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

[skoony]

At some point some people figured out that they can make good money through liability lawsuits against the tobacco companies. The government could have done nothing, just sit with a pina colada in hand and watch how BT is driven into bankruptcy. No one would had dared to ever again sell cigarettes, smokers would have gnashed their teeth, gone through some withdrawal symptoms, curse, and voila, end of smoking in America.

the problem with this is there was no good money to be made. most jury's
sided with the tobacco companies. the ones that didn't for the most part
held to complainants themselves liable to some extent.
some where along the line is when the nicotine became the boogie man.
the tobacco company's said you knew it was dangerous and smoked anyway.
more and more the complainants said,well yes we new it was harmful
but, you addicted us with nicotine. neither side could prove either way
as there was no evidence of nicotine's addictive qualities. everyone assumed
nicotine was addictive because some guy in the 1800's said so.
when it appeared that jury's were starting to buy this argument is when
the tobacco company's could see the writing on the wall. government
seen the writing too. i believe my home state of Minnesota was the first
to craft a settlement agreement with the tobacco company's by changing
the law to make such a thing legal. every one haled it as a victory for the
state and all of its smokers that were harmed by evil tobacco. i'll mention
at this point no harmed tobacco user ever received one red cent. if anyone
wants to call me on this i will explain why this is so. any way the tobacco
company's had their backs against the wall and jumped all over this agreement.
it was their life raft in a raging ocean.
my point is jury's may have influenced the demise of tobacco but,its doubtful.
big tobacco would just raise the cost of the product to compensate for
its legal losses and added nicotine is addictive to the warning labels on
there own.
the final analysis is the State wanted the money that appeared to
be going to the smokers as more and more of these cases started
to look like the smokers could and in some cases did win. when the
settlement was finally reached the people of the state were furious.
even the most ardent anti-smoker seen it for what is was. a giant
money grab.

regards
mike

 

[bobwho77]

ELEVEN pages (so far) of semantic games, rhetorical thumb twiddling, and philosophical navel gazing, and most of it is missing the point completely.

Trying to parse out where the ANTZ are right or wrong is POINTLESS. If they don't have any credibility on Vaping, then they don't have any credibility on ANYTHING. We should be pushing back on EVERY point, at EVERY level on EVERY statement, unless/until THEY produce solid unbiased proof (and then we question THAT)

By Any Means Necessary isn't just a Civil Rights slogan, its the way win a FIGHT. We write letters/emails to editors, and legislators, and Congress critters. We pack city Council meetings. We have "Vape-in" on the steps of our state Capitol buildings, and in Washington DC, and at the office of the FDA. We picket the offices of the ACA, ALA AHA and anybody else that advocates restrictions on Vaping.

We didn't choose our enemies, they chose US. We aren't the ones that have made attacks on Vaping part of their strategy for "Tobacco Control" they are. If that means that we have to help smokers fight for THEIR rights, too so be it. Groups like the NRA, and the various "Right to Life" organizations would align with Atilla the Hun, if they thought it would advance their causes. If we didn't choose our enemies, can we afford to be too "Snobbish" about our allies?

THOSE are the lessons we need to take from other activist movements.

Guys like Dr. K, and Bill Godshall, and the rest are eloquent, and inspirational and we should be grateful for the work they do, advocating for vaping in "Official" circumstances, but eventually the REST of us are going to have to get ORGANIZED

 

[AndriaD]

Except only the "free market" is "anything goes if it makes $$$". The others define some limits beyond which things become illegal (and not "immoral" as you suggest).

Read again my previous post - barking for money is perfectly "free market", invoking "free market" does nothing but confirm the "legitimacy" of said barking.

Yes, I agree. The point they refuse to even look at is that there ARE higher values than money -- human life and health, for example. But I think the TRUTH of that value will *eventually* carry the day. No clue how long it will take, but truth has this way of remaining true, regardless of anything else.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Yes, I agree. The point they refuse to even look at is that there ARE higher values than money -- human life and health, for example. But I think the TRUTH of that value will *eventually* carry the day. No clue how long it will take, but truth has this way of remaining true, regardless of anything else.

Andria

You're mentioning three factors (life, health, truth) which are part of ethics/morality, something that the argument of "free markets" do not address. And thus is largely innefective.

 

[AndriaD]

You're mentioning three factors (life, health, truth) which are part of ethics/morality, something that the argument of "free markets" do not address. And thus is largely innefective.

That is the entire point -- there are higher values than money or markets.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

You're mentioning three factors (life, health, truth) which are part of ethics/morality, something that the argument of "free markets" do not address.

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. [that which furthers man's survival is moral. That which hinders survival is immoral]

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." Ayn Rand [my emphasis]

"Thinking and productive work" are necessary for a free market exchange, and necessary for continued survival for any man/woman, hence it is moral for a person to think, work, exchange, and pursue happiness..... and to maintain health via exchange as well.

What is immoral, is for some third party to intervene into such an exchange using force or threat of force to either stop, hinder, or mandate such an exchange.

 

[AndriaD]

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. [that which furthers man's survival is moral. That which hinders survival is immoral]

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." Ayn Rand [my emphasis]

"Thinking and productive work" are necessary for a free market exchange, and necessary for continued survival for any man/woman, hence it is moral for a person to think, work, exchange, and pursue happiness..... and to maintain health via exchange as well.

What is immoral, is for some third party to intervene into such an exchange using force or threat of force to either stop, hinder, or mandate such an exchange.

Bravo. I tend to think in terms of ethics -- the values I have arrived at FOR MYSELF -- rather than those imposed by some external force (morals). But your last sentence is equally applicable to ethics.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

Bravo. I tend to think in terms of ethics -- the values I have arrived at FOR MYSELF -- rather than those imposed by some external force (morals). But your last sentence is equally applicable to ethics.

Andria

It's part of why free exchange of goods is moral. It's the only moral means of survival. That doesn't mean you can't help others voluntarily - in fact, since 'choice' is the lynchpin of morality - only voluntary help is moral - forced help is not. And for politicians to 'take credit for' or to 'feel proud' of the welfare system is a mockery of the concept of "moral".

 

[bobwho77]

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. [that which furthers man's survival is moral. That which hinders survival is immoral]

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." Ayn Rand [my emphasis]

"Thinking and productive work" are necessary for a free market exchange, and necessary for continued survival for any man/woman, hence it is moral for a person to think, work, exchange, and pursue happiness..... and to maintain health via exchange as well.

What is immoral, is for some third party to intervene into such an exchange using force or threat of force to either stop, hinder, or mandate such an exchange.

RAND?

“Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”

"The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man. [that which furthers man's survival is moral. That which hinders survival is immoral]

"Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort, the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work." Ayn Rand [my emphasis]

"Thinking and productive work" are necessary for a free market exchange, and necessary for continued survival for any man/woman, hence it is moral for a person to think, work, exchange, and pursue happiness..... and to maintain health via exchange as well.

What is immoral, is for some third party to intervene into such an exchange using force or threat of force to either stop, hinder, or mandate such an exchange.

I would argue that MOST of the problems we (as a society) face today, are the result of "Free Market" deregulation
From the '08 crash, rising inequality, an economy hobbled by too much money, in too few hands, a government that only responds to the wealthy few, and not the majority, to the struggle for vaping, with big money, and rampant greed obstructing honest research, and corrupting the regulatory process.
RAND? Gimme a BREAK! Try reading Upton Sinclair, if you want someone to inform your consciousness.
THIS is exactly the kind of thumb twiddling, and navel gazing I was talking about up thread.
We can debate ideology, and argue philosophy 'til HELL freezes over, and NOTHING will get done.
We (as vapers) need to put those differences aside, and and start writing, marching, and FIGHTING BACK!

 

[LaraC]

That doesn't mean you can help others voluntarily -

I think you meant to type "can't" rather than "can."
Bravo, Kent.

 

[philoshop]

RAND?


I would argue that MOST of the problems we (as a society) face today, are the result of "Free Market" deregulation
From the '08 crash, rising inequality, an economy hobbled by too much money, in too few hands, a government that only responds to the wealthy few, and not the majority, to the struggle for vaping, with big money, and rampant greed obstructing honest research, and corrupting the regulatory process.
RAND? Gimme a BREAK! Try reading Upton Sinclair, if you want someone to inform your consciousness.
THIS is exactly the kind of thumb twiddling, and navel gazing I was talking about up thread.
We can debate ideology, and argue philosophy 'til HELL freezes over, and NOTHING will get done.
We (as vapers) need to put those differences aside, and and start writing, marching, and FIGHTING BACK!

There can never be equity of exchange when a government is allowed to delineate the playing field and set the rules.
Your complaint is that the government tilts the field in a certain direction.

The US has not seen true free-market capitalism in over 100 years. A lot of good came of it back then: electric lights, automobiles, aircraft, mass production...
No one knows if the concept would work today, because no one is allowed to try it.

 

[caramel]

What Ayn Rand did was to build a philosophical system that would justify the elimination of taxes.

She did that by removing from her system all the ethic/moral principles of Christianity except the one of interest to her - "do not steal" - which she reconstructs as "non coercion re money use" aka "free markets", deeming taxes as a form of theft.

Her system is completely unworkable, for starters it runs against the US Constitution which tries to find a balance between multiple ethic/moral concepts.

On top of it, the economists that tried to model it figured out that it could only work with abundant, non essential, interchangeable goods such as contemporary used stamps within the stamps collectors' market.

If you want to have it working in real life, that includes scarce, essential goods/services, then the only fix to economic mass murder would be to introduce a "minimum guaranteed income" that would cover the essential goods. Outright communism one would say.

I always found it funny that Ayn's system needs communism as an enabler.

 

[caramel]

OTOH Glantz is perfectly within the "free market" rules. All he does is write and talk, he found a market for it and he is taking advantage. Invoking "free market" only validates his modus operandi, you cannot shut him up with Randian arguments.

 

[AndriaD]

OTOH Glantz is perfectly within the "free market" rules. All he does is write and talk, he found a market for it and he is taking advantage. Invoking "free market" only validates his modus operandi, you cannot shut him up with Randian arguments.

I'm not sure you could shut him up with duct tape over a ballgag.

Andria

 

[caramel]

I'm not sure you could shut him up with duct tape over a ballgag.

Andria

In a pure "free market" a ballgag made out of sufficient money would work.

 

[Kent C]

We (as vapers) need to put those differences aside, and and start writing, marching, and FIGHTING BACK!

Part of fighting back is fighting the ideology that is driving the regulations and bans. If you knee jerk react to each 'rule' and not attack the goals and purposes that drive the rules, you lose. We should answer every call to action in every state and locality but also question the motives behind them.

And if you don't like that tactic, you don't have to engage in it, but you don't have to try to censor those who do. The topic is 'learning lessons from other activists' and ideology is top and center to most activism.

Upton Sinclair's socialist philosophy is the basis of the type of regulation we're seeing against ecigs. Rand's free market approach would have no regulation, no attempt to redefine ecigarettes as tobacco products - since they aren't, and no attempt to 'know what's best for the individual' - she left that up to individuals themselves, rather than the collectivism of Sinclair.

And although off topic, the 2009 crash was created by the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make loans they would have never made in a free market. That started with Carter and happened to come to 'fruition' at the end of Bush's second term. It could have happened under any president or Congress but it WAS going to happen.

 

[AndriaD]

In a pure "free market" a ballgag made out of sufficient money would work.

I'd love to choke him on money... just shove it so far down his throat there's no possibility of air getting thru. That would be justice.

Andria

 

[caramel]

Part of fighting back is fighting the ideology that is driving the regulations and bans. If you knee jerk react to each 'rule' and not attack the goals and purposes that drive the rules, you lose. We should answer every call to action in every state and locality but also question the motives behind them.

And if you don't like that tactic, you don't have to engage in it, but you don't have to try to censor those who do. The topic is 'learning lessons from other activists' and ideology is top and center to most activism. Upton Sinclair's socialist philosophy is the basis of the type of regulation we're seeing against ecigs. Rand's free market approach would have no regulation, no attempt to redefine ecigarettes as tobacco products - since they aren't, and no attempt to 'know what's best for the individual' - she left that up to individuals themselves, rather than the collectivism of Sinclair.

And although off topic, the 2009 crash was created by the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to make loans they would have never made in a free market. That started with Carter and happened to come to 'fruition' at the end of Bush's second term. It could have happened under any president or Congress but it WAS going to happen.

"Collectivism" is not the same as "labour campism". "Collectivism" means that vapes would be produced "at cost" without added profit/interest.

 

[Kent C]

What Ayn Rand did was to build a philosophical system that would justify the elimination of taxes.

She did that by removing from her system all the ethic/moral principles of Christianity except the one of interest to her - "do not steal" - which she reconstructs as "non coercion re money use" aka "free markets", deeming taxes as a form of theft.

Again, you don't have a clue. (and another attempt to derail the thread - now with religion). The concept of the free market has been around longer than Rand was - ever hear of Adam Smith? or the many economists that came after him? Rand's atheism, as she said, was a minor (to her) by-product of using reason. Her 'do not initiate force' against others is the overriding ethic - not just your rather contrite 'summary' of 'do not steal'. If the puritanical types who demand regulations, would follow the 'do not initiate force' idea, we wouldn't have their ecig regulations breathing down our necks.

And while there is mention of God in the Declaration, it is absent in the Constitution mainly written by Madison - the main author of the 'wall of separation between church and State'.

 

[Kent C]

"Collectivism" is not the same as "labour campism". "Collectivism" means that vapes would be produced "at cost" without added profit/interest.

Collectivism - the practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it.

"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism." AR

And where you find the type of labor camps of which you speak, is where you'll find collectivism.

Again, you're conflating a political system - collectivism, with an economic system - socialism (no profit - except for those who run it - kind of like ANTZ and the politicians who finance them).