RoR: Forum

Great essay, Adam.

"That's about 658,000 sick Americans who could have lived but will die, with the Christianist agenda of their own government as root cause."

Well, that number is hypothetically equivalent to the US deaths that would be accrued in 11 Vietnam Wars - and just think of the difference in public outrage between then and now . I have little doubt that the FDA is responsible for more premature deaths than foreign wars (or terrorists, for that matter) have been - they are our biggest enemy.

But while I agree with your somber assessment, I strongly disagree with your pragmatic pro-demoncratic proposal. Republicrats and Demoncrats are what they are - which is not good enough.

My spelling here is not meant as propaganda (though it may be construed as such), it is meant as philosophical "window-cleaner" (to reveal the true nature of this 2-headed brute).

Think about it. Your answer to this problem is to elect someone who promotes government. Size of government is everything. If the size of government goes up, then the elected were immoral. Under Bush, government increased as much or more as any presidency in the last 30 years (an extra 2-week paycheck in taxes will be taken from average Americans to pay for the new Medicare racketeer-job foisted on us). Both of these sides are freedom-destroyers.

This truth is transcultural (transphilosophical) and has been recognized by such diverse thinkers as Rand, Nader, MacIntyre, Perot, and every Libertarian nominee for presidency.

I've been deeply concerned with pro-Republicrat comments from Nevin and Tingley, and now feel encroached by at least one leftist O-ist. If God were alive, I'd been on my knees praying about this! You guys make me awfully uncomfortable at times.

The non-Randian antidote (as Rand hasn't seemed to "work" on you guys) to modern politics is MacIntyre's defense AGAINST communitarianism, as found in The MacIntyre Reader, edited by Kelvin Knight.

Ed

Post 1

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 11:15am

A very strong and intelligent argument. For reasons that don't apply to this discussion, I am a strong supporter of George Bush in the upcoming election. However, I have been slowly realizing that a lifetime of leaning towards Republicans (I have been involved in politics since Barry Goldwater's debacle in 1964) is more than likely coming to an end with this election. I was too young to vote for Goldwater, and the only Republicans that I actually ended up voting for were Reagan and Bush II. However, the Republican party becomes harder to stomach each cycle. In principles held, Goldwater was closer to mine than Reagan, and Reagan closer than Bush.
This article on stem cell research is a wonderful example of the slippery slope Republicans are sliding down as they more desperately grasp the socially conservative right in this country. Once this election is over, I plan to more actively consider how to move towards a more libertarian realignment in the United States.

Post 2

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 11:28am

Ed,

In the long run I agree with you. But American politics is a big swamp, and I - if Bush's policy continues I won't live to see it drained. So when I go to the polls this November, I'll vote against the party of the Christianist alligators, and for my own life. Remember, Clinton's promises were as unprincipled as Kerry's - and Clinton put more limits on government power into place than any Republican had.

The most likely outcome of a Republican victory this November will be a replay of the last totalitarian-totalitarian war, with Islamist powers in the role of the Axis, a Christianist America in the role of Communist Russia, and the Neo-Liberal states of Europe playing the role that Britain and America played in the previous round. Bush's Christianist policies, if perpetuated, will be the deadliest policy ever to threaten a previously free people. They must be stopped.

(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/08, 11:33am)

Post 3

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 2:18pm

Hi, Adam.

You're letting your prejudices blinkered you. Bush has not prohibited any stem cell research. Anyone who wants to do that research in the U.S. can. What Bush did was deny federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research on NEW stem cell lines. Federal funding is still available for embryonic stem cell research on existing stem cell lines, which are replicable.

Of course, the real problem is that there is any federal funding at all. Why is the government picking and choosing which science suits us best? The fact is that the most promise lies with ADULT stem cell research. Embryonic stem cells are extremely volatile, and we know next to nothing about how to control their plasticity, let alone how to overcome rejection in a patient if we could control them. (I assume you are aware of the gruesome results of the experiments the Red Chinese conducted by inserting embryonic stem cells into the brains of Parkinsons sufferers.) Adult stem cells, on the other hand, do not have these problems.

Interesting how little fact is involved in the public debate over stem cell research. But of course, Adam, I understand how letting go of a great propaganda line about how Christians are going to be responsible for the deaths of millions is hard.

Regards,
Bill

Post 4

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 2:49pm

Hi, Ed.

>>I've been deeply concerned with pro-Republicrat comments from Nevin and Tingley, and now feel encroached by at least one leftist O-ist.<<

Other than making an off-hand comment now and then about not being ready to hoist the banner of revolution (for the simple reason, the time is not ripe), I'm not sure how I have proposed an indiscriminate support for Republicans and Democrats. In fact, I think I have suggested the opposite -- i.e., for the time being distinctions in favor of limited government, however meager, need to be made between the major parties come time to pull the lever.

As for the encroachment of the left into Objectivism, I think you've expressed a serious concern. (Although I understand, you were writing with at least a little tongue-in-cheek.) Fortunately, identifying them is not too hard. If the choice is between limiting government or advancing the left's social agenda, limited government loses out. I find this phenomenon interesting, because, until recently, I truly thought it inconceivable for an intelligent, well-read person indentifying himself as an Objectivist to write an article like Adam did.

Regards,
Bill

Post 5

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 3:35pm

Rat,

You must be aware that your assertion about the supposed superiority, for eventual applications, of adult stem cells to stem cells from modern embryonic lines, is ungrounded. Your assertion cannot be validated, by actual comparison, without using the new embryonic stem cell lines that are now prohibited. Yours is, in other words, an arbitrary assertion unrelated to reality, just like the rest of your murderous religion-based ideology. Why are you posting to an Objectivist forum?
(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/08, 3:39pm)

Post 6

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 4:19pm

Hi, Adam.

Last things first. You ask: >>Why are you posting to an Objectivist forum?<<

For one thing, to show that a whim-worshipping mind-mystic is more of an Objectivist than most who explicitly subscribe to the creed. For example, I don't fall for the quackery of embryonic stem cell research simply because doing so suits my prejudices.

As for that quackery, you argue: >>You must be aware that your assertion about the supposed superiority, for eventual applications, of adult stem cells to stem cells from modern embryonic lines, is ungrounded. Your assertion cannot be validated, by actual comparison, without using the new embryonic stem cell lines that are now prohibited.<<

Well, Adam, once again, what you claim is prohibited is not. Your complaint is that MY tax dollars are not financing YOUR scientific agenda. As for having to make the comparisons, we already now there are more hurdles to clear to make embryonic stem cells effective therapies than adult stem cells. For one thing, we completely lack the science and the engineering to culture embryonic stem cells into the desired cells without completely eliminating there potency for change. (Think tumors.)

>>Yours is, in other words, an arbitrary assertion unrelated to reality, just like the rest of your murderous religion-based ideology.<<

Please identify how my points have rested upon my "murderous religion-based ideology".

On second thought, don't bother, Adam. Why am I even trying to have a rational discussion with you?

Regards,
Bill

Post 7

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:02pm

I agree with you Rat. What frightens me is that "Objectivists" are complaining that the government IS NOT FUNDING stem cell research, a very expensive process with very inconclusive possibilities.

Let's consider that if stem cell research were so clean cut as its supporters say, the medical and investment community would be jumping at the oppurtunity to discover the cure to such diseases as Alzheimers and such.

This very dangerous idea of promoting the furtherance of bad law can be found at my site http://www.dustinmhawkins.com/badlaw.html <--- since I do not think SOLO will be publishing it.

Post 8

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:28pm

Dustin - there is no such article in the queue. When did you enter it?

Post 9

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:33pm

Hi, Dustin.

>>Let's consider that if stem cell research were so clean cut as its supporters say, the medical and investment community would be jumping at the oppurtunity to discover the cure to such diseases as Alzheimers and such.<<

Precisely. It's not as though bio-tech is starving for capital. Indeed, capital is begging for decent opportunities in bio-tech.

Regards,
Bill

Post 10

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 6:38pm

Linz,

Speaking of articles, if crap like Adam's represents the "sense of life" you want to promote, when can we expect articles on the merits of PBS, Medicaid abortions, and Head Start?

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 8/08, 6:39pm)

Post 11

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 8:01pm

Dustin,

I was thinking about writing an article on how you want to ban women from driving on public roads. Your arguments are so convincing. There's obviously no problem with government discriminating. Equality before the law is so archaic. You're the man!

Or not.

You argument was that a bad law is a bad law, and anything to reduce it is good. And then you started talking about things being "complicated", which was your excuse for not applying it consistently. The problem isn't recognizing that in a mixed economy, the problems aren't cut and dry. The problem is that you pretend that they are, until faced with your own contradictions. You claim that anything that reduces a bad law is good, because bad is bad, and declare anyone who disagrees with you is a left-wing liberal. Well, the title applies to you.

As I've said before, you would throw away every foundation of freedom we have for some temporary gain or promise.

Post 12

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 10:06pm

Apparently, Rat has chosen to ignore the facts - in this case, that the Bush FDA has arrogated to itself the political power, to prohibit the sale of a therapy that is known, by overwhelming scientific evidence, to be safe and affective, just because the Christianists prefer to prohibit it. Since the same Christianists will prohibit any therapy developed from new embryonic stem cell lines, investment in this research has been terminated by force. Note that FDA prohibitions are enforced by the DEA, so deadly force is rather literal here.

But Rat writes, "It's not as though bio-tech is starving for capital. Indeed, capital is begging for decent opportunities in bio-tech."

Bush has re-defined "decent" to mean "Christianist-approved." Just ask investors in Plan B. Their government has confiscated and destroyed the bulk of their legitimate and deserved profit, by blatant initiation of force, with no objective reason. "Capital" is not some floating impersonal resource. Capital is the accumulated reason of men; it is accumulated rationality in action. Where force rules, reason is driven out. And, in the case of biotechnology based on new lines of embryonic stem cells, when capital is driven out by force, men will die.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/08, 10:18pm)

Post 13

Sunday, August 8, 2004 - 10:48pm

Rat writes,

"if crap like Adam's represents the "sense of life" you want to promote, when can we expect articles on the merits of PBS, Medicaid abortions, and Head Start?"

I don't believe this is happening on SOLO. I never defended any government agency (other than defense, law enforcement, and the courts) anywhere. But Rat is trying to slime me for denouncing the FDA. It is he who is defending the exercise of arbitrary power by a government agency - the FDA's prohibition of Plan B - and that action's destructive effect on investment in scientific research. Rat is defending it. The FDA.

And then, by sheer arbitrary assertion, accusing me of doing what he is actually doing - defending the power of big government.

The mind boggles. But only if you have one.

Post 14

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 5:25am

My dear Adam,

It is one thing to be utterly resistant to the facts. It is another to make them up. To wit: >>Apparently, Rat has chosen to ignore the facts - in this case, that the Bush FDA has arrogated to itself the political power, to prohibit the sale of a therapy that is known, by overwhelming scientific evidence, to be safe and affective, just because the Christianists prefer to prohibit it.<<

What therapy? There is no known therapy reliant upon embryonic stem cells -- unless you count the hideous practice of the Red Chinese of direct injection of cultured embryonic stem cells into the patient. No one has prohibited such therapies, because they do not exist.

As for Bush arrogating political power to the FDA, let's not make up history. The FDA was not created by Bush. This obnoxious agency's power existed long before Bush and will continue long after him.

Finally, your persistence in falsely accusing a cabal of Christians of controlling medical science for their own ends is just as unhinged as any bigot ranting about the world Jewish conspiracy to control banking and the media. Get a grip, Adam! After all, you're supposed to be an Objectivist.

Regards,
Bill

Post 15

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 5:34am

Adam, Adam, Adam,

>>But Rat is trying to slime me for denouncing the FDA.<<

Of course, this didn't happen. I took you to task for your advocacy of embryonic stem cell quackery and your false complaint that Bush had prohibited research into this. But, I know the facts don't matter to you.

Then again, maybe they do. At least this FDA strawman of yours shows that you're trying to dig out of the hole you dug for yourself. Now you wouldn't be doing that unless you recognized the merit of my argument; an argument so compelling that you needed to extricate yourself by knocking down arguments I did not make.

Well, Adam, whatever it takes for you to see the light, be my guest.

Regards,
Bill

Post 16

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 11:06am

Hi, Adam.

Further facts for you.

In FY 2003 the federal government spent $24 million on embryonic stem cell research and $191 million on non-embryonic stem cell research.

Do you know how much the federal government spent on embryonic stem cell research before Bush's policies went into effect in 2001? None, because funding of embryonic stem cell research had been BANNED all through the Clinton years.

Of course, the feds shouldn't be spending any of our tax dollars on stem cell research, period. The government screws up everything it gets into. So, I suppose, if there's one way to make sure embryonic stem cell research goes nowhere, it's to have it dependent upon our tax dollars. Therefore, in a perverse way, you're right, Adam. Bush is destroying embryonic stem cell research by having initiated federal funding of it.

Amazing how what was in the news only three years ago could be so utterly distorted into dishonest propaganda today.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 8/09, 11:16am)

Post 17

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 1:33pm

Bill, Adam.

I would like to request that you both list your sources for the information you are provideing here on the forum.

I hope that this is not an unreasonable request. I figure since you both have somewhat conflicting information you both might tip you hands and show where you got your information so the reading audience can see where you are coming from?

Thank You,

~E.

Post 18

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 1:53pm

To the Editor and the Moderator of SOLO HQ:

I began the article, to which this thread of comments pertains, by denouncing President Bush's plan to spend $ 19,000,000., in money taken at gunpoint from American taxpayers, on defective and useless obsolete embryonic cell lines. It is a plan to spend $ 19,000,000., in money taken at gunpoint, on an exercise that has no possible scientific or medical benefit, for the sole purpose of manufacturing an excuse for President Bush's Christianist agenda. My only comment, regarding the use of money taken at gunpoint for genuine research into human health, was that using money taken at gunpoint for the benefit of Bush's Christianist agenda is very much worse.

In his comments on my essay, a certain "citizen rat" began to twist what I had written into its opposite. By post 4 "citizen rat" was claiming that my objective was not opposing this expenditure, but rather "advancing the left's social agenda." By post 10, he was claiming that my denounciation of Bush's plan amounted to advocating government programs similar to PBS, Medicaid, and Head Start.

The central paragraph of my essay described the mechanism by which Bush indirectly terminated, and effectively prohibited, private investment in embryonic stem cell research. Bush's FDA did this by prohibiting over-the-counter sale of Plan B, against unambiguous and overwhelming scientific evidence of that product's safety and effectiveness. Bush's FDA sent a clear signal to investors and industry: if you develop a therapy that the Christianists disapprove of, no matter how safe and beneficial that therapy is proven to be - you will not be permitted to reap the fruit of that investment.

In post 3, "citizen rat" flat-out denied that this indirect prohibition by the FDA had ever taken place. By post 15, he was claiming that I had NOT denounced the FDA in the original article, and only brought it up later because "you're trying to dig out of the hole you dug for yourself. Now you wouldn't be doing that unless you recognized the merit of my argument...."

A Scandinavian children's tale features the character of a "troll", an ogre who spends his time denying passage over a bridge to those who would use that bridge for its intended purpose. On the Internet, a "troll" is a character whose posts in a forum are meant to sabotage the intended purpose of that forum. "Citizen rat" has demonstrated that he is functioning here as a troll. I urge you to act accordingly.
(Edited by Adam Reed on 8/09, 1:57pm)

Post 19

Monday, August 9, 2004 - 2:04pm