans) or all three. That is NOT the free market.

When a gov't allows free exchange to occur, it is only furthering the liberty (as Kattmamma said) of individuals to act on their own, produce goods and then exchange their wages for other things they want. There isn't any other overriding 'objective' - like the good of society, or whatever other convoluted 'social' objective that has more to do with the state 'steering' people's behavior - the 'we know what's best for you' crowd - your crowd if you were honest about it.

 

[skoony]

(and it's just ludicrous that you keep mentioning that Koch (or any private source) is somehow responsible for the National Toxicology Program - a gov't entity, calling any chemical substance as carcinogenic.)

wait,what?
i thought that was California's job.

mike

 

[caramel]

Why do we have to even mention the soviet system, since no one was proposing it anyway....

But since it was mentioned, maybe we should also look at why it became possible at all? Could it be that the population was not happy at all with the outcome of the previous system?

Kent does a good critique, however he doesn't mention that there is a discrepancy between STATED objectives, REAL objectives and OUTCOMES.

My problem with his favourite system is that it doesn't even bother to mention a Stated objective. It's all faith, let's follow this process and good things will come out of it.

 

[Kent C]

Can we please keep this thread on topic to the context of the linked article in the OP. Thanks!

This is more on topic than ebola. :- ) This happens when some usually liberal wants to "just say something" (see the first page), and attacks business or supports some type of regulation and then when someone attempts to actually answer their knee jerk comments with some reality, then it's "This has gone off topic!!" sigh.... many just can't handle the truth of the matter. And don't want anyone else to see it who might be influenced.

Almost every one of my comments gets back to ecigs because the current unregulated phase best supports the free market. It goes right along with what Carl's piece was about but which doesn't go far enough in explaining why that is.

 

[Uma]

This is more on topic than ebola. :- ) This happens when some usually liberal wants to "just say something" (see the first page), and attacks business or supports some type of regulation and then when someone attempts to actually answer their knee jerk comments with some reality, then it's "This has gone off topic!!" sigh.... many just can't handle the truth of the matter. And don't want anyone else to see it who might be influenced.

Almost every one of my comments gets back to ecigs because the current unregulated phase best supports the free market. It goes right along with what Carl's piece was about but which doesn't go far enough in explaining why that is.

I'll second this.

 

[Kent C]

Why do we have to even mention the soviet system, since no one was proposing it anyway....

But since it was mentioned, maybe we should also look at why it became possible at all? Could it be that the population was not happy at all with the outcome of the previous system?

Kent does a good critique, however he doesn't mention that there is a discrepancy between STATED objectives, REAL objectives and OUTCOMES.

My problem with his favourite system is that it doesn't even bother to mention a Stated objective. It's all faith, let's follow this process and good things will come out of it.

Carol brought up the USSR. And your conjecture about 'whether the population was not happy' is just that - conjecture.

First you say that there is not Stated outcome and then when I say what it is, you seem to be saying that they are not the 'REAL objectives'. As if freedom isn't an end in itself. It's why we started this country.

The real ruse in outcomes is on your side - to 'help the poor', 'to gain equality', 'to save the children' and yet the REAL outcomes have been more poverty, less equality and gov't schools have made children into liberal robots, who ask questions about OUTCOMES when the answer is obvious.

Any 'faith' is on your side - a faith in gov't. Sorry, on that, I'm an atheist - I've seen the OUTCOMES and know the OBJECTIVES - to enslave.

 

[caramel]

As for the next post from Kent, I'm not trying to side track anything.

As soon as people organize in a society (as opposed to a bunch of isolated individuals), they need to accept a common Objective and a set of Acceptable processes that can lead to the Objective.

Note that both the Objective and the Processes need to be widely accepted in order to keep the society from eventually disintegrating (sometimes in very ugly ways). Frieden's "the objective excuses the means" is not acceptable.

You have already organized in a society the very moment you wrote your Constitution, established the country's boundaries, and formed a government. Your Stated Objective is Life, Liberty and Hapiness. It is widely accepted and thus able to keep you together.

The problem is the process through which you reach the objective. The Founding Fathers didn't mention any. And you can't seem to find an Optimal one - one that is widely accepted, and leads to the Objective quickly and without significant collateral.

The process you're proposing is not proved in any way as leading to the objective, being optimal or at least being widely accepted.

 

[CarolT]

I understand that USSR's communism wasn't perfect for ideologues - unfortunately for about 10 million souls, the "withering away of the state" never happened, but at least the socialism - the economic system - was rather complete - all property belonged to the state and all money went to the state to be redistributed according to the state's intent ("objective" - in caramel's terms).

But why is it that when liberals attack free enterprise, they always bring up actual cases of trade that is NOT free - that is either a monopoly that is set up by state or local politicians - utilities or cable, or cases where gov't subsidies prop up some company. IOW, the case in the USSR is a lot more 'pure' than the cases liberals cite for the free market, which is commonly called a 'straw man argument'.

Right now there's a fairly free market in ecigs - people get what they want, no gov't intrusion into the market - all types of choices and innovations are happening. Prices drop, quality rises in general.

IF the deeming goes through - then it's possible that only cigalikes will be available and either only a few or no flavorings because NPT didn't heed Koch's studies. (and it's just ludicrous that you keep mentioning that Koch (or any private source) is somehow responsible for the National Toxicology Program - a gov't entity, calling any chemical substance as carcinogenic.) The EPA found second-hand smoke to be carcinogenic and you blame Levy/Cato because they proved that it wasn't! So now with ecigs, you'll blame the people and vapers who have been fighting the deeming for bringing the deeming about.

So when your favorite entity - gov't - regulates any industry, you blame the hated 'free enterprise system' for bringing it about Again, my earlier comment about how convoluted your arguments are doesn't really approach the insanity of them.

caramel, by comparison, is only saying that freedom exists by a 'choice in process' - even though that process might include his favorite system - socialism - where using force to take away freedom is one of the choices! Even as convoluted as that thinking is, it doesn't even approach yours. In fact, it's rather tame. caramel would only go so far as to say that there's an 'objective' to using force, where you would blame the victims of the force for bringing it about!! We're in Alice's Wonderland at this point.

Please keep to the subject, instead of blasting out ever more ideological irrelevancies. I said nothing about "Koch's studies," I simply pointed out that nobody in either camp made the crucial point about EBV infection and NPC. How you interpret that as supposedly blaming Koch for the NTP's existence is simply incomprehensible. It is likewise incomprehensible to accuse me of blaming Levy & Marimont for the EPA report on secondhand smoke. It resembles nothing that I've ever said about them. You're just getting wilder and wilder, flailing away at an imaginary strawman. Perhaps you should go take your meds or something.

 

[caramel]

Carol brought up the USSR. And your conjecture about 'whether the population was not happy' is just that - conjecture.

First you say that there is not Stated outcome and then when I say what it is, you seem to be saying that they are not the 'REAL objectives'. As if freedom isn't an end in itself. It's why we started this country.

.

Revolution of 1905 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also "started your country" because you weren't happy with the Outcome of the previous system.

 

[Kent C]

Your Stated Objective is Life, Liberty and Hapiness. It is widely accepted and thus able to keep you together.

The problem is the process through which you reach the objective. The Founding Fathers didn't mention any.

This is a bit of a strawman, by presupposing there must be a specific Objective and Means/process.

And when people have provided that, you keep stating the same 'problem'....

You obviously don't understand that the free market can be reduced to a simple exchange between individuals - you want something more onerous. lol. But that simple exchange best explains what the free market is. People exchange values and if the values are right then it's a win-win - both people walk away from the transaction figuring they got the better deal. IF NOT, no deal takes place. The problem is when a third party - namely gov't - imposes itself into that trade.

The objective of the individual in the transaction is to improve their lot in some manner. The beauty of individualism is that people have different desires and different 'lots' - which is why 'equality of outcome' that is desired by the Left, is destructive to individuals.

The Objective, as has been stated is 'liberty/freedom'. Means/process is to uphold individual rights, part of which is upholding the right to trade freely. It's why the gov't was established in the name of the individual rather than in the name of the state (or of the religion - or a combination of church and state, which had been the only way until the U.S.). The individual was held as sovereign not the state, tsar, king, dictator.

 

[Kent C]

Please keep to the subject, instead of blasting out ever more ideological irrelevancies. .

Lol... that's rich, where on every thread you bring up your 'infection hobbyhorse' and proceed to derail almost every thread where you post.

 

[Kent C]

Revolution of 1905 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You also "started your country" because you weren't happy with the Outcome of the previous system.

Yep. We established our own Objective and Means - freedom and the upholding of rights. Next question

edit: can we agree to discontinue this since it's obvious that it won't be resolved here?

I won't even ask Carol that - I already know that answer

 

[nicnik]

there have been instances here and there.
primarily influenced by out side sources.
in Minnesota and other northern industrial and eastern states
bars and restaurants along with other public venues were the
first to be targeted by the bans. this was not due to any real
safety issues as claimed. the real target was the bars.
there are very good socio-economic reasons for this.
back in the day when neighborhood bars dotted the
main streets of any typical city there purpose was not
just to slake the thirst of depraved alcoholics,they
were the equivalent of old school European coffee
houses where the Bourgeois met and socialized
to discuss and ferment opinions on just about
every social topic imaginable.
American Bars served to same function for the common
man.
the typical neighborhood bar was the center of a lot of
social activity along side the other center for social
activity,the local church.
interestingly enough the call from the pulpit was very
instrumental in garnishing support for these bans in
the early stages of the movement starting around the
70's or so.
these days there is an increasing hue and cry to outlaw
politics fro the pulpit. this proves the old saying,"no good
deed goes unpunished".
this link will give you a little understanding of where i am
coming from.
The Spirited History of the American Bar | History | Smithsonian


regards
mike

Thanks for that link, mike. Very interesting article, and looks like a great book.

 

[caramel]

This is a bit of a strawman, by presupposing there must be a specific Objective and Means/process.

And when people have provided that, you keep stating the same 'problem'....

You obviously don't understand that the free market can be reduced to a simple exchange between individuals - you want something more onerous. lol. But that simple exchange best explains what the free market is. People exchange values and if the values are right then it's a win-win - both people walk away from the transaction figuring they got the better deal. IF NOT, no deal takes place. The problem is when a third party - namely gov't - imposes itself into that trade.

The objective of the individual in the transaction is to improve their lot in some manner. The beauty of individualism is that people have different desires and different 'lots' - which is why 'equality of outcome' that is desired by the Left, is destructive to individuals.

The Objective, as has been stated is 'liberty/freedom'. Means/process is to uphold individual rights, part of which is upholding the right to trade freely. It's why the gov't was established in the name of the individual rather than in the name of the state (or of the religion - or a combination of church and state, which had been the only way until the U.S.). The individual was held as sovereign not the state, tsar, king, dictator.

Of course there's always an Objective / Process, even when you intend to do nothing, then you have the Objective to do nothing, and the Process of sitting on your bottom or whatever works for you as "doing nothing".

The problem is that BOTH are equally important in what concerns their acceptance.

Look at "quitting smoking". Both vapers and Antz agree on the Objective. The problem is that Antz want to impose Their method, which is neither optimal nor widely accepted by vapers.

As for individualism, it reminds me the physics lesson about Brownian motion. The gas molecules inside a container are moving at speed, and you can heat the container and make them move even faster, but no matter what you do, the container as a whole won't move anywhere. Great way to reach a collective objective

 

[caramel]

Yep. We established our own Objective and Means - freedom and the upholding of rights. Next question

edit: can we agree to discontinue this since it's obvious that it won't be resolved here?

I won't even ask Carol that - I already know that answer

Nope. Because you're back to something that Carol already told you - that the discussion on "upholding of rights" can't lead anywhere. And I explained you why: because for every right you raise, the opponent can find a counter-right to raise too. Your "right to smoke" can be (and actually was) countered with the "right to fresh air".

 

[Kent C]

As for individualism, it reminds me the physics

One last comment but not to extend the conversation - I like the physics analogy. In fact, if you violate laws of physics, you're going to have 'bad outcomes'. If you violate Natural Law wrt individual rights, the same will occur.

 

[Kent C]

Nope. Because you're back to something that Carol already told you - that the discussion on "upholding of rights" can't lead anywhere. And I explained you why: because for every right you raise, the opponent can find a counter-right to raise too. Your "right to smoke" can be (and actually was) countered with the "right to fresh air".

Let it be shown that caramel wants to continue this, not me. A 'right' that has to be accomplished by forcing someone else to do something, is not a right. There is no 'right to fresh air', no right to 'healthcare', education, living wage, ad nauseum. See positive (not rights) and negative rights - where the only obligation for others is negative action - to leave you alone.

"The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights." Rand "Man's Rights" (my emphasis).

The process of living creates pollution. We can do things to abate some of it but not all of it. When it harms, rather than just "offends the senses", it's a violation of rights. When it doesn't harm - deal with it or go elsewhere.

And you get the last word, I'm 'going elsewhere' Lol....