This time, ami has a point....

[stephen55]

This originally appeared in the thread Ayn Rand. A query.

I thought it might make a topic for a new thread. Perhaps we should all put down our basic views on philosophy and economics. After all, creative writing in general and perhaps erotic literature in specific, relies on the author's deepest feelings and beliefs about the human nature. Why are we here? What is value?

Is humanity more than just a vast collection of atoms and molecules, dancing on a simple rock, third from a simple star, in a somewhat backwater region of a galaxy far away from where the party is really happening? Is exchanging value for value the real reason we are here? And if it is, just how do we put relative values on mediocre sex as compared to the talents of a hooker who can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch?

What is it really all about? (Alfie?)
................................................................................................................


Originally Posted by amicus
For once, why don't you outline, explain and defend your basic views on philosophy and economics, rather than just continually attack?
Amicus


Amicus and I have been going round and round on various things for a while now. He posted this (in part) in the thread on Ayn Rand. A query. I think it's safe to say that ami is a big time fan of Ayn Rand. I'm not.

But he does have a point in that, instead of attacking the woman, maybe I should put down in writing my basic views on economics and philosophy. As for explaining and defending them...perhaps some other time.

So...here I go...

stephen55's basic views on economics...

Things used to cost, roughly, a dollar a pound. That was some time ago. So was Ayn Rand.



stephen55's basic views on philosophy....

The key to true happiness is to keep breathing, so don't smoke. You tend to live about as long as your lungs function. Ayn Rand died of lung cancer.
......................................................................................................

So there you have it. Now you know what I really think about economics and philosophy and the meaning of life.

Please feel free to add your own personal and deepest held thoughts on what really matters as we go through life on this cosmic quantum journey together, even if some of us weren't invited. And always remember...

The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.

 

[sr71plt]

. . . but if he combs his hair just right, maybe no one with notice.

 

[stephen55]

. . . but if he combs his hair just right, maybe no one with notice.

What hair?

Black holes have no hair.
(With apologies to John Archibald Wheeler)

 

[stephen55]

Oops...double post

 

[amicus]

You claim to be a physician and a Canadian; to this forum, you are just an avatar and a name and it is your words that define who you are...here...anyway.

Thus far, to me, your words indicate that you are educated and have the ability to express your thoughts, be they as they may, and that you have an agenda; a consistent and complimentary range of thoughts that always tend in one direction, that of the collective.

There are not many authors or philosophers, that I can think of, that engender the hatred and excoriation that Ayn Rand does....thas a fact, Jack.

So what is it you hate so much about Ayn Rand?

One of her books, "Atlas Shrugged" has been made into a film, premiering April 15, 2011, actually two of her books, "Fountainhead" already exists as a film and a book.

If you search her name, you will find numerous institutes and foundations that exist to further her works, both her fiction, non fiction, and her philosophy. So why do you continue to claim she is inconsequential?

Physicians, if you are one, are prone to narcotics and other addictions because they deal daily with life and death and pain and suffering. I could never be of that profession. Nor would I wish to be a law enforcement officer or a career military man, or even a shop-keeper, dealing with the public, day after day. Those so inclined deal with the dark-side of humanity and, I suggest, they are influenced by it. You could be a mortician and deal with that? Day after day, your profession?

Not me.

But...you pose a truly interesting question: What is the purpose of life?

Not that it has not been asked before; it has.

Most people, and I mean that literally, perhaps 90% of all of humanity, have a 'faith' that provides a 'purpose' to their existence. They don't question it; they believe it and live by it.

It is only that fraction of humanity, and I am generous when I leave ten percent, I would whittle that down if pressed, that question their existence and the particulars.

Those of us out here on the cusp of comprehension of human existence, have choices as to which intellectual direction we follow to provide us with a purpose for our existence.

Many, like yourself, choose the Collective to soothe concerns about purpose; that path of adhering to the Platonic, 'shadows on the wall' concept of existence, in which one sacrifices one's individuality to the greater good.

There is another path less travelled and if you seek it, you will find it.

Amicus

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I recently watched Mike Wallace interview Ayn Rand back about 1959. In the interview he made a big deal of her professed atheism. Today he'd chastise her if she werent atheist or a homo worshipper.

The purpose of life is to make copies of yourself.

 

[amicus]

I recently watched Mike Wallace interview Ayn Rand back about 1959. In the interview he made a big deal of her professed atheism. Today he'd chastise her if she werent atheist or a homo worshipper.

The purpose of life is to make copies of yourself.

~~~

Hello, James...watched that interview also.....'making copies', yeah, but there is more to it than that...by the way...you said you might do a 'review' for me...a few weeks back....forget or hated the story?

Ami

 

[Pure]

rand interview

the best interview with rand was published in Playboy, 1964. she herself edited it, to ensure it accurately presented her views.

it is on the 'net, if anyone's interested.

http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

 

[amicus]

the best interview with rand was published in Playboy, 1964. she herself edited it, to ensure it accurately presented her views.

it is on the 'net, if anyone's interested.
http://ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

~~~

Thank you for the link, Pure, perhaps one or two will respond...better than none...

"...PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?

RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions -- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows -- or makes it a point to discover -- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow -- then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction -- his own and that of others.

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

PLAYBOY: Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work -- and if so, what kind of work?

RAND: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence. PLAYBOY: Where, would you say, should romantic love fit into the life of a rational person whose single driving passion is work?

~~~

This is an area of weakness in Rands's philosophy and, among others, one with which I offer disagreement .

It has been an euphoric era for women, following the passage of the right to vote amendment, a time where women have pushed the envelope of previous restrictions and boundaries.

The full participation of women in politics has indeed changed the world we live in and I think even the most timid are beginning to question the efficacy of those changes.

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

Ami, the only reason you think I am a socialist and tend to that of the collective, is that I don't agree with your far right, Libertarian views. With you and every other Randroid, it's the same. Any view that falls short of Objectivist idealism is automatically Marxist, fascist, communist, Nazi, soulless, Leftist, mindless or...(insert your ami insult of choice).

I also don't think that Ayn Rand had anything useful to say. I see her as your typical self-centered, "I'm right and you're wrong" cultist.

I don't hate Ayn Rand. I just disagree with her. You can disagree with someone and not hate them. That's a fact, Jack. You are fond of accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a hater. I have posted criticism of Rand and I have posted parody of Rand. I have made jokes about her. I have used quotes of hers and quotes of others about her, to get my message across that she was hardly the brilliant philosopher and economist that she and others, have claimed her to be.

I don't think she is inconsequential in terms of her book sales, her ongoing beliefs as supported by the Ayn Rand Institute and now a movie based on Atlas Shrugged. I think that she is inconsequential in that her message is pseudo philosophical claptrap. That others disagree with me is obvious. That is hardly going to convince me that she has any real standing or value as a "savior of humanity".

"Physicians, if you are one, are prone to narcotics and other addictions because they deal daily with life and death and pain and suffering."

Not at all true, ami. Physicians have no higher rates of addictions than any other group in society. And while an oncologist might deal with life, death, pain and suffering every day, most docs go to work each day and generally come home afterwards feeling good about what they've accomplished. As a family doc, my day at the office was usually spent seeing healthy kids, except for the ones with minor day to day problems, expectant moms, people with ongoing but stable medical problems and only the occasional major problem.

Working in Emerg was obviously a different story, but even there, the vast majority of people coming in had a good outcome. People do die from massive heart attacks and major trauma, but such is life. You do your best and no one can ask for more.

What is the purpose of life? I don't have an answer for you. I arrived on this Earth through no fault of my own, I hope to leave this life through no fault of my own. In between, I have worked hard, played hard and now I can slow down and pursue some hobbies that I didn't have much time for, earlier in my life. I seek to harm no one and I give no cause for others to harm me. If I have a purpose to my life, no one gave me an owner's manual when I got here. So I go through life, trying to be a good husband, father, friend and neighbor.

Philosophers, theologians and poets can think and write about the purpose of life. Some I read and some I don't. What I can tell you is that I'll be god damned if I'll allow anyone to think for me, tell me what is my purpose or otherwise try to run my life. (Full disclosure; on occasion, my wife does one, two or all three in a single day. )

So, ami, I don't choose the Collective, whatever the hell that is. My guess is that it a Randroid term for any and all non-Randroids.

"that path of adhering to the Platonic, 'shadows on the wall' concept of existence, in which one sacrifices one's individuality to the greater good."

Ami, when you post stuff like this, it tells me two things. First, that if you ever read Plato, it went over your head. Second, it reinforces my views on Randroids, and any other cult adherer. That is, you believe that if I don't follow the One True Path, that I am wasting my life.

"There is another path less travelled and if you seek it, you will find it."

There are all kinds of paths in this world. I know how difficult this is going to be for you, ami, but try and understand that just because I'm not on the same path as you doesn't mean that I am lost.

 

[sr71plt]

It's amusing that you (and others) expend those many words and that much common sense on Amicus, knowing (and actually saying) that it doesn't compute with his pointy-headed pseudophilosophy and therefore isn't going to register on his radar.

I say let him wander off on his chosen path and just hope that he doesn't find his way back.

 

[stephen55]

It's amusing that you (and others) expend those many words and that much common sense on Amicus, knowing (and actually saying) that it doesn't compute with his pointy-headed pseudophilosophy and therefore isn't going to register on his radar.

I say let him wander off on his chosen path and just hope that he doesn't find his way back.

I was responding to ami's post that is five or so above mine. In it he was reasonably polite, so I thought that I could respond in kind. I know that there's nothing I can say that will ever convince the guy that there are people who are not Randroids and at the same time are not Marxist slaves to the soul destroying Collective of mindless, immoral, unethical etc., etc.

Of note, it's about -24 C outside in my neck of the woods and with a stiff wind blowing, the wind chill is down to about -38 C.

I must admit that I'd rather be fishing but seeing as how I view ice fishing as unpalatable and an affront to the poor ice cold and starving fish, here I sit and type away. I suppose I could be drinking instead. Unfortunately my father taught me that a gentleman doesn't drink before six. I should have listened to my uncle who said that a gentleman doesn't drink before breakfast.

 

[amicus]

1.Cognitive: intrusive thoughts and reliving the incident, reduced ability to concentrate, or mental confusion.
2.Behavioral: substance use, withdrawal from others, or acting-out behaviors.
3.Physical: fatigue, recurring headaches, or inability to sleep or eat.
4.Emotional: unfounded or unusual anger, depressive feelings, or anxiety reactions.

Certainly most inpiduals will not experience all of these symptoms, but rather a combination of the different categories.


What are the different incidents of substance abuse among different occupations?

1.Doctors: In a study conducted by Cicala (2003) 8% to 12% of physicians were estimated to develop a substance use problem. Emergency medicine, not surprisingly, and anesthesiology, are usually the highest-risk specialties among doctors. Utilization of opiates and benzodiazepines are danger signs of potential substance abuse among doctors.


2.Nurses: Trinkoff and Storr (1998) conducted an investigation where substance use was studied among nurses. Thirty-two percent of 4,438 respondents indicated some substance abuse. This cohort was asked about use of the following:

•Marijuana
•Alcohol
•Cocaine
•Prescription drugs
•Nicotine

~~~

Doctors number one, nurses two, followed by Police and Fire workers.

Thus you are incorrect; perhaps not wanting to face the facts or not aware of them?

I don't mind that you don't have a consistent, non contradictory philosophy; most professionals never study the field being too involved in their own pursuits.

I can understand why religious people object to Rand, she considers all religions evil. I can understand why Marxists and Progressives find her abhorent; they believe in the greater good of the whole at the expense of the individual.

I can understand why professionals in Philosophy detest her Objectivism; she goes through each major and minor philosopher for the last two thousand years and more and refutes their theses, one by one.

I can understand why people with low self esteem, and there are oodles of them here; borderline insane Bohemians jumping from frying pan to fire with each shift in the relativistic winds of change.

But then, I have learned that reasonable, rational people have always been a minority in this world.

Such deal, eh?

Amicus

 

[stephen55]

Who is Cicala and where is the reference.? (Journal article, issue and page number, please.) Ditto, Trinkoff and Storr (1998).

By the way, if 32% of nurses indicated some substance abuse, how do doctors, at 8% to 12% get to be number one?

Ami, your misuse of lousy statistics doesn't surprise me. In science and medicine, this is how it works. You gather good evidence and statistics, analyze the data and then develop your conclusions.

Your method is a bit different. You have an opinion, go looking for shady evidence and then use it to back your opinion.

Here is just one link to a journal article on substance abuse rates among physicians.

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/162/12/1730.pdf

Use the references at the bottom of the journal article, if you want to look a little deeper.

Brewster J. Prevalence of alcohol and other drug problems among physicians.
JAMA 1986;255:1913-20.
(The rate of alcohol and drug abuse among physicians is the same as that of the general public, about 9%)

O’Connor PG, Spickard A. Physician impairment by substance abuse. Med
Clin North Am 1997;81:1037-52.
(The public perception that drug and alcohol abuse amongst physicians is greater than that of the general public is based on folklore and not fact.)

Single E, Brewster J, MacNeil P, Hatcher J, Trainor C. The 1993 General
Social Survey II: alcohol problems in Canada. Can J Public Health 1995;86:
402-407.
(The rate of drug and alcohol abuse in Canadian physicians is the same as the general population, at about 9%.)
I thought I'd add this one just to show that Canuck docs are no different than our American colleagues.

So, ami, I'm not incorrect. You are. Your perceptions are not born out by published data. Feel free to ignore the facts and carry on.


"I don't mind that you don't have a consistent, non contradictory philosophy"

Well, no one ever accused you of being unable to make up myths on the fly. As for the rest of your post...it sums up quite nicely with...

"But then, I have learned that reasonable, rational people have always been a minority in this world."

I don't agree but I'll say that of the reasonable and rational people in this world..you're not one of them.

 

[Pure]

note as to thread topic

stephen asked about philosophic and economic views. so rather than devote more posts to Rand, who's covered in another thread,
i will answer the question.

economics cannot be separated from politics, and considerations about forms of government.

in simple terms, one wants poltical/economic arrangements that produce 1)high standard of living, , 2)economic freedom, 3) individual civil liberties ("freedoms"), and 4) just outcomes. 5) good health for all, 6) good education available to all.

"social democracy" (a democratic, partly socialist arrangement) aims to strike a balance. there is extensive private ownership, esp at the individual level, but public ownership in some crucial areas such as utilities, water supply, etc. there are publically owned competitive entitities as well, i.e. competing alongside privately owned businesses.
(petrocanada [oil], for example). as well, there is extensive regulation of private production, e.g., with regard to pollution of environment, worker safety and so on. this is done because of the demonstrated inability of businesses to police themselves on these matters; most recently the US banks and investment houses.


besides prosperity overall (average), which might be concentrated with a few, one looks for JUST outcome, according to a number of factors, race, ethnicity, gender, for example; there being no reason that women, equally educated and dedicated to career, should have, it's said for the US, 70% of the income of men. the Gini index, applied to incomes [class] gives a picture as to unequal [class] distribution, the US being the most unequal [by class] among advanced western nations.

social democracy exists. it's working in Canada, Norway and Holland among other places, often in W. Europe. these are all 'free' countries, functioning parliamentary democracies, with rights of free speech, and so on. there is extensive 'private property' rights at all levels.

below are some statistics to give a picture. the first is a general 'human dev't index' where besides health, there is a lot of weight to standard of living. the US is high (#2). turning to other indices, eg. of gender development and infant mortality, one sees that the US is generaly outranked by Canada, Norway and Holland. for infant mortality US is outranked by more than a dozen others.

===


http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/hdi/
human development index

health education living standard-- gini coefficient

1. Norway---26
4 US--41
7 Netherlands--31
8 Canada--33
9 Sweden--25
14 France--33
16 Finland--27

===
gini coefficient, trend, US
http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html


gender related development index

http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_GDI.pdf

2. Norway
4 Canada
6 Sweden
9 Netherlands
10 France
11 Finland
12 US

===
gini coefficient, trend, US

http://www.sustainablemiddleclass.com/Gini-Coefficient.html
---
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_inf_mor_rat-health-infant-mortality-rate [2005[

infant mortality 2005

[world ranking , #1 being worst]

176 Finland 3.59 [best of this sample]
175 Norway 3.73
170 France 4.31
162 Canada 4.82
160 Netherlands 5.11

2010 Infant mortality
for missing entries

US 6.1 [ranking in the 'teens]
Sweden 2.7 [ranking in the top five, above]

http://www.infoplease.com/world/statistics/infant-mortality-life-expectancy.html


===

social democracy principles
http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/scotterb/public.www/essay1.htm


facebook page, Americans for Social Democracy.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=34485831278&_fb_noscript=1

 

[stephen55]

While I doubt that ami is going to pay any attention to anything that comes out of the United Nations, as Pure has pointed out, they do rank countries in terms of many things. One of them is their listing of the best countries in which to live, based on the quality of life of it's citizens.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/best-country-live-list-countries-2009-un-hdi

The index includes life expectancy, literacy rates, school enrollment and the country's economy.

The 2009 list top fifteen...

# 1) Norway
# 2) Australia
# 3) Iceland
# 4) Canada
# 5) Ireland
# 6) Netherlands
# 7) Sweden
# 8) France
# 9) Switzerland
# 10) Japan
# 11) Luxembourg
# 12) Finland
# 13) United States
# 14) Austria
# 15) Spain

Further, while ami wouldn't recognize the real meaning of a social democracy if it jumped up and bit him on the ass, note that all of the dozen countries ranked higher than the US as better places to live are all social democracies.

The contemporary social democratic movement seeks to reform capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, as opposed to creating an alternative socialist economic system.

( Socialism and the Market: Conceptual Clarification by Janos Kornai, June 2005)

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

* A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and publicly owned or subsidized programs of education, universal health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
* An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
* Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
* Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
* A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
* A secular and a socially progressive policy.
* Immigration and multiculturalism.
* Fair trade over free trade.
* A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
* Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.

Social democracy works and it works very well. Although ami is never going to agree, real (modern) social democracy has little if anything to do with Socialism, and nothing to do with Marxism. A social democracy is simply a democracy that recognizes that the well being of people, and of the environment, is more important than the well being of unrestricted capitalism.

Capitalism, with the oversight of government, is the engine that drives the economic benefits of a social democracy. That's why the first country on the list that isn't a social democracy, is in thirteenth place.

Here's another take on what makes a country a good place to live, from the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2009/05/11-4

The US didn't make the top ten. although it ranked amongst the highest for childhood poverty rates, with one in five children living in poverty. This was only exceeded in Poland, Mexico and Turkey.

While you can argue for unrestricted liberties, capitalism freed from all oversight, personal freedom from any government intervention, declare a pox on all taxation, proclaim individualism as the highest goal of humanity and of course, hold up Ayn Rand as the savior of humanity etc., etc., there are counties where we agree to give up a little unfettered individualism, agree to play by the rules, and accept higher taxes than the US, all in exchange for getting one hell of a lot back. We live in countries that are consistently rated as better places to live. We are healthier, we live longer, we are better educated and we enjoy every democratic freedom that any democracy offers.

 

[Black13]

Everything is related and connected, but it doesn't really matter. It's just interesting, and we have been given the opportunity to experience it subjectively for a little while. Let's enjoy it as much as possible, ourselves and others.

 

[squarejohn]

This originally appeared in the thread Ayn Rand. A query.

I thought it might make a topic for a new thread. Perhaps we should all put down our basic views on philosophy and economics. After all, creative writing in general and perhaps erotic literature in specific, relies on the author's deepest feelings and beliefs about the human nature. Why are we here? What is value?

Is humanity more than just a vast collection of atoms and molecules, dancing on a simple rock, third from a simple star, in a somewhat backwater region of a galaxy far away from where the party is really happening? Is exchanging value for value the real reason we are here? And if it is, just how do we put relative values on mediocre sex as compared to the talents of a hooker who can suck the chrome off a trailer hitch?

What is it really all about? (Alfie?)
................................................................................................................


Originally Posted by amicus
For once, why don't you outline, explain and defend your basic views on philosophy and economics, rather than just continually attack?
Amicus


Amicus and I have been going round and round on various things for a while now. He posted this (in part) in the thread on Ayn Rand. A query. I think it's safe to say that ami is a big time fan of Ayn Rand. I'm not.

But he does have a point in that, instead of attacking the woman, maybe I should put down in writing my basic views on economics and philosophy. As for explaining and defending them...perhaps some other time.

So...here I go...

stephen55's basic views on economics...

Things used to cost, roughly, a dollar a pound. That was some time ago. So was Ayn Rand.



stephen55's basic views on philosophy....

The key to true happiness is to keep breathing, so don't smoke. You tend to live about as long as your lungs function. Ayn Rand died of lung cancer.
......................................................................................................

So there you have it. Now you know what I really think about economics and philosophy and the meaning of life.

Please feel free to add your own personal and deepest held thoughts on what really matters as we go through life on this cosmic quantum journey together, even if some of us weren't invited. And always remember...

The universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time.

Here are a few of my deeply held beliefs. Nothing original, but true, nonetheless

Stress causes dis-ease. Smoking relieves stress, and therefore helps to prevent disease.

A woman is only a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke.

A stiff dick has no conscience.

 

[amicus]

Our two Canadian apologists are singing in two-part-harmony, crooning seductively about social democracies and Universal Health Care just as a 'Death Panel' in Canada has sentenced a 13 month old child to death against the will of its' parents to a point they are fleeing Canada to the free United States of America.

Go figure.

Compared to the United States, Canada and the comparatively 'postage stamp' sized European Nation States have smaller, more controlled and regulated, higher taxed populations that are submissive to government control; disarmed and forced to accept the legacy of world war two that diminished them into insignificance in world affairs.

Those reading this dual diatribe of democractic socialists are supposed to forget that the UK is a failing society with a ten year waiting period for housing for newly weds and a two year waiting period for their avowed magnificent plan of socialized medicine.

You are also expected to ignore or forget the failures of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, prime examples of 'social democracies' that have elevated the status of government workers to the wealthy class and left the common citizen in poverty as the bureaucrats, which they always do, dine off the dinners of the working man.

The long list of accomplishments put forth by our two hardy stalwarts of socialism seems most impressive until you realize that almost all Euro nations are so disgusted with the system that they won't even marry and have children. The birthrate across the board is less than 2.1, the replacement value of births per woman, and are forced to import labor from former colonial conquests.

Such a deal.

There is such a head-rush over the concept of enforced equality that one wonders how to even begin the process of drying out these addicts and rehabilitating their decline into oblivion.

Women consume the Lion's share of healthcare services and because of their periodic inabilities to perform, work an average of three days to each five days a man works and yet, damn, they ought to have equal pay? Where is reason here?

Minorities, untrained and untrainable, uneducated and uneducable, should be paid on an equal basis with other more competent workers? A recipe to total social disaster if there ever was one.

As the social democracies across Europe topple, one after the other and devolve into dictatorial regimes where there are no human rights at all, it is both sad and hilarious to read the tripe of our two Canadian cohorts. What a joke!

That doctors and nurses are more subjecf to addiction, because of the stress of their professions and the close availability of prescription drugs, is not even a debatable issue; it is clear, documented fact...do your own research, ignore my documentation and that of the apologists and look it up yourself.

When the apologists speak glowingly of regulating Capitalism, know for a fact they are talking about controlling you, the individual, and your pursuit of your life, your liberty, your freedom to utilize your innate right of free will to decide how you live your own lives.

Individualism doesn't exist in a social democracy. If alcohol, tobacco, salt, sugar, coffee, tea, et cetera, are deemed to be health hazards, then, for the greater good, these consumables will be prohibited and banned to insure better health on a collective basis, individual desires be damned.

You may think it reasonable to give a 'few' personal liberties in the hopes of a better 'collective' situation, think again, those few you willingly give up become many you are forced to relinquish and soon, you have no freedom, no choice left at all.

As if a century of social experimentation was not enough to convince the world that socialism, in any form, is totally and irrevocably destructive of humanity, these malcontents are counting on your ignorance of history and the results of social democracies to fool you once again.

Hey...it is your generation...I did my bit in fighting for freedom, it is now your task. Stand and be counted.

Amicus

edited to add: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8294 account of Canadian Death Panel...

 

[Black13]

In the wake of all my political research, all my philosophical indulgences, an entire decade of my life trying to figure out the solution and what is good and right, and a constant yearning for the whole of humanity to coexist in peace and love and respect for the existence of everything and all... I can't help but feel complete apathy when it comes to discussing the politics of men. Petty bullshit and drama. People die, people die unjustly, and injustice is visited upon those who are concerned yet unprepared. If and when someone barges through my door with a gun and asks me to pray to the east/ praise the dictator/ vote Libertarian, fine... don't give a shit. If and when someone barges through my door with a gun and tells me to burn my life's work, I will fight, and perhaps die, and perhaps die unjustly. That is that, and that is how it turns out every now and then in human history. We are, regardless, heading into a Dark Age... let's not forget how man survived it last time. Submission is just a way of playing along until one finds a flaw or an opportunity within the system. And with that, I'll shut up.

 

[amicus]

In the wake of all my political research, all my philosophical indulgences, an entire decade of my life trying to figure out the solution and what is good and right, and a constant yearning for the whole of humanity to coexist in peace and love and respect for the existence of everything and all... I can't help but feel complete apathy when it comes to discussing the politics of men. Petty bullshit and drama. People die, people die unjustly, and injustice is visited upon those who are concerned yet unprepared. If and when someone barges through my door with a gun and asks me to pray to the east/ praise the dictator/ vote Libertarian, fine... don't give a shit. If and when someone barges through my door with a gun and tells me to burn my life's work, I will fight, and perhaps die, and perhaps die unjustly. That is that, and that is how it turns out every now and then in human history. We are, regardless, heading into a Dark Age... let's not forget how man survived it last time. Submission is just a way of playing along until one finds a flaw or an opportunity within the system. And with that, I'll shut up.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Dear Black13...from Arizona, I do not recognize your Screen Name, so I take this opportunity to welcome you to the conversation and to thank you for your contribution.

However.... )) ( a trademark of mine...)

As I try to visualize the first human that stood upright and gazed about him, I wonder what courage it took to survive.

Humankind evolved into an extremely hostile environment and had neither tooth nor claw nor great speed to confront or avoid the numerous predators; all he had was his superior brain and, most importantly, the will to live.

I understand your pragmatic advice concerning submission as mentioned in your last sentence. I shudder to think of the millions of innocent people who somehow managed to survive under the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Good people who wanted only to live and enjoy life.

I have taken the same stand expressed in my last few Posts here, since I was age 18; it has never been an easy path to follow and as I approach the end of my life, I do not and will not regret a moment of my continual battle against the forces of evil in this world.

My colleagues used to laugh at me and sing selections from The Man of LaMancha, Don Quixote, as I battled philosophy and economics professors day after day after day in my fight to defend human individual freedom and liberty.

To use a cliche: 'if not you, then who, and if not now, when?',...I equate the larger battles of life with the small ones of each man to forge his own existence on his own terms and maintain his individual integrity in the face of adversity.

regards...

Amicus Veritas...

 

[Pure]

note to ami re social democracy

Ami's rant below is fairly chaotic, but i'll pick out a few points.

I cited as examples of well working social democracies, Canada, Norway and Holland. I could well have added Germany and France to the list. There is a high standard of living, civil liberties and elections, and within universal health care, the infant mortality figures are in the top 10.

Germany, to take an example is hardly Postage Stamp size; it's one of the world's leading ecomies in GDP.

Some figures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

GDP in millions:
1 United States 14,624,184
4 Germany 3,305,898
5 France 2,555,439
6 United Kingdom 2,258,565
7 Italy 2,036,687
8 Brazil 2,023,528
9 Canada 1,563,664

Of course the GDP for European Union as a whole, 16 million million, is greater than the US, and it's more populous.

There are some european basket cases in the present crisis, but one might note that Ireland was noted for its friendliness to business, low taxes, etc.

A survey of the health of banking systems two years ago showed the following: Canada and Sweden near the top, US, at number 40.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/10/09/us-financial-soundest-banks-idUSTRE4981X220081009 [Oct 9,2008]

Reuters) - Canada has the world's soundest banking system, closely followed by Sweden, Luxembourg and Australia, a survey by the World Economic Forum has found as financial crisis and bank failures shake world markets.

But Britain, which once ranked in the top five, has slipped to 44th place behind El Salvador and Peru, after a 50 billion pound ($86.5 billion) pledge this week by the government to bolster bank balance sheets.

The United States, where some of Wall Street's biggest financial names have collapsed in recent weeks, rated only 40, just behind Germany at 39, and smaller states such as Barbados, Estonia and even Namibia, in southern Africa

===

Besides high standard of living, the social democracies have extensive freedoms in civil liberties, comparable or better than the US.

Amicus has no data to the contrary:

ami When the apologists speak glowingly of regulating Capitalism, know for a fact they are talking about controlling you, the individual, and your pursuit of your life, your liberty, your freedom to utilize your innate right of free will to decide how you live your own lives.

Individualism doesn't exist in a social democracy. If alcohol, tobacco, salt, sugar, coffee, tea, et cetera, are deemed to be health hazards, then, for the greater good, these consumables will be prohibited and banned to insure better health on a collective basis, individual desires be damned.

Salt, sugar, and coffee to be prohibited? Hardly. Perhaps at some point, a tax on high sugar soft drinks (pop) may come in-- if the majority of voters wishes it. Yes cigarettes are highly taxed in Canada, a couple bucks per pack at least.

Is this what the debate on "freedom" and best government is going to come down to? that cigarettes are cheaper in the US? about 400,000 deaths per year in the US are linked to smoking:

http://www.inforesearchlab.com/smokingdeaths.chtml

high taxation on smoking as democratically decided public policy makes sense: in Canada still 20% are smokers. in france it's about the same. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7166159.stm

http://www.prb.org/Articles/2010/ussmoking.aspx#

If Americans and Europeans could erase their smoking histories, life expectancy at age 50 would be two to four years longer in many countries, according to this research (see table). And the United States would rank much higher in international comparisons. Preston and his colleagues estimated that—absent the health damage from smoking—U.S. male life expectancy at age 50 would rank ninth out of the 20 countries in their study, rather than its current rank of 14. U.S. women would boost their ranking much more: from 18th to seventh.

Because Americans have been successful in curbing the tobacco habit, lung cancer rates have begun to fall as lighter-smoking cohorts move into older ages. At the same time, lung cancer rates are increasing in the Netherlands and some other countries that adopted smoking well after it became common in the United States.
=======


In conclusion, both economic freedom and civil liberties are in fine shape in Canada, and in the European Social Democracies, esp France, Germany, and the Nordic countries. Ami seems to distrust the people and the parliaments in countries that decide it might be prudent, as public policy, to discourage smoking, in view of the deaths caused, and expenses to the healthcare systems. In any case, lots of French and Dutch person die of from smoking, so they participate in Amicus-style 'freedom.'

====


amicus Our two Canadian apologists are singing in two-part-harmony, crooning seductively about social democracies and Universal Health Care just as a 'Death Panel' in Canada has sentenced a 13 month old child to death against the will of its' parents to a point they are fleeing Canada to the free United States of America.

Go figure.

Compared to the United States, Canada and the comparatively 'postage stamp' sized European Nation States have smaller, more controlled and regulated, higher taxed populations that are submissive to government control; disarmed and forced to accept the legacy of world war two that diminished them into insignificance in world affairs.

Those reading this dual diatribe of democractic socialists are supposed to forget that the UK is a failing society with a ten year waiting period for housing for newly weds and a two year waiting period for their avowed magnificent plan of socialized medicine.

You are also expected to ignore or forget the failures of Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, prime examples of 'social democracies' that have elevated the status of government workers to the wealthy class and left the common citizen in poverty as the bureaucrats, which they always do, dine off the dinners of the working man.

The long list of accomplishments put forth by our two hardy stalwarts of socialism seems most impressive until you realize that almost all Euro nations are so disgusted with the system that they won't even marry and have children. The birthrate across the board is less than 2.1, the replacement value of births per woman, and are forced to import labor from former colonial conquests.

Such a deal.

There is such a head-rush over the concept of enforced equality that one wonders how to even begin the process of drying out these addicts and rehabilitating their decline into oblivion.

[... rant on women and minorities]
As the social democracies across Europe topple, one after the other and devolve into dictatorial regimes where there are no human rights at all, it is both sad and hilarious to read the tripe of our two Canadian cohorts. What a joke!

[...]
When the apologists speak glowingly of regulating Capitalism, know for a fact they are talking about controlling you, the individual, and your pursuit of your life, your liberty, your freedom to utilize your innate right of free will to decide how you live your own lives.

Individualism doesn't exist in a social democracy. If alcohol, tobacco, salt, sugar, coffee, tea, et cetera, are deemed to be health hazards, then, for the greater good, these consumables will be prohibited and banned to insure better health on a collective basis, individual desires be damned.

You may think it reasonable to give a 'few' personal liberties in the hopes of a better 'collective' situation, think again, those few you willingly give up become many you are forced to relinquish and soon, you have no freedom, no choice left at all.

As if a century of social experimentation was not enough to convince the world that socialism, in any form, is totally and irrevocably destructive of humanity, these malcontents are counting on your ignorance of history and the results of social democracies to fool you once again.

 

[stephen55]

Our two Canadian apologists are singing in two-part-harmony, crooning seductively about social democracies and Universal Health Care just as a 'Death Panel' in Canada has sentenced a 13 month old child to death against the will of its' parents to a point they are fleeing Canada to the free United States of America.

Go figure.

Amicus
edited to add: http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=8294 account of Canadian Death Panel...

Bullshit!

Total bullshit!

Typical ami bullshit!

Strip away all of the media sound bites, the televised interviews, the talking (and posting) heads who have an ax to grind and look at the situation as it is.

The infant has some type of rare neurological disorder that is 100% fatal in early life. I have yet to see a specific diagnosis but it's likely genetic as the parents suffered a similar situation some years ago as their daughter died of the same condition. In that case, the child was given a tracheostomy to improve her breathing and she lived a further six months at home before dying of the disease.

I'm not sure what the quality of the girl's life was like for those six months but she was in a persistent vegetative state. I also don't know what other measures were necessary to maintain her life at home but they must have been considerable. To care for an infant in a vegetative state who is breathing through a tracheostomy is a 24/7 proposition.

Fast forward to the present. The infant boy was admitted to the London Ontario hospital four months ago with the same diagnosis as his late sister. His prognosis is certain death. The parents asked to have a tracheostomy done, as was done for their first child, to allow them to take the child home. The surgeon refused. So, what happens in this situation?

Let's step back for a moment and go over a few things. First, there are no Death Panels in Canada and there never will be. Second, Canadian physicians and surgeons are under no obligation to do anything that they feel is not in a patient's best interests. All medical and surgical decisions are based on what is best for the patient. There are always going to be situations where a patient's wishes, or the wishes of the parents of a patient, have differing views than the attending physicians. Think of a child of Jehovah's Witnesses, injured or ill to the point where blood products are necessary to save the child's life. Think about the situation in Oregon where members of a fundamentalist Christian church refuse to have their children receive medical care, even if it means the child will be severely affected or even die.

There comes a time, in the course of a fatal illness, when it is time to let go. It's a hard lesson for any doc, but there does come a time when continuing to keep someone alive is not the best thing to do. It is probably one of the hardest decisions a doc, or more likely, a team of docs, has to make. In some cases, it is clinically straight forward. For example, an elderly patient, in the end stages of a miserable illness, like metastatic cancer. In other cases it gets difficult, like a teenager brain injured in a motorcycle accident, who is clinically brain dead.

It's a case like the one of this poor infant boy in Ontario where the decision to end life support becomes heart breaking. The parents do not want their child to die. Nonetheless, the child is going to die. That is a certainty. The child is in a persistent vegetative state, is unresponsive and that is not going to change. The child's neurological state will continue to deteriorate until no amount of care will prevent death. All the physicians and the parents, have seen it before. So, what to do?

Despite all the TV talking heads and all of ami's posts about socialized medical Death Panels, the issue here is at once very simple and also very complicated. When has a patient's quality of life deteriorated to the point where prolonging that life is no longer of any benefit to the patient?

I watched a clip on TV where some American dipshit commentator talked about gross abuse of fundamental human rights. This was followed by a second dipshit who proclaimed that it was all about cutting costs and what do you expect from socialized medicine (read Obamacare)?

Bullshit!

Total bullshit!!

Asshole political fucktard pundits making a play for a nationally televised thirty seconds, who don't have the faintest fucking clue about what is really going on.

Here's what's going on. The parents want their terminally ill child to live a little longer. Who can blame them for that? The attending physicians feel that in the child's best interests, it's time to let go. The parents aren't willing to budge and I don't blame them one bit. The attending physicians want to let the baby die peacefully now. The surgeon who was asked to do the tracheostomy refused, feeling that the surgery was, in the eye of the surgeon, not in the baby's best interests.

I don't know how this ended up in court. My guess is that the hospital, leery of removing the baby's breathing tube against the parent's wishes, applied to the court for guidance. I've read that the court ordered the parents to consent to the removal of the breathing tube. That makes no sense to me. The court can order that the tube be kept or that the tube be removed, or better yet, toss this up to the Supreme court. I don't see how a court can expect the parents to consent when they clearly don't consent.

The parents want their child to live a little longer.
No one can force a doc to do something the doc feels is not appropriate.

My personal thought is that those who were involved in caring for their first child after the tracheostomy and had to care for and watch an infant go through six months of living death before dying, are now convinced that the tracheostomy was the wrong thing to do in the first place. They don't want to do the same thing again.

The parents want them to do the same thing again. They say they want to take the baby to Detroit for a tracheostomy. It's a simple procedure. No doubt there are surgeons who might do it. But finding an American hospital willing to provide up to six months of care out of the goodness of their heart? It would make for awesome public relations, even though the best interests of the baby will have gone by the wayside.

Be very thankful that you get to watch from a distance. Feel free to decide what is right and what is wrong. You don't have to live with the consequences, much less watch a terminally ill baby in a vegetative state take six months to die.

 

[Pure]

OK, so it's cheaper to smoke.

Yes Ami, i'll agree to that. US is "freer" in this way, as compared to Canada or much of W. Europe.

But let's leave aside smoking. More than 600 women per year, in the US, die in an around childbirth. That's about 2 per day. If the US functioned like most nations of W. Europe, the figure would be about half that.
That's a couple hundred women per year. But of course, they drain the health system, as you say, ami, and their voting patterns are mushy and left leaning, so maybe it's just as well.

==
Maternal Deaths on the Rise
By William Fisher

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=50713

NEW YORK, Mar 18, 2010 (IPS) - Despite the fact that the United States spends more on maternal health than any other country in the world, deaths in childbirth among U.S. women are on the rise and already surpass the morbidity rates in most developed countries.

That's the principal conclusion reached in a new study by Amnesty International and data from the Organisation for Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the U.N.'s World Health Organisation (WHO). The Amnesty study, entitled "Deadly Delivery", reports that deaths from pregnancy and childbirth in the United States have doubled in the past 20 years - from 6.6 per 100,000 live births in 1987 to 13.3 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2006.

That would mean that, of the four million women who give birth each year, two to three women die each day in the U.S. from complications related to pregnancy.

[Added: About 600 per year]
While better reporting may account for some of the increase, the study speculates that it's more likely that the figures may actually understate the problem because there are no federal requirements to report maternal deaths. Other findings from the study: U.S. women are now at greater risk of dying from pregnancy-related causes than women in 40 other countries - five times greater than Greek women, for example, and four times greater than German women.

===
http://books.google.ca/books?id=T2y...e&q=maternal mortality Germany Europe&f=false

Germany population: 85,000,000

Maternal death rate 5.2 per 100,000 live births.

====
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/l...eid=tbl3&tableidtype=table_id&sectionType=red
Maternal Mortality, deaths per 100,000 live births.
Canada 7
Finland 7
Germany 7
Netherlands 8
Norway, 8
France 10
USA 17

 

[Pure]

note on the whereabouts of ami

get into facts, post a few of them, and it's for ami, like holy water to a vampire.

ever notice that objectivist 'arguments' do not refer to facts or rely on them (aside from the evils of Stalin).