Didn't I hear this on an Alex Jones broadcast at some point
BTW last night I forgot all about the Iraq war and Dubya. Or about all the accusations of lack of patriotism, etc. levelled at those who opposed the Iraq war. (Served up w/ aplomb by Fox.) You know, Saddam bin Laden - the guy who attacked us on 9/11? Or was it Osama Hussein? (One of them bad guys. Hard to keep 'em apart, isn't it? And why bother - .... Cheney couldn't tell the difference, either.)
Look, I have great regard for the American constitution and the American revoution. But it was a rebellion of the economically privileged. You refer to them as "individuals" ... this is true only in the most literal sense. The average subsistence tenant farmer didn't write the Constitution, nor was it written for them. (That's why they weren't allowed to vote. Actually the Framers were terrified about the possibility of majority tyranny. Congress was supposed to be "the executive cmte" of wealthy interests. What the Framers didn't want was a situation in whch these interests came to blows over issues like tarrifs or access to sea ports.)
You are correct that we live better today than people have historically. Is that a result of capitalism - within the post-WWII American context (which BTW includes a lot of "socialist" things like the interstate system, the G.I. bill, etc.). The way people live in Guatemala is also a result of capitalism in the post-WWII context, come to think of it. That's why I said I prefer what we have here to the alternatives. However I'm not Panglossian about it. Please stop with the silly "socialism" attribution. That's just the kind of nonsense they spread on Fox. (One of the reasons I don't like it.) One can't possibly expect anyone to take that kind of name-calling seriously. Let's get back into the classroom and off the playground.
If you look at history, the people in every major power always believed that they deserved their success, by dint of their society's values, creativity, sedulousness, etc. Go back to the start of the 20th century, and a Brit would tell you about Burke's "glorious revolution" and the Magna Carta. The Romans (whose status at the top of the world lasted several centuries) thought that they were justifiably where they were. At various times and in various places, the Chinese, the Spaniards, the Aztecs and a hundred other empires believed that they were better than everyone else. Or the ancient Persians, Greeks, Egyptians, and so forth, as Herodotus and Thucydides said.
To some extent these beliefs are justified. Every culture and civilization that ends up in these positions has something that others didn't. And they all believe that they're unique - "exceptional" if you will. That's fine w/ me, they're entitled to tose views
But to assume that the last 60 years of history and technological development is somehow qualatatively different from the previous two thousand is IMO the height of hubris. Science (which leads to technology) - BTW - was not an American invention. It's a collective endeavor of the human race that has evolved over thousands of years. (In fact I'd say it was as much a product of the old European class system and/or feudalism as anything else.) Capitalism - as we know it today - is hardly unique. The Brits really do have bragging rights here when it comes to the first modern capitalist nation state.There's a lot to like about the American constitution. I spent three years studying it, as I think you and others might discern from of of my posts. It's probably the best there is. Post-WWII American prosperity is also about as good as it gets. (People lived fairly well in certain "socialist" European countries too, in the recent past.)
It's worth remembering that during most of American history, we experienced a certain type of wealth distribution. The noted historian H.W. Brands (who is absolutely no "liberal") has astutely pointed out that the US was in a pretty good position after WWII, relative to the rest of the world. And technology was moving forward by leaps and bounds. Now, it seems, we're returning to a more normative type of wealth distribution. Is the post-WWII "middle class" - as we've known it in our lives - inherent to the American system? Hmm, I think all the evidence shows that the very type of class stratification which has historically prevailed in the US and throughout the world is upon us today, and will be the norm of the future. It's "Leave it to Beaver" America (two cars, a house, one bread winner, etc.) which is the anomaly.
Remember what I said about how the Romans, the Persians, the Spanish, the English, the Aztecs, the Chinese, the Egyptians (etc.) believing that their system was what created their place atop the world (or the world as they knew it), during their heyday? Sounds familiar. (And remmber I also said that they were right in some ways.)
But I'm not into moral superiority any more than I'm into this whole "good vs. evil" thing. (Bush good, Obama bad. Fox good, MSNBC bad. Alex Jones and Sean Hannity good, Rachel Maddow and Keith Obermann bad. etc. etc.) Frankly I think it's all a bit silly. Just like the frequent use of the terms "facist" and "socialist." Oh really - give me a break, don't you think that's overkill
Seriously it reminds me of the ANTZ tactic of tarring vapers with BT (which - to be fair, liberal Dems at the national level have successfully done). Although c.f. what I said above about the Iraq war and this whole "you're not a patriot if you criticize it" B.S. Reminds me of Vietnam, come to think of it.***
Now, um to get back to vaping
If you think that I lump Libertarians in w/ statist Repubs then you're right in one important way, but wrong in another equally salient dimension.
The difference in the outlooks here is absolutely critical to everything that I'm saying about voting patterns. Before this issue became politically polarized at the national level, (which wasn't all that long ago), my point is that the result in dark-red jurisdictions was basically not all that different than what we've seen recently in major cities. I most certaily do not lump statist Repubs in with Libertarians in terms of how they voted in places like ND, AR, and UT. Those states had the toughest statewide anti-vaping laws in the country (other than NJ) because the Libertarians-leaning republicans lost to the statist republicans. You can't blame that on democrats, because there weren't any to speak of.
Now there is a sense in which *do* lump all the pols together, and that's motive - i.e. no one seems to care aobut science or public policy.
I happen to like the Libertarian position on vaping, but my point there is that it's reflexive. Libertarians don't ike government, period. So almost whatever the government does, it's bad. If my house burns down and a firefighter saves my life - well, that's a bad thing too (unless I subscribed to a private fire protection service) - because the funding is based on the coercion inherent in taxation. If I get in my car and drive to the grocery store, that's also a bad thing because I didn't pay a toll on the road to the people who owned it. (The government shouldn't own roads, unless they're on military bases or are otherwise vital to national defense.)
So my point is that the libertarian view on vaping - just like the view of statist Repubs and liberal Dems - is reflexive.. It's not about vaping. It's about the gov't and opposition to gov't restrictions. Whereas if you put the discussion into the realm of a certain green leafy substance ... well the liberal dems and the statist repubs trade places. Libertarians are at least consistent. But regardless of whether we're talking about that substance or about vaping, it's all knee-jerk politics. As it happens, I like the Libertarian result on both issues, even if I don't agree with the rationale (i.e. government is generally bad, so let's just oppose pretty much whatever it does).
So in that very specific way (knee-jerk reactions) I do conflate Libertarians and Statist Republicans. Along with Dems. But I reocognize that in dark red jurisdictions (like some of the small towns that have recently passed anti-vaping laws where there are no democrats to speak of) the battle is between libertarians (who oppose restrictions because they're against them in principle) and moralistic statist Repubs. And the Libertarians lost in virtually every jurisdiction, because there were more moralistic statist repubs who believed that the gov't should be responsible for regulating personal morality. (C.f. what I said before about the morning after pill.)
So if you're going to charaterize my position, let's at least be careful about this nuanced distinction between the motives that varius groups of politicians have for taking a certain view on vaping, and the end results.
BTW I would like sensible regulation of e-juice. I fear however that a point you made to me a couple months ago is correct. There is little hope of sensible regulation for now. Therefore no regulation is better. You've won me over not because I oppose regulation in general, but rather on pragmatic grounds. I still like the idea that the government requires food handlers to wear gloves and hat up (c.f. a discussion we had recently about the role of regulation in the food industry).
In some ways this is like the larger discussion. I oppose vaping regulation because I think the net result for now will be bad for public health. I don't believe a sensible regulatory regimine is impossible, or inherently bad in principle. Good regulation is actually good for industry. We might not have a food co-op here in my town if it wasn't for sensible regulation in the food industry, because our customers wouldn't have trusted a new business. And I'm sure that if we had sensible regulation in the vaping industry, it would also make it easier for new companies to break in.
I'm all for competition. I'm all for public health. I'm not for rigid dogmatic ideological purity. Or a comic-book view of the world that divides all actors down into the status of super hero[ines] and villians. I take a similar perspective w.r.t. societies, for that matter: I don't see modern American society as the zenith of human achievement from which we can look down upon every other country/society over the history of the human race as a bunch of (relatively speaking) barbarians. That's just silly
If you think that makes me a facist socialist unpatriotic ungrateful unworthy American (as Fox was saying about a decade ago regarding my opposition to the Iraq war, based on the talking points written up by Ailes and faithfully implemented by Bill O'R, Glenn Beck, Hannity and all the rest) ... well, so be it
What percentage of VG and PG should be used? 
