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

[Kent C]

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

You're right - I edited - thanks!

 

[caramel]

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

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).

Rand is again self-conflicting. The principle of free-market does not exclude collectivism. A subgroup of the "free market" may rationally decide that it is in their best interest (of survival) to exchange goods between them at "fair value" instead of exchanging at "speculative value" with other groups.

 

[caramel]

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

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).

That's just Rand's (mis)interpretation, crafted specifically so she can rant against it. This doesn't make her right though, as she defines dictatorship then attacks it as being collectivism. They're so far apart as I can't understand how you felt for it.

BTW do you have a family? If yes, do you run it in an individualist, free market manner, or in a collectivist, common purpose one?

 

[Kent C]

Rand is again self-conflicting. The principle of free-market does not exclude collectivism. A subgroup of the "free market" may rationally decide that it is in their best interest (of survival) to exchange goods between them at "fair value" instead of exchanging at "speculative value" with other groups.

If people decide value by their consent rather than value being forced upon them, that's the free market. Each individual in a free market exchange considers themselves as gaining 'fair value' or no exchange takes place. Collectivism isn't just a group of people agreeing - it's a majority of people or a minority with guns, forcing the rest to accept their view of 'fair value'.

 

[Kent C]

That's just Rand's (mis)interpretation, crafted specifically so she can rant against it.

That's your misinterpretation of Rand so that you can rant against her. The top definition of collectivism is the accepted version, again, long before Rand and long after. If you don't agree with it - argue with those who originally defined it - mainly the communists. I'm done here with your rants. I'll invoke Samuel Clemens. You have the last word....

 

[bobwho77]

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.

And what would you say that those ideologies opposed to vaping ARE?
Our Liberal opponents see it as a matter of "Protecting the public"
Our Conservative opponents (and there are many) see it as a "Moral crusade" Either way we vapers get screwed.
If someone is shooting at me, I don't stop to ask him why. I TAKE COVER, and if I have the ability to, I SHOOT BACK! I don't need to know an opponent's ideology to fight back in self defense.

 

[Kent C]

And what would you say that those ideologies opposed to vaping ARE?
Our Liberal opponents see it as a matter of "Protecting the public"
Our Conservative opponents (and there are many) see it as a "Moral crusade" Either way we vapers get screwed.
If someone is shooting at me, I don't stop to ask him why. I TAKE COVER, and if I have the ability to, I SHOOT BACK! I don't need to know an opponent's ideology to fight back in self defense.

And that's part of the problem - you're reacting - at the effect point rather than cause.

As I said, we should answer every call to action, as you suggest, but also take out the generals who are planning it all, otherwise the body count continues to mount.

The liberals use the guise (lie) of 'protecting the public' but are just controlling the public. The Republicans (not necessarily conservatives - most of whom are against regulation, and not the libertarians) have those 'controlling' aspects similar to the liberals for similar 'moral' reasons - they know what's best for others. It's their definition of 'best' is where the difference is, but the results are the same - "no soup ecigs for you".

 

[caramel]

If people decide value by their consent rather than value being forced upon them, that's the free market. Each individual in a free market exchange considers themselves as gaining 'fair value' or no exchange takes place. Collectivism isn't just a group of people agreeing - it's a majority of people or a minority with guns, forcing the rest to accept their view of 'fair value'.

So your understanding of a family is someone with a gun forcing the other members to accept his views?

 

[caramel]

And what would you say that those ideologies opposed to vaping ARE?
Our Liberal opponents see it as a matter of "Protecting the public"
Our Conservative opponents (and there are many) see it as a "Moral crusade" Either way we vapers get screwed.
If someone is shooting at me, I don't stop to ask him why. I TAKE COVER, and if I have the ability to, I SHOOT BACK! I don't need to know an opponent's ideology to fight back in self defense.

One side brings a strong moral argument ("protecting the public") against a weak moral argument ("the right to free markets") and so far are winning - as expected.

To counter them you need an even stronger moral argument. Njoy won their fight by proving in court that FDA lied (when they alleged that ecigs fall under the drugs definition).

Prove (in court) that "protecting the public" is a lie and you win.

Keep babbling about free markets and you won't win any lawsuits.

 

[Kent C]

So your understanding of a family is someone with a gun forcing the other members to accept his views?

It takes a pretty warped mind to get that from what I have said. The subject of families have nothing to do with this thread. I ended the conversation with you above. If you really need to communicate something to me, do it through PM, and even then there's no guarantee that there will be a response to ridiculous "wonderings".

 

[bobwho77]

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).

Strange. Where you read Ms. Rand's work as a philosophy to be emulated, I've always read it as a dystopian warning. If you look at countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Australia, you'll see that her imagining of modern social democracies is just as WRONG as her imagining of modern "Free Market" capitalism.
Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead were fun reading in Junior high, but they're FICTION they were never written to work in the real world.

 

[caramel]

That's your misinterpretation of Rand so that you can rant against her. The top definition of collectivism is the accepted version, again, long before Rand and long after. If you don't agree with it - argue with those who originally defined it - mainly the communists. I'm done here with your rants. I'll invoke Samuel Clemens. You have the last word....

The widely accepted definition of Collectivism is here:

Collectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're free to go edit it if you feel it's not accurate.

Insisting that the intentionally flawed definition given by Rand is the only true one looks suspicious. May I define "free market" as a rich man with paid goons protecting vital resources against the poor? And have you defend "free market" under such a definition?

As you may remember, I criticized "free market" under Your definition not mine. Can you pay back the service now?

 

[caramel]

Strange. Where you read Ms. Rand's work as a philosophy to be emulated, I've always read it as a dystopian warning. If you look at countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Australia, you'll see that her imagining of modern social democracies is just as WRONG as her imagining of modern "Free Market" capitalism.
Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead were fun reading in Junior high, but they're FICTION they were never written to work in the real world.

One may argue that they were the same kind of writings as Orwell's except some people found them useful to their own interests and took them as a manual. Just check what other 3 letter agencies are doing on that side.

 

[Kent C]

Strange. Where you read Ms. Rand's work as a philosophy to be emulated, I've always read it as a dystopian warning. If you look at countries like Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Canada, Australia, you'll see that her imagining of modern social democracies is just as WRONG as her imagining of modern "Free Market" capitalism.
Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead were fun reading in Junior high, but they're FICTION they were never written to work in the real world.

Like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? (which I read in junior high). Rand wrote more non-fiction than fiction (as did Sinclair). Her philosophy, like it or not, is responsible for much of the libertarian movement today. The main proponents for ecigs in media - Jacob Sullum, the writers at Cato, Forbes and others have been influenced by Rand. The main enemies are from the Sinclair or similar collectivist camps and their media - NPR, HuffPo, NYTimes, et al. with very few exceptions. All the anti-ecig Senators at the federal level, are as well.

You cite the mixed economies of Scandinavia but you should also include the ultimate in collectivism - Germany of the 30's and 40's, Soviet Union from the start to the end and again with Putin, East Germany - all of Eastern Europe at one point under the Soviet thumb who rebounded by the free market from the misery of the cold war and Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia.

Like "caramel", you're attempting to derail the thread - more 'navel gazing' about unrelated political issues - rather than showing how the free market for ecigs is the best answer, and the regulations along collectivist lines will likely end it.

I answer these off topic rants but not start them. Neither of you address my points - only attack Rand or the free market on what is basically propaganda that you have been drilled with since junior high and before, never questioning the authority of your NEA teachers or gov't texts.

 

[bobwho77]

Like Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle"? (which I read in junior high). Rand wrote more non-fiction than fiction (as did Sinclair). Her philosophy, like it or not, is responsible for much of the libertarian movement today. The main proponents for ecigs in media - Jacob Sullum, the writers at Cato, Forbes and others have been influenced by Rand. The main enemies are from the Sinclair or similar collectivist camps and their media - NPR, HuffPo, NYTimes, et al. with very few exceptions. All the anti-ecig Senators at the federal level, are as well.

You cite the mixed economies of Scandinavia but you should also include the ultimate in collectivism - Germany of the 30's and 40's, Soviet Union from the start to the end and again with Putin, East Germany - all of Eastern Europe at one point under the Soviet thumb who rebounded by the free market from the misery of the cold war and Pol Pot's mountain of skulls in Cambodia.

Like "caramel", you're attempting to derail the thread - more 'navel gazing' about unrelated political issues - rather than showing how the free market for ecigs is the best answer, and the regulations along collectivist lines will likely end it.

I answer these off topic rants but not start them. Neither of you address my points - only attack Rand or the free market on what is basically propaganda that you have been drilled with since junior high and before, never questioning the authority of your NEA teachers or gov't texts.

Since we don't have a "Free Market" (we never have) your point is basically moot.
What we DO have is a regulatory system that has been hijacked by so called "Public Health" organizations that are largely funded by either the government, or by corporate interests vested in controlling the ecig market to THEIR advantage.
The government agencies are the ONLY ones we stand a chance of actually influencing, (BP/BT will do everything possible to either corner the market, or destroy the competition) and since they're the ones that are actually WRITING the regulations that's where the pressure needs to be applied. We do that by convincing them that VAPERS VOTE for their interests. If that's a Liberal who believes in personal freedom (yes, we're out here, just look at the legalization of "other substances") Or a Libertarian who just wants to get government out of the way, I don't care. As long as they are going to act in OUR favor it doesn't matter.
I'm not the NRAs biggest fan (even though I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment) but I admire their cohesion on lobbying for their agenda. We could learn a lot from their tactics. Far from trying to "Derail the thread" , I'm trying to get it back on the track mentioned in the title.
While we have the common cause of keeping vaping out of the clutches of BT/BP, and as open a market as possible, I'll agree to keep our disagreement over the role of government in other parts of our lives in the background for now.

 

[caramel]

In 1974, after decades of heavy smoking, Ayn Rand undergoes lung cancer surgery and the doctors manage to save her life.

In 1976, after several "free market" medical bills, she understands the benefits of Collectivism and enrolls to Social Security and Medicare.

She dies in 1982 of heart failure.

If anything, the antz can have a field day any day depicting her as the posterchild of "free market" smoking.

 

[Kent C]

I'm not the NRAs biggest fan (even though I'm a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment) but I admire their cohesion on lobbying for their agenda. We could learn a lot from their tactics.

Having been a lifetime member of the NRA, I happen to know their tactics - support the individual right that is involved. Attack without prejudice, any attempt to undermine it or the philosophy that brought it about. Allow the free market to continue at gun shows. Show with statistics, how more guns equals less crimes. Just like more ecigs equals less cigs and heath consequences. Attack the politicians who support gun control - some of the same ones who support the deeming - Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Durbin, Rockefeller, Harkin. Don't allow redefinitions - where hollow points and other ammo are 'cop killer bullets'. Where in ecigs 'vapor' is 'smoke', nicotine as poison in any form, claiming formaldehyde is part of the vapor when it is less than what we normally exhale or inhale in urban areas. And most of all - make it hurt at election time for those who oppose the 2nd amendment right. They've sent a lot of gun grabbers home. We should do the same.

I'll agree to keep our disagreement over the role of government in other parts of our lives in the background for now.

I appreciate that.

 

[Kent C]

"A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . ."

Ayn Rand
“The Question of Scholarships,”

Government Grants and Scholarships—Ayn Rand Lexicon

 

[caramel]

[...]Don't allow redefinitions - where hollow points and other ammo are 'cop killer bullets'. Where in ecigs 'vapor' is 'smoke', nicotine as poison in any form, [...]

You mean like in not allowing Ayn Rand to redefine Collectivism as Dictatorship? I subscribe.

 

[philoshop]

Collectivism is a fine idea: the Amish, Mennonites, Quakers, and others voluntarily practice it within the US, and generally without objection from non-participants. (Legal issues do crop up occasionally, however.)

I've chosen to not live that, and I resent any government that would try to force me to do so.
I do plenty of 'good' for my family, friends, neighbors, and my community. If the government would get off my back, I could actually do a lot more.