Well you were right about one thing at least: …

PS Omar yer cool.

OK, fine. Two things.

So you have changed your mind about me, huh? Compare to:

MichaelW Says:
October 11th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Dork.

I knew it. You suffer from geek-envy.

J/K

Well you were right about one thing at least:

Michael, I love you, you’re hilarious!

I am pretty frickin’ funny.

PS Omar yer cool.

OK, fine. Two things.

PS Omar yer cool. Rock on Rubenesque!

It’s always a thrill to be appreciated by the younger generation.

PPS This is a nod to the fact that I am not British or French (I would be more eloquent if I were). This is from your quiet buddy from the north. We know and see all up here north of the 49th, and we have our humble opinions.

Oh, good Lord, you’re Canadian?!? That burdens you with the baggage from both the Brits and French. Mon pauvre enfant! How do you bear it? Lol. Just kidding.

However, I must bow out. It’s exam season and there are exams in the air. Don’t stop the talk.

Yes, and as I’ve pointed out to my co-bloggers, I don’t curve, so prepare thoroughly. Please come visit us again after the stress of exams is over. And good luck!

There is no reality outside of human perception – and when I say this I mean reality that can be discerned with the senses, there is very much the reality of the ineffable, in my opinion.

Yes, but your worldview only leaves us with opinions. Worthless ones at that, aside from fodder for coffieshop discussions.

The people who believe in reality are the people who make the future. Your philosophy leads to an empty, hopeless place. When you grow up you will adopt a pragmatic philosophy, assuming you in fact learn from life experience.

But don’t get me wrong. I really, really think that some of your ideas – often more clearly outlined by Virginia Postrel – are detrimental to human life. . . . She was praising chain stores in their blank-eyed, brainless, frenzied swarming across the world like locusts. It was amazing. To actually argue in favor of the senseless burning of cultural artifacts and rituals in the name of “convenience” and “lower prices” boggles the mind. I am boggled. When it’s all over, there won’t be a scrap of identifiable rubble remaining – in our land and in our souls. We must look to the future, and the only way to do so is to see the limits. We must limit ourselves, now. We must limit progress, production, freedom, science but not thought.

How ironic. Your view is what’s detrimental to human life. You present the same attitude that would have prevented the Green Revolution (and may prevent the next one, resulting in massive starvation), the attitude that banned DDT, the attitude that would destroy us if generly accepted.

That story by Voltaire yields more than the surface argument of ‘ignorance is bliss’, really, that man was a genius. And where could the idea of the Ubermensch of both Nietzsche and Rand come from if not of Providence? To believe that some individuals were born of higher esteem and worth and ability than the muddle about them by pure and utter chance is a little silly, right? They had to come from somewhere. The irony of the innate theism of two self-declared atheists strikes me as funny. It’s hard not to laugh at those authors. They said important things; important, laughable things. They were “rationalists”, and don’t get me started on rationalism. Wow. It’s dumb. And the fact that most rational institutions are founded on the most irrational concepts is more of the funny, contradictory nature of human beings. We are all silly and vain our hapiness and angrer are often totally arbitrary. Look at Chuang Tzu, he laughed at us all the time!

You and me, Michael, we truly are talking about the same things. Honestly, we are. We just approach from different angles. Have you read Robert Pirsig’s masterpiece Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? He outlines the duality of Western thought into two categories, which we both clearly represent, and attempts a reconciliation of them, using the metaphor of bike mechanics. Great story.

I don’t think you’re stupid or ignorant! That would be a tall order for a twenty-one-year-old on, what I presume to be, her superiors. I use obtuse language because of an early penchant for nineteenth-century novels (Omar: Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped is when I learned about Culloden and the Bonnie Prince – Alan Breck of Stewarts is my highland outlaw boyfriend!). All that I have aspiration to do is make the humble point that many people, myself being one, do not think the way you do, and hopefully to also express that we have a valid reason for doing so. I began writing on this blog with the maxim of “Keep your friends close…” in mind, but have come to change my opinion. You are not enemies of mine as much as opposing political parties are each other’s enemies.

We are ideological opponents, but we strive for the same goals. Unless, of course, you are striving for the detriment of human society then we really are on different pages. But I doubt that this is your intention. My friends say: “Why do you post on that stupid blog? Leave those right-wing Nazis alone, they eat babies.” I don’t agree with my friends, my friends are morons, but they do express the sentiment that this silly partisan duality incurs. It’s worthless.

But don’t get me wrong. I really, really think that some of your ideas – often more clearly outlined by Virginia Postrel – are detrimental to human life. The only reason I found this blog was a link from the Dynamist, the address of which I found at the end of her article in Atlantic Monthly. I searched it because her article made me vehemently angry. She was praising chain stores in their blank-eyed, brainless, frenzied swarming across the world like locusts. It was amazing. To actually argue in favor of the senseless burning of cultural artifacts and rituals in the name of “convenience” and “lower prices” boggles the mind. I am boggled. When it’s all over, there won’t be a scrap of identifiable rubble remaining – in our land and in our souls. We must look to the future, and the only way to do so is to see the limits. We must limit ourselves, now. We must limit progress, production, freedom, science but not thought.

It’s complicated. I can’t really say it all here. I’m sure Michael will have a field day. Please do, by all means. However, I must bow out. It’s exam season and there are exams in the air. Don’t stop the talk.

PS Omar yer cool. Rock on Rubenesque!

PPS This is a nod to the fact that I am not British or French (I would be more eloquent if I were). This is from your quiet buddy from the north. We know and see all up here north of the 49th, and we have our humble opinions.

I am no longer an athlete (blew out my knees) and I decided to end being an academic (though that was the path I was on at the time)but I easily could have been an athletic history professor.

Even if hired, you’d have been shunned. An outcast. A “fit” amongst the “fat.” Worse, they’d have made you the delegate from liberal arts to all those faculty senate meetings. No worse punishment can I imagine.

I am no longer an athlete (blew out my knees) and I decided to end being an academic (though that was the path I was on at the time)but I easily could have been an athletic history professor. I am pretty happy with my body, though if I got any exercise at all I am certain I would be happier. Does that mean I fall short? Should I be labeled because I could look better? The thing is I don’t care much (or I would do something about it) but I am pretty sure I don’t consider that a virtue. I will say that I do miss being able to dunk, or even grab the rim.

Again, coming at this from a clearly different background then yourself, Omar, but I have never heard the terms Libertarian and Statist ever used to describe modern sociological ideologies before. It almost feels like some eighteenth century political factions; Jacobites and Whigamores at it again!

I’m going to assume, please correct me if I’m wrong, that you are of European, possibly French or British origin. Having spent some time in said nations, I’m not terribly surprised that you haven’t heard a great deal about Libertarianism or arguments against statism. The dominant mindsets of political leaders in Britain and Europe are so inherently under the sway of statist philosophy that discussing anti-statism or libertarian ideas with some of them would be like discussing sleeve length with a man with no arms. They have no relavant point of comparison and discussion becomes pointless and absurd. Books on libertarian philosophy published in Europe would sell about as well as a book entitled “How To Speak French” would sell in France. Although as regards the Jacobites, for some reason I’ve always liked Bonnie Prince Charlie and his rebels. Ah, the tragic glory of Culloden and the ’45.

I agree wholeheartedly about the importance of the home as the foundation of moral education, Omar. However, this idea seems less worthy of the name Libertarian rather than simply a re-wording of good old American pragmatism, courtesy of John Dewey.

Lance addressed this issue more eloquently than I could have.

Many women are thin. Have you ever walked through Les Limoges in Paris? Those chicks tend to be pretty thin.

I confess that I spent a mere few days in Paris more than a decade ago. The highlights of my brief tour were the Arc de Triomphe, Les Invalides (I just had to see the Emperor’s tomb), the Louvre, Montmarte, Notre Dame, and, terribly embarrassingly, Euro Disney. I didn’t really get a chance to explore de toute beauté fleurs de France. Honestly, though, I’m much more attracted to the women of the global south (Africa, South Asia, and South America) than the heroin chic thin women of North America and Europe. The fuller, more feminine, Rubenesque female figure has always held more of an allure for me. As a rule, this look is much more appreciated by Middle Easterners, Africans, Indians, and South Americans than by the global North.

There isn’t any pressure on women to look a certain way, women have more agency than that. I would know. I am a young student in the city and just about mired up to my waist in this media eddy pool. I see it everyday. I don’t care about it much, other than being annoyed at it’s ugliness.

Then I certainly admire your character and compiment you on your confidence and positive self-image. I suspect, however, that most young women (and some older women, as well) do not have the level of maturity and confidence that you do. These are the ones so easily manipulated by the lies fed to them about certain “looks” by the media. I am entirely out of the realm of statistical evidence at this point, but I would suspect that if offered the opportunity to look like Julia Roberts or Angelina Jolie, most American (and possibly British and European women, as well) would jump at the opportunity. While their actual looks and figures may not be ideal (I find both to be unattractive, and I don’t just mean their builds), the way that they are portrayed by the media leads far too many women to believe that they do represent an ideal.

As I stated earlier though, it’s self-hatred that’s being peddled, little else. If you can, upon reading this, pronounce that you are happy with your body and personality, then you are truly a non-conformist and a shit-disturber. And that’s all I could hope to be.

Lol! Jolly good. I have the fortune of having been an athlete in my teen years. Since then, I’ve become an academic. While not incompatible on some theoretical level, in practical terms “athletic academic” is an oxymoron. Oh, except for the jogging nuts in the business college, but we of the humanities don’t associate with riff-raff like that.

As a perfect example of the great divide between the “athletic” and the “academic”, Terry Pratchett’s depiction of the faculty of Unseen University is about the most damnably accurate description of a liberal arts faculty as I’ve ever seen. Fat, bearded professors in funny clothes struggling to determine their actual purpose and duties at the university during the process of consuming seven course meals while generally mucking up the entire educational system and causing great irritation to the students and administrative staff.

I think you’ll find that we have contemplated a great deal, and that our individual decisions to hold the individual as paramount in a system of government derives from a commitment to freedom and nothing else.

I’ll quibble.

I view things like implants as a moral matter of individual rights, but free markets also have collective value. Free markets have won out, and proven superior to collectivist methods. The Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2, the Cold War and other examples come to mind (even the Mexican-American War). While this in theory is a secondary consideration, if in reality the Nazis or the Soviets prevailed, free markets would have become a quaint theory.

Americans tend to embrace pragmatic ideas: the bottom line, victory, success. Our success allows the Canadians to persue silly ideas, safe in the knowledge that Americans will provide military protection (and develope new medical techniques, etc.), while the Canadians look down upon the small minded provential Americans.

You seem to be entirely unconnected from reality and yet under the impression that you have a uniquely firm grasp upon it.

Such a skill is useful in debates; not so much for convincing others, but for continuing the debate no matter how much your ideas are shot down.

Years ago I argued with my mother-in-law about the ban on implants. For her, jury decisions in tort cases proved the point; all the science went out the window. For that matter, I suspect an FDA ban alone would prove the point for her. And the fact that implants were primarly intended to increase sex appeal by “unnatural means” were a major factor in her bias against implants.

Feeling and fact are the same, Michael.

No, there really aren’t, Coelacanth. In fact, it simply does not make sense to say so. A fact is a fact, independent of any feeling about it. Water is wet no matter whether I touch it, look at it, hear it, smell it, taste it, or actively ignore it all together. The Sun is hot; 2+2=4; the Moon orbits the Earth; dinosaurs lived millions of years ago; the Nazi’s lost WWII; the Twin Towers came down on 9-11; socialism is anathema to freedom and liberty. These are all facts, not feelings.

And if you are accusing me of ignorance, I will be the first to agree. The more you know, the more you realize you do not, will not and cannot know. Re: The Good Brahman by Voltaire

Actually, that sentiment is properly accredited to Socrates (via Plato), and frankly you seemed to have missed the point of Voltaire’s story (it isn’t really human to forsake knowledge for happiness), but whatever.

I admit my summation was despicably brief, however, if you can understand Providence, you can understand the permutations it has gone through in the hands of Nietzsche, Nazi ideology and Ayn Rand. You will find it.

You don’t seem to understand Providence, which is an external source of power and will. Nietzsche and Rand explicitly and emphatically reject any notion of external sources of power, and indeed flip that notion on its head.

Speaking of Ayn Rand, I heard a quote of hers, being “Contradictions do not exist. Check your bases, and you will find that one of them is wrong”, and I paraphrase. I agreed with this at first. It seemed logical enough. But after a while and some serious thought, it became clear to me that this is one of the most widely held falsehoods in the modern world.

That’s because you presuppose the ability of contradictory premises to exist. Just because you can think of it, doesn’t make it so. Humans do not create reality, we can only comprehend it. When we comprehend it honestly, we comprehend truth. Unfortunately, the Truth is often ugly and unsatisfying so we create fictions to mollify ourselves. Those fictions do not substitute for reality anymore than an actor can substitute for the real figure he portrays.

I admit I poorly phrased my above statement. I should have said ‘The fact that US health care is privatized…’ instead of ‘the privatization of…’. Please forgive a grammatical blunder.

Fair enough.

I am very familiar with the health care system in America. The care itself is far superior to anything I have available to me. I booked an appointment with a specialist in September for their first available time slot – in March. However, a friend of the family had been in and out of hospital struggling with Hodgkin’s disease for over 40 years. Never paid a dime. For this right I gladly pay taxes. Leaving millions out of reach of health care is the tragedy. The US is a bad place to be poor.

There is no logical progression here, but instead a series of stated facts that do not support the conclusions. American health care is the best, but it sucks to be here if you’re poor? Why? As Don points out, poor people may not always have private insurance, but that does not mean at all that they don’t receive health care. I could go on about this at great length, but I won’t here.

Back to Ayn Rand, if you understand why her statement is folly, then you have no reason to be upset with my musings.

I’m not upset. As I first stated, I am bemused by your ramblings. You seem to be entirely unconnected from reality and yet under the impression that you have a uniquely firm grasp upon it. You suggest that you are trying to be open minded about things, and thus you are visiting us here and reading Virginia Postrel, to which I say good on’ya, mate! If you are truly interested in expanding your horizons, please continue to visit, but don’t presuppose that we are ignorant of your views or naive in some way. Each of us here at ASHC has arrived at a similar philosophical place based on our own journeys, trials and tribulations. I think you’ll find that we have contemplated a great deal, and that our individual decisions to hold the individual as paramount in a system of government derives from a commitment to freedom and nothing else.

Speaking of Ayn Rand, I heard a quote of hers, being “Contradictions do not exist. Check your bases, and you will find that one of them is wrong”, and I paraphrase. I agreed with this at first. It seemed logical enough. But after a while and some serious thought, it became clear to me that this is one of the most widely held falsehoods in the modern world.

“Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.”

So Coelacanth, how is this a falsehood?

And, assuming it is, how is it “one of the most widely held falsehoods in the modern world.” It isn’t like many read Rand.

I think that a wider falsehood is that “thou shall not kill” is one of the Ten Commandments (properly translated it is “thou shall not murder”).

Another wide falsehood is the Marxist concept of Objective Value.

There are plenty of falsehoods, but I doubt anything written Rand comes close to being “one of the most widely held falsehoods in the modern world.” The biggest “falsehood” by Rand, however, is the principle of Non-Initiation of Force, which would result in anarchy if literally applied. Since Rand wasn’t an anarchist, it is a falsehood.

I am very familiar with the health care system in America. The care itself is far superior to anything I have available to me. I booked an appointment with a specialist in September for their first available time slot – in March. However, a friend of the family had been in and out of hospital struggling with Hodgkin’s disease for over 40 years. Never paid a dime. For this right I gladly pay taxes. Leaving millions out of reach of health care is the tragedy. The US is a bad place to be poor.

Well, my dad was poor in the US and received quality healthcare.

And I had a close friend who was poor (working poor), and his newborn twins and wife received quality healthcare (the twins had significant problems at birth). My poor friend even got a bill for $100k or so which he didn’t have to pay.

I want to someone to show me the people in the US who don’t receive medical care. I don’t care about the theoretical possibility, I want to hear the reality.

Quotes:

It was not until 1994 that the first definitive studies to examine the relationship between silicone implants and autoimmune disease appeared.

(Note that they were banned in ’92–prior to any real studies.)

In view of these findings, it must be asked how silicone breast implants were found wanting and how their main manufacturer was reduced to bankruptcy? The answer lies in the medicolegal settlements and judgments made against the company in the United States ( Box 3). The United States legal processes in the breast implant trials exemplified a growing divergence between science and the law, and the use and abuse of expert witnesses in an adversarial legal system. 20 In just four years, the litigation bar in the United States demolished the largest manufacturer of medical silicone products.

And if you are accusing me of ignorance, I will be the first to agree. The more you know, the more you realize you do not, will not and cannot know. Re: The Good Brahman by Voltaire

I admit my summation was despicably brief, however, if you can understand Providence, you can understand the permutations it has gone through in the hands of Nietzsche, Nazi ideology and Ayn Rand. You will find it.

Speaking of Ayn Rand, I heard a quote of hers, being “Contradictions do not exist. Check your bases, and you will find that one of them is wrong”, and I paraphrase. I agreed with this at first. It seemed logical enough. But after a while and some serious thought, it became clear to me that this is one of the most widely held falsehoods in the modern world.

I admit I poorly phrased my above statement. I should have said ‘The fact that US health care is privatized…’ instead of ‘the privatization of…’. Please forgive a grammatical blunder. I am very familiar with the health care system in America. The care itself is far superior to anything I have available to me. I booked an appointment with a specialist in September for their first available time slot – in March. However, a friend of the family had been in and out of hospital struggling with Hodgkin’s disease for over 40 years. Never paid a dime. For this right I gladly pay taxes. Leaving millions out of reach of health care is the tragedy. The US is a bad place to be poor.

Back to Ayn Rand, if you understand why her statement is folly, then you have no reason to be upset with my musings.

Oh wait, that’s plagiarism, sorry. Anyway, I still disagree with your characterization and your evidence doesn’t address my reasons. It was a generic comment to point out that I don’t accept your characterization of the issues there while keeping to the topic at hand. However, when I do next discuss the FDA specifically I’ll use it as a source. It’ll save me a lot of work.

As for your comment on the science behind the implants, Don is right, but it goes further. The FDA wasn’t listening to itself. Every study they conducted and scientific panel they called said the implants were not guilty of the claims made against them. This isn’t a close call. Kessler gave his reasons in my quotes above. The FDA’s own work was ignored.

From Wikipedia:

The VIGOR (Vioxx GI Outcomes Research) study, which compared the efficacy and adverse effect profiles of rofecoxib and naproxen. (Bombardier et al., 2000), had indicated a significant 4-fold increased risk of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack) in rofecoxib patients when compared with naproxen patients (0.4% vs 0.1%, RR 0.25) over the 12 month span of the study. The elevated risk began during the second month on rofecoxib. There was no significant difference in the mortality from cardiovascular events between the two groups. Nor was there any significant difference in the rate of myocardial infarction between the rofecoxib and naproxen treatment groups in patients without high cardiovascular risk. The difference in overall risk was accounted for by the patients at higher risk of heart attack: those meeting the criteria for low-dose aspirin prophylaxis of secondary cardiovascular events (previous myocardial infarction, angina, cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, or coronary artery bypass). (Bombardier et al., 2000)

STRIKE ONE. (Caps only to make the count easy to find.)
…

Months after the preliminary version of VIGOR was published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the journal editors learned that certain data reported to the FDA was not included in the NEJM article
…
The editors charged that “more than four months before the article was published, at least two of its authors were aware of critical data on an array of adverse cardiovascular events that were not included in the VIGOR article.” This additional data included three additional heart attacks, and raised the relative risk of Vioxx from 4.25-fold to 5-fold. All the additional heart attacks occurred in the group at low risk of heart attack (the “aspirin not indicated” group) and the editors noted that the omission “resulted in the misleading conclusion that there was a difference in the risk of myocardial infarction between the aspirin indicated and aspirin not indicated groups.” The relative risk for myocardial infarctions among the aspirin not indicated patients increased from 2.25 to 3 (although it remained statitistically insignificant). The editors also noted a statistically significant (2-fold) increase in risk for serious thromboembolic events for this group, an outcome that Merck had not reported in the NEJM, though it had disclosed that information publicly in March 2000, eight months before publication.

STRIKE ONE + Fradulent intent.

In 2001, Merck commenced the APPROVe (Adenomatous Polyp PRevention On Vioxx) study, a three year trial with the primary aim of evaluating the efficacy of rofecoxib for the prophylaxis of colorectal polyps. Celecoxib had already been approved for this indication, and it was hoped to add this to the indications for rofecoxib as well. An additional aim of the study was to further evaluate the cardiovascular safety of rofecoxib.

In sum, the APPROVe study suggested that long-term use of rofecoxib resulted in nearly twice the risk of suffering a heart attack or stroke compared to patients receiving a placebo.

STRIKE TWO.

Pre-approval Phase III clinical trials, like the APPROVe study, showed no increased relative risk of adverse cardiovascular events for the first eighteen months of rofecoxib usage (Merck, 2004). Others have pointed out that “study 090,” a pre-approval trial, showed a 3-fold increase in cardiovascular events compared to placebo, a 7-fold increase compared to nabumetone (another [NSAID]), and an 8-fold increase in heart attacks and strokes combined compared to both control groups [9] [10]. Although this was a relatively small study and only the last result was statistically significant, critics have charged that this early finding should have prompted Merck to quickly conduct larger studies of Merck’s cardiovascular safety.

STRIKE THREE.

Is three separate clinical studies showing more than double the incidence of heart attacks in Vioxx-taking groups enough for you Lance? Because there’s a few more in the article.

My father took Vioxx. If not for the FDA, he might be dead. At best, Merck committed criminal negligence on a massive scale.

FDA analysts estimated that Vioxx caused between 88,000 and 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 percent of which were probably fatal, in the five years the drug was on the market

I’ll tell you what, Don, you’re right. I don’t know the reasons for the ban. I should say instead that I find it hard to believe that shallowness played a major role. I base that on the fact that the cosmetic surgery industry in the US is in the middle of explosive growth. If the FDA was really making decisions based on feminist complaints of shallowness, I would expect a more consistent implementation of that.

It seems more likely that perceptions of the strength of the medical case differ.

glasnost,

Instead of using feelings, try finding facts. I followed the breast implant thing all along, and from the beginning there was never any solid science presented to support a ban.

Consider this 1995 Reason article.

And this 1996 one by Virginia Postrel.

Here is a quote from the ’96 one:

There never was any credible evidence linking implants to major diseases. Yet juries made multimillion-dollar awards to women claiming they’d gotten sick from their implants, and the FDA imposed a moratorium on most sales. (Post hoc ergo propter hoc is the first fallacy they teach in logic, but just try getting on a jury if you’ve ever studied logic.) Now we have good evidence that implants don’t cause the maladies for which they’ve been blamed. And the exculpatory studies keep coming; two new ones were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

On October 22, that group issued an official statement declaring that “studies provide compelling evidence that silicone implants expose patients to no demonstrable additional risk for connective tissue or rheumatic disease. Anecdotal evidence should no longer be used to support this relationship in the courts or by the FDA.” But neither juries nor the FDA are listening to the experts.

I’m complicated.

I’ve been following your comments here with some bemusement, and I’ve reached the conclusion that while you are an elegant writer you haven’t the foggiest idea what you’re on about. Judging from what you’ve written above, you seem to have simply adopted an ideology that affords you the luxury of feeling no guilt without ever examining the facts on the ground. To wit:

I rarely address single issues, simply because I don’t have the background information.

If you don’t have the information (which is confirmed by some of your ramblings — Nietzsche and Rand promoting the idea of “Providence”?), how can you possibly form a coherent ideology. What sort of approach to world is based upon little or no knowledge of what’s actually in the world? If you’ve already assumed what is there based on what your uninformed ideology tells you, you aren’t on a journey of discovery but one of confirmation.

Just to tackle one issue, the dichotomy you’ve raised between individuals and community (in the context of whom should be in charge) is certainly a long standing one, for which there is much historical development and empirical analysis. I suggest that check into some of it instead of assuming you know what’s there. Just for example, you seem to claim that “Protestantism” has created the following view:

We feel on this continent that we are individuals who have the ability to become wealthy/successful through cunning and hard work only because our freedom to do so is not infringed by the government, by religious institutions, or by other competing individuals with differing values. True?

We “feel”? [Plus, I thought you weren't American, nor on this Continent] This is not some vicissitude based on a religious belief or some cultist indoctrination. It is a matter of fact proven by history. That you contemplate such from a stance of “feeling” instead of fact says much about your ideology.

As another example, you say:

American ideology inherently believes in it’s own universality. That’s the nature of the Protestant influence. That’s all. It isn’t ACTUALLY a universal policy. You believe that you are an individual who can and should be allowed to make your own decisions about your welfare and because of what I’ve explained, you think everyone else aught to be as well. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are people who don’t believe in an “individual’s” ability to decide for themselves, and the individuals admit that they don’t want that responsibility. It’s simply another ideology.

You don’t explain what “American ideology” is, nor how a hodge-podge nation with so many competing ideas (such your own, and ours here at ASHC) can possible have a singly “ideology” much less one that is “universal,” but more importantly, you seem to suggest that if the world is essentially made of those who want individual autonomy and those who don’t, the collectivists must be in charge. Why on Earth should this be so? You don’t say.

In this ideology, the government must protect individuals from potentially harmful products and services. Ideally, and this may not always be the case, the government is without bias toward the product and/or service because they don’t benefit monetarily from the sale.

The government is without bias? Are you serious? You really believe that government officials have no bias towards any products, sales, companies, etc.? I hope you stick around for awhile and learn why this is a terribly naive view (you can start here and here, but we do myriad posts on this subject at ASHC). Suffice it to say that power creates much more bias than money.

BTW: This is just sadly misinformed —

That’s why the privatization of public services, the FDA being one, is a mockery of unbiased opinion. I have the firm belief that the privatization of health care in the United States is one of the more depressing tragedies of the twentieth century, which is already a shameful disgrace of a century.

Health care was not “privatized” in the U.S. It was always private until the government started meddling with it, making it much more inefficient and cumbersome today, than it once was. In fact, it is the socialization of American health care that makes it so bad (although in terms of actual care, it is still the best in world).

Finally, it appears that you have resigned yourself to living in a world where the government is inextricably linked to the individual’s life. That’s all fine and well if you have no personal desires or aspirations that conflict with the will of the government, but what happens when you do? How about when ALL of your hopes and aspirations conflict, despite the fact your accomplishment of those aspirations would harm no one, and indeed only help others? Moreover, you don’t identify any means of distinguishing “good” government from “bad” government, nor who gets to make that decision. As I said before, I hope you stick around awhile. Perhaps you will find answers to some of these questions.

There is a lot of history and theory to explore, but in sum, the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Weber) are inalienable to each other.

This is false.

Historically, most socities have been warrior/agrarian. Societies that have had a chance to develop as merchant socities developed free markets and limited governments. The modern merchant socities have been Protestant (the US, England, Netherlands), but that was not true of the Italian city states that followed this pattern, or earlier merchant socities.

The US, and some other affiliated countries, are living in a type of ideological bubble that has existed since 1945.

The US has been living under this “bubble” since it was an English colony.

Incidently, the outcome of the Napoleonic Wars was a result of the superiortiy of English “shopkeeps” and limited government over strong central government. WW1, WW2, and the Cold War all favored the superior side: the side with free markets and limited government.

In this ideology, the government must protect individuals from potentially harmful products and services.

There are typically unintended consequences to such protection, often resulting in worse results. It is better to leave the decision in the hands of individuals, for the same reason that markets make better decisions than central governments (consider the economic calculation problem and the fall of the USSR as an example of a result of that problem).

Ideally, and this may not always be the case, the government is without bias toward the product and/or service because they don’t benefit monetarily from the sale.

Historically, they have shown bias even absent “benefit”. And politcians have often obtained benefit from various dubious crusades. Implants are a case in point.

I have the firm belief that the privatization of health care in the United States is one of the more depressing tragedies of the twentieth century, which is already a shameful disgrace of a century.

US healthcare was private to begin with, it wasn’t privitized. It has become increasingly socialized and regulated, and that is a tradedy.

US healthcare provides superior outcomes compared to Canada’s and England’s socilized systems.

If you think US healthcare is one of “the more depressing tragedies of the twentieth century”, you are ignorant of the twentieth century.

You admit you don’t know the science surrounding this issue; how can you claim to know the reasons for the ban?

I’ll tell you what, Don, you’re right. I don’t know the reasons for the ban. I should say instead that I find it hard to believe that shallowness played a major role. I base that on the fact that the cosmetic surgery industry in the US is in the middle of explosive growth. If the FDA was really making decisions based on feminist complaints of shallowness, I would expect a more consistent implementation of that.

It seems more likely that perceptions of the strength of the medical case differ.

Don, you are another who aught to look to Confucius.

I’d rather study success.

My overall intention, Lance, is to try to point out how much the opinions held by people who post on this blog are massively influenced by their times. The US, and some other affiliated countries, are living in a type of ideological bubble that has existed since 1945. I use the metaphor of a bubble to emphasize that the vast majority of the human population of the planet Earth are not involved in this ideology.

There is a lot of history and theory to explore, but in sum, the Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism (Weber) are inalienable to each other. We feel on this continent that we are individuals who have the ability to become wealthy/successful through cunning and hard work only because our freedom to do so is not infringed by the government, by religious institutions, or by other competing individuals with differing values. True?

Now, the nature of Protestantism has created this view. Without it, there would be no capitalism as we know it. Other aspects of Christian doctrine influence the American ideology as well: Providence (God’s favor) which has been secularized by such thinkers as Nietzsche and popularized by the writer Ayn Rand, linear historical development (events occur once, for a reason, and are not an example of a cyclical nature of the universe) which has been a reason why people have developed an ardent fear death, and the last, Monotheism – the is only one true reality and that reality is interpreted through doctrine, i.e. the beliefs and values of the society as a whole, in which individuality is one. Everyone who disagrees is wrong because there is only one God. Period.

Now, I have summed up in a crude and brief manner the major points that influence our way of thinking in these modern times. My point, as labored as it is, is that there is no reason to debate the role of government in a person’s life because it’s already been said (look up: J.S. Mill, Laissez-Faire policy, Benjamin Disraeli, Jeremy Bentham, John Dewey, Jonas Salk and you’ll get an interesting picture of our modern governmental policies).

American ideology inherently believes in it’s own universality. That’s the nature of the Protestant influence. That’s all. It isn’t ACTUALLY a universal policy. You believe that you are an individual who can and should be allowed to make your own decisions about your welfare and because of what I’ve explained, you think everyone else aught to be as well. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are people who don’t believe in an “individual’s” ability to decide for themselves, and the individuals admit that they don’t want that responsibility. It’s simply another ideology. In this ideology, the government must protect individuals from potentially harmful products and services. Ideally, and this may not always be the case, the government is without bias toward the product and/or service because they don’t benefit monetarily from the sale. That’s why the privatization of public services, the FDA being one, is a mockery of unbiased opinion. I have the firm belief that the privatization of health care in the United States is one of the more depressing tragedies of the twentieth century, which is already a shameful disgrace of a century.

Yes, i do represent an ideology that is very much at odds with your own. But i don’t believe that there can be no reconciliation. It seems that almost everything you love about the modern era, I despise. Yet there is hope. We are essentially the same people, we have the same history and face the same challenges. And before there can be any real betterment of society, this reconciliation needs to take place. I’m trying to do my part, by reading this blog, and that of Virginia Postrel (who I have to admit comes to the conclusion that is the diametric opposite of my own even from the same situations). I’m trying to understand. If you would like to have a similar experience, pick up a copy of the New Internationalist magazine. That’ll be a kick in the ass. I don’t necessarily agree with everything they say, but it’s closer to my camp.

Good to talk.

I don’t have the knowledge to know, and this post does not provide it.

True, but the links do. You are wrong about Vioxx by the way, but I’ll debate the FDA later. I will say that erring on the side of safety still means we should err on the side of safety, not on the side of whatever people decide to demonize for “shallow” reasons. It also does not answer the question of how to define safe or compared to what and the benefits foregone. It also doesn’t answer the question of who should get to decide that.