Just when I'm thinking the extreme bounds of idiocy have finally been reached, some global-warmist comes along and pushes them out farther:


Hat tip to Climate Skeptic, who does a fine job of debunking the silliness. Me, I'd prefer to make fun of it, by suggesting the warmists use smaller fonts for their email, or dark blue text on a black background, or eliminate vowels to abbreviate words. And don't forget to use 100% recycled electrons!

Thanks to a commenter at Watts Up With That, I also have a link to the relevant Dilbert cartoon.

Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals: how drug companies are bankrolling the next big condition for women. by Ray Moynihan and Barbara Mintzes. Allen & Unwin, 2010.

Reviewed by Wendy McElroy
(A version of this review appears in the current Literary Review of Canada)
Please do not reprint without permission

Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals is proof that investigative journalism still exists.

In recent decades, the medical establishment has dramatically expanded the definition of disease and dysfunction to include everything from sexual disinterest to obesity, from shyness to 'hyper-activity' in children, with laziness now being discussed as "a neuro-developmental dysfunction." Studies of new medical dysfunctions are repeated rather than reported upon by a mainstream media who does not seem to read beyond press releases in order to announce sensational findings.

Enter Ray Moynihan, a health journalist for the New England Journal of Medicine and the Lancet. In "Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals," he and co-author Barbara Mintzes -- an assistant professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics at the University of B.C. in Vancouver -- scan a medical landscape in which "[o]ne in eight of us supposedly has [i]social anxiety disorder[i], one in five is said to have [i]irritable bowel syndrome[i], and in any given year we're told a third of us have a mental illness." (p.63) Such statistics create an urge to wander with a lamp in daylight, like Diogenes, looking for a normal, healthy human being.

Moynihan's response: a book that declares itself to be "an expose of how medical science is imperceptibly merging with pharmaceutical marketing" in order to create diseases or dysfunctions that have been traditionally viewed as bad habits, lifestyle choices or run-of-the-mill problems that everyone encounters from time to time. Moynihan and Mintzes ask a question that never grows old; "cui bono" -- who benefits? The answer may seem obvious. In tandem with new diseases and dysfunctions, a 500-billion-plus dollar pharmaceutical industry has arisen and profited richly from 'cures' like Viagra and Ritalin. The means by which Moynihan arrives at an obvious answer, however, are both subtle and meticulous.

"Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" is a rarity -- a book that lives up to its own hype; it is a thorough and meticulous "expose." Certainly, the book has flaws -- three of which are particularly notable -- but it does a remarkably good job of bringing skepticism without cynicism, information without sensationalism to an issue that is being confronted by an increasing number of average people. Do I take drugs to handle what might otherwise be considered an environmental or lifestyle problem, like packing on the pounds after menopause? Should I give drugs to my children so that they are not unruly in class? Is it fair to demand my husband swallow pills to enhance our sex life?

The questions become more pressing as the recall of drugs and the lawsuits over serious side-effects become more common. For example, the popular diet drug Meridia was recently discontinued in Europe and may soon face the same fate in North America due to the newly reported risk of heart attack and stroke in people with existing heart problems. Against this backdrop, Moynihan and Mintzes offer a much-needed voice of caution.

THE FOCUS OF "SEX LIES AND PHARMACEUTICALS

The book's main title requires explanation.

First, the word "Sex." There is nothing salacious or graphically sexual about the book.

Arguably, the book is best viewed as a follow-up to Moynihan's earlier co-authored work entitled "Selling Sickness: How the world's biggest pharmaceutical companies are turning us all into patients" (2005). "Selling Sickness" is divided into 10 chapters, each of which presents a relatively new medical "condition." Examples are social anxiety disorder (shyness) and menopause. Then, chapter-by-chapter, the book explores the process through which pharmaceutical 'cures' are marketed for a huge profit to people, many of whom would have been considered healthy a few decades ago.

"Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" uses much the same approach but the book narrows its focus to the manufacture of a single modern medical dysfunction, a 'disease' that is currently being defined and prepared for marketing: Female Sexual Dysfunction or FSD. Moynihan describes the diagnostic specific for FSD: "During the last year of so, has there been a period of several months or more when you lacked interest in having sex? When you felt anxious about your sexual performance or were unable to achieve an orgasm?...If you answered 'yes' to just one of these survey questions, and you're a woman, you could easily be classified as suffering from a brand new medical condition called 'female sexual dysfunction', or FSD. First described in the textbooks only a few decades back, FSD is set to become the next blockbuster medical condition, coming soon to a doctor's surgery near you."(p.1)

From the initial stage of definition by medical experts through to the celebrity endorsements seen on TV, Moynihan carefully examines the tiered process through which a dysfunction is created and marketed. Because FSD is so closely resembles its male counterpart Erectile Dysfunction, ED is used to draw parallels. Moynihan writes, "If you want to peer into the future of how the condition called female sexual dysfunction might play out, it will help to take a look at what's happened with erectile dysfunction and the new sex drugs for men." In 1992, the new medical term 'erectile dysfunction' came into sudden prominence. "Unlike the ugly word 'impotence' that it replaced, erectile dysfunction was more clinical, more physical, making no judgment about the man's potency. But it also implied the problem was that a man's penis wasn't functioning properly." (p.123) On the basis of studies Moynihan considers misleading or misinterpreted, large numbers of men were found to suffer from ED and to require medication like Viagra. Thus, the word "sex" refers to the creation of sexual problems as medical dysfunctions.

Second, the word "Lies."

The book does not accuse anyone or any faction of lying. At times, the events and actions presented lead almost inevitably to that conclusion but Moynihan and Mintzes are carefully generous. For one thing, they clearly state their belief that many of the dysfunctions require or, at least, could benefit from medical treatment, including drugs. For another, regarding the development of FSD, Moynihan writes, "For many researchers, all this activity was bringing what they regarded as long-overdue recognition to women's sexual suffering, and legitimacy to its study."

The book presents a far more subtle point than lying for profit. Moynihan explores the extremely close, complex relationship between medical experts and the pharmaceutical companies, such as Pfizer and Proctor & Gamble, who wine and dine the experts, offer grants, provide lucrative speaking engagements, etc. For example, he explores the makeup of the experts on committees that define dysfunctions and disorders for the extremely influential "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)." The term "social anxiety disorder" comes from the DSM which, interestingly, only delisted homosexuality as a disorder in 1970. Moynihan observes, "The DSM has been criticised for the closeness between the expert committees who write the definition of diseases and the pharmaceutical companies that sell the drugs prescribed to treat them. One study that looked closely at the affiliations of the men and women on those committees found that more than half of them had ties to drug companies. On the committees revising mood disorders, including depression, the figure was closer to 100 per cent." (p.19)

It is human nature to be open and positive toward ideas or projects that are to your benefit. This is especially true when the vast majority of information you receive comes from one source -- in this case, the pharmaceutical industry or its affiliates -- with critical voices being absent or under-represented. Thus, "Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" constructs a solid case for bias within the medical establishment but distinguishes it from lying.

Moynihan's nearest approach to the accusation of 'lying' is addressed to pharmaceutical companies and to "the fictions that flow from pharmaceutical marketing--like the claim that "one in ten women suffers from a [medical] disorder of low desire."(x) Thus, the word "lies" refers to what Moynihan considers to be medical disinformation.

Third, "Pharmaceuticals."

Since it comes directly after the word "Lie," it is important to re-state that Moynihan does not take an anti-drug stand in the manner of psychiatrist Thomas Szasz who, in a series of books like The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness (1970), disputes the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry itself and presents modern medicine as a form of social control. Rather, the book argues that dysfunctions have been massively over-diagnosed and drugs have been over-prescribed -- a situation that, in and of itself, is a danger to public health.

THE PROCESS OF CREATING A DISEASE

A fascinating aspect of "Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" is the clarity with which it presents the creation of a disease. First, a phenomenon is noted; in this case, it is the difficulty that some women --especially post-menopausal ones -- experience in feeling sexual excitement.

Then a medical definition is formulated by researchers and other experts who gather at conferences that are often funded by pharmaceutical companies. Moynihan writes, "When one distinguished group of researchers sat down to refine the definitions of FSD, 95 per cent of them had financial relationships with the drug companies hoping to develop drugs for the very same condition."(p.7)

After formulating a definition, studies and surveys are conducted to establish the prevalence and other particulars of the new dysfunction. Moynihan examines in some detail a landmark survey on FSD, again funded by a pharmaceutical company, which was reported in a 1999 article in "one of the world's leading medical journals...the "Journal of the American Medical Association." He refers to the article's major finding as "one of the most misleading medical myths of our time....The evidence assembled in the article never supported such an assertion, as even its lead author eventually attested." (p.44) The myth: "43 per cent of women suffered from some form of sexual dysfunction." Moynihan explains that 43 per cent figure is based an hour-and-a-half-long interview of individuals, which was designed to study HIV/AIDS. Within the interview, however, there were a few questions addressed to women about whether they had experienced any of seven common sexual *difficulties* during the past year such as performance anxiety or a failure to orgasm. 43 per cent of women gave a "yes" answer to at least one the seven questions and, so, 43 per cent were deemed to have FSD. Notably, none of the women were asked whether they viewed the difficulty as a problem or what they thought the cause might be. For example, a woman might be suffering from an illness, have chronic back pain or be in a bad relationship. Nevertheless, the 43 per cent figure has been cited in scientific papers more than 1000 times and has filtered down to the pulp magazines sold in supermarkets.

In 2007. a British study that was not funded by the pharmaceutical industry had doctors ask similar questions of female patients. It found 38 per cent of the responding women potentially qualifying for the dysfunction. The figure fell to 18 per cent when the women were asked if they viewed the difficulties as problems; it fell to 6 percent when asked if the difficulties bothered them.

After the definition and studies that establish "unmet needs", there is the "development of toolkits" with which researchers and doctors can measure the effectiveness of various treatments. Moynihan sketches the various tools being implemented, including "vaginal pulse amplitude" or VPA that measures blood flow to the vagina of women who are watching erotica. Here, as with the question of "lying", One more, Moynihan is careful. While pointing out the severe deficiencies of current tools, he also states, "There's no implication here that research into the physical side of sexuality is unnecessary, or that shining a light on the walls of a woman's vagina is a joke."(73)

The final stage of disease creation is to educate the public through a PR campaign.

SOME FLAWS

"Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" presents the medical theories, studies and other arguably dry material it critiques in an accessible and generally engaging manner. For those who wish to verify points or to pursue them further, it also provides some 20 pages of notes and citations. Unfortunately, it is much better at expose than it is at grounding its own position. For example, as a foil to findings he is criticising, Moynihan repeatedly cites the work of sex research Alfred Kinsey whose research has been called into such question that his name weakens Moynihan's position.

In presenting what is clearly his own perspective, Moynihan uses the voice of Dr. Lenore Tiefer, a psychologist at the New York University School of Medicine, who has created the New View Campaign in active opposition to the medicalization of women's sexuality. Instead, Tiefer believes sexual difficulties are best 'cured' through addressing all their causes: negative social conditions; a mismatch or absence of partners; psychological states like depression; and, medical problems. Tiefer's views on FSD are provocative and well-argued but, at times, "Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" almost seems like a platform built for Tiefer whose New View Campaign also advocates a wide range of international sexual rights, such as "the right" to medical care for sexual problems. Notably, the first street protest held by the Campaign was "to protest the growth of female genital cosmetic surgery." Moynihan would have been wise to include a broader range of voices against FSD.

Finally, the book falls into the trap of overwhelming the reader with details of conferences and studies, it repeats the same points so often that some chapters become tedious. It is an understandable flaw. Moynihan and Mintzes have done an admirably thorough job of research and I can almost hear them protesting "but we had to cut out so much!" They should have cut out more.

Overall, "Sex Lies and Pharmaceuticals" is an eye-opening, carefully written and fair book that directly confronts what many consider to be an exploding problem: the medicalization of everyday life.

Blog reader PR responds to an article by Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives as well as to Wall Street Journal article by Peggy Noonan in which she sings the praises of the Tea Party movement. In the article, Noonan states,



PR responds with a cynicism I admire but do not thoroughly share....

I resent the conservatives trying to claim the Tea party as their own, since how many conservatives agree with the libertarian positions of ending the drug war, on-demand abortion, and completely open borders? None, that's how many. But the conservatives have done their work so they have veered the Tea Party movement into a conservative one, which is why I don't go to Tea Party rallies.

I have a friend who was expelled for smoking dope at the formerly libertarian Hillsdale College. She said they had "gone conservative" and, in a most telling observation: "I don't really blame the administration for courting conservatives, That's where the money is." I think the same can be said for the entire country, especially as we age. Conservatives represent money in our pockets whereas liberals represent equal rights for strangers, even ones that don't speak Amerikan and are, gasp, brown.

Indeed as I get older I see a simple truth. The baseball jock bullies that ran the high school grew up and now run the country. There are two primary modalities. Liberal-Democrat-communist and conservative-Republican-fascist. All of us thinking types are simply the useful idiots that did the homework for the bullies in high school.

One one hand you have communism. In this system the baseball jocks go into government and use power to run businesses. They make sure their cronies get lots of jobs in various sinecures. See Tony Hayward, that clown from BP. The truly laughable conceit of Marxism is that all the college professors that championed it thought they would be in charge after the revolution. Too bad the Pol Pot, the Cambodian equivalent of the baseball jock, decided to murder everyone who wore eyeglasses, since they were obviously intellectuals. College professors were killed first.

Then we have fascism. This is a system where the baseball jocks go into business and use money to run the government. They make sure their cronies get lots of jobs in various sinecures. See Obama/Bush. Jocks in business are why the trains run on time in fascist societies. Also why they have death camps. Pray you are not the selected out-group, Jew in the old days, homo or atheist today. The laughable conceit is that all the little people and radio personalities think they will not get oppressed in the fascist state.

Libertarianism is like an element with an atomic weight of 200. It might be conceivable but is so unstable it would last less than a half a microsecond. To promise fiscal conservatism and social liberalism is a con too far. See, the conservative con is that all us peons will have more money in our pockets and we will all go to the same church. Then the rulers take all the money and power and hand out jobs to their deadbeat relatives. The liberal con is that we peons will have civil rights and can hang around coffee shops talking art history. Then the rulers take all the money and power and hand out jobs to their deadbeat relatives.

The liberal promise is that no one will have to work.
The "rich" will be made to pay for everything.

The conservative promise is that no one will have to think.
The priests will do all the thinking and we only need to obey.

This guy [Jonathan Haidt] has some truly fascinating theories, but he combines economics, the dismal science, with psychology, the phony science. I wish him luck. I see humanity as a big stupid mostly mindless computer run using DNA instead of a program. All this morality bullshit is just that, a big load of crap to convince us it is OK to kill and steal from others since that has such a high payoff compared to working for a living. I really enjoy living in "MY" house paying a mortgage to the financial scum of the earth. Oh and I am all for peace and justice. Its like the people who love burgers but would never kill and slaughter a cow. The dirty work has to be done by others. So I can act all moral and superior, when the best thing that ever happened is that the baseball jock bully scum killed and stole my land from the Mexicans, who killed and stole it from the Spanish, who killed and stole it from the Portuguese, who killed and stole it from the Indians, who killed stole it from each other for 50,000 years. Its a pretty good trick, convincing people it is bad to steal from each other, but great for their society to do it from other groups.

And yeah, I am so convinced of my society's moral purity, I really truly think I not only deserve this land, but that actually own it. No wonder both the fascists and communists think they own me, it is probably true, at the core of things.

Headline in "Teacher banned due to incompetence." The article opens,



Watch for upcoming headlines: "Pigs Fly," "Diogenes Finds Honest Man In Washington," "Blizzard in Hell" etc.

I am delighted to point you toward an article that outlines a highly recommended course. Kinsella is about as good as it gets on intellectual property. I say this despite the fact that he and I have some fundamental differences in how we reach the same conclusion.

Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics via Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom by Stephan Kinsella. The article details the content and purpose of my upcoming Mises Academy course, “Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics,” Mises Academy (Nov.-Dec. 2011) (discussed on the Mises Blog in Study with Kinsella Online). Sign up!

Thanks to CB750 on the forum, here is yet another example of the media acting as stenographers instead of helping their audience to understand what's going on.


Remember, to these guys inflation is a price phenomenon, measured by the cost-of-living index, not a monetary phenomenon measured by M3 or M2 or M-Prime or whatever. So when they say "inflation is too low," what they exactly and literally mean is "the cost of living isn't rising fast enough."

One wonders how Bernanke's statement would have been received, if Bloomberg had bothered to report it accordingly:

Yesterday I reprinted the strategic blueprint for freedom offered by Jack Pugsley in his Open Letter to Harry Browne, written in 1994 in response to Browne's decision to run for President. Today, I reprint Jack's arguments against electoral politics. Note: Jack was a close friend and associate of Browne's for many years.

An Open Letter to Harry Browne From John Pugsley
Harry, Please, Don't Run for President: An Argument In Defense of the Invisible Hand

Dear Harry:

Your decision to seek the Libertarian Party's nomination for president in the next election has electrified libertarians. It is, without doubt, the most exciting news that has hit the Party since its formation in 1971.

Many of us were stunned. Your writings over 30 years have consistently argued the futility of political action and maintained that people waste their freedom working to affect the government. However, on reviewing your writings along with your explanation for the change, I'm satisfied that you haven't reversed course. You just believe that the public's perception of government has changed. Today, tens of millions of Americans—perhaps the majority—can see for themselves that government doesn't work. Where in the past you felt political action was futile, you now are convinced that the time is here to wage the battle for individual liberty through the ballot-box. With heightened public recognition that government is the problem, you sense that the right candidate could be a lightning rod, collecting the disparate energies of a disenchanted populace and focusing them on disbanding the state....

[T]his is emotionally compelling. However, I ask you and all of our libertarian friends to re-examine the premises on which political action is founded before succumbing to its visceral appeal....The goal of all individuals of good will today and for most of history is and has been freedom. The brightest minds of every generation in recorded history have searched for the path to that goal. The discovery of how to achieve freedom has been and is mankind's most important quest. You and I are painfully aware of how completely mankind has failed. Nowhere on earth does man live in freedom.

Why has our species failed to achieve this, its most important goal?

[ Read the rest ... ]

In going through a file cabinet, I recently found a copy of John A. Pugsley's Open Letter to Harry Browne, which was written in 1994 in response to Browne's decision to run for President on the Libertarian Party ticket. I was floored anew at the eloquence of Jack's arguments against electoral politics. The letter breaks neatly into two sections: an argument based on theory; and, a blueprint of alternate strategies for achieving freedom. Today I present the blueprint; tomorrow, the theory. My hat is off to you, Jack.

Harry, Please, Don't Run for President
by John A. Pugsley
Excerpt: page 8-9

What positive steps can we take? The energy that is now expended by well intentioned, freedom-seeking individuals on the destructive course of politics can be turned into powerful steps that will have a positive effect on the future. All are moral, right and just. None require aggressing
Consider the following.

1. Improve yourself. Perhaps the single most important thing a person can do (before he sets out to improve others) is to improve himself. Become a model citizen. Don't use government to attack your neighbor, even if you don't like his dog or the color of his house or the color of his skin. If you want to stop others from aggressing through the political process, start by excising from your own life all vestiges of comfort and support for political aggression.

2. Stop subsidizing your enemy. Stop loaning the government money. Stop thinking you're profiting by getting a safer return. You wouldn't loan money to your local car thief to see him through a dry spell. Why would you loan it to the thugs in Washington or Sacramento? Moreover, point out to others that buying T-bills is supporting the muggers and mass murderers in Washington. Pull the drapes back and expose these criminals to the light of day.

3. Stop doing business with your enemy. Don't provide products to the government. Don't accept government contracts. Don't do business with government employees. Don't cash government checks—with the possible exception of tax refunds. If you're in business, don't cash them for your customers. Don't take government money. Don't take government subsidies. Don't
be a willing, eager beneficiary of political theft.

4. Stop doing business with people who support your enemy. Boycott businesses that live on government contracts. Boycott those who lobby for protective legislation. Tell them you don't approve of them stealing from you through the state.

5. Support private alternatives to government services. Wherever you can use a private service instead of a government service, use it. Use faxes instead of the Post Office. Use private libraries instead of public ones. Use private schools instead of public schools.

6. Create parallel mechanisms to replace government functions. A positive step for society is to show that private enterprise is the correct alternative to government monopolies. By creating Federal Express, Fred Smith did more to reveal the insanity of a government mail monopoly than all of the free market politicians who have ever argued for private mail service on the floors of congress. Most individuals will never understand that all services are best provided by the free market. They do not need to understand the philosophical or intellectual basis for this truth. All they need to do is be given the opportunity to use one or the other. Most of the people who use Federal Express don't understand that it is superior to the government service because it is operated for a profit and not by coercion. They just know it works. Spend your creative energies developing products that compete with government. Put it out of business by offering consumers a better product. Think of all of the things we are told government must do. Develop better home, neighborhood and personal defense services, better consumer protection ideas, safer money, more secure retirement plans, better educational opportunities. With the government absorbing more and more of the private sector, the opportunities for successful private competition are exploding.

7. Expose the enemy among us. Instead of talking your neighbors into voting, spend your energy explaining why the political process is their enemy. Talk to centers of influence. Identify the real culprit as the individual who promotes bigger government by secretly lobbying for subsidy or privilege. Expose the businessman who is lobbying for a protective tariff, the defense contractor lobbying for tax dollars, the individual seeking government handouts. Call them what they are, mooches and thieves. Embarrass them. Shame them.

8. Master the issues. Libertarians should master the issues and learn to communicate so they can explain and persuade others. You, Harry, are the acknowledged master. You have developed simplicity of example and persuasion to an art form. Teach others how to confront the irrational arguments of government advocates.

9. Have the moral courage to confront others. When somebody makes a statement like, "I'm not in favor of government medicine, but we do have to do something to help the poor," or "even if there are abuses, legalizing drugs is not a serious alternative—we have to enforce the drug laws," libertarians should never sanction such statist propaganda by silence.

10. Get involved in campaigns designed to enlighten and enrage the public. Speak out against victimless crimes. Support organizations such as The National Taxpayers' Union, Amnesty International, the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) and Families Against Mandatory Minimums (FAMM). Work with groups that are working against regulations. Put pressure on those who are supporting government intrusion. But don't get involved in electoral politics. Don't fight crime by becoming a criminal.

11. Engage in civil disobedience if you are prepared for the consequences. Henry David Thoreau went to jail for refusing to pay a small poll tax. He believed that civil disobedience was a moral obligation. His view of political action as a means of changing government was succinctly stated in his tract, ON THE DUTY OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government today? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it."

12. Find ways to avoid taxes. Cut every corner. Make life miserable for a tax collector. Consider using trusts, foundations, tax deferred investments and offshore charities. Your success will be emulated by others, and every dollar denied a thief makes him that much more likely to find another line of work.

13. Pamphleteer. Follow the noble lead of Thomas Paine and Lysander Spooner. Tell it like it is. Inundate the talk shows, newspapers and magazines with rational arguments against government. Let other people who are fed up with Big Brother know they are not alone. But show them there is another way than voting.

14. Write free-market novels and produce free-market movies. Support companies and individuals that bring a positive message to the audience. ATLAS SHRUGGED may have had more influence on the direction of freedom today than all the libertarian political activity since it was written.

15. Consider becoming an expatriate. Stop falling for the ridiculous cultural blather that says, "my country, right or wrong." Just because you're born at a place controlled by a particular group of politicians doesn't mean they are right. There may be places in the world where you can live in greater freedom than in the U.S. Find them. Vote with your feet.

Basically, look for solutions that don't violate your principles. Design the system to be fully compatible with the laws of human nature. Don't think you can work around them.

You are most cordially invited to attend the Youtube of An Evening with Ayn Rand that was held at the National Arts Club on May 26, 2010. ART's president, Alexandra York, was the producer-moderator of this event. The YouTube link is here. (click on see all for 11 segments) A write-up of the event follows the jump below....

[ Read the rest ... ]

b_ohare writes in to state....

Making generalizations always comes with challenges. After all, just because a claim is oftentimes true doesn't make it fact in all cases. Although intellectual dishonesty abounds, I generally categorize intellectually dishonest people into one of two groups: those who refuse to know (e.g., willingly ignoring/evading evidence to the contrary, intentionally limited research/facts/analysis) and those who know the truth but intentionally lie.

Unlike most who believe that, overall, government is good with a few bad apples, I personally believe that, overall, government is bad with a few good apples. However, regardless of which ideology you support, I think it is intellectually dishonest to ignore that government is a primary contributor to a majority of destruction in the world. I can't do justice to the plethora of data supporting my contention, but just consider these few examples:

The Problem

In all of human history, governments are the largest murderers of people, estimated at 262 million people in the 20th century alone. In fact, the US government hasn't any issue with killing people without any due process whatsoever.

Governments around the world, especially purported "free" democracies in the West like the United States, are gross violators of human rights. Governments oppress their citizens with many laws and regulations. Remember - it was governments who made slavery legal before they made it illegal. It was governments who made women's suffrage illegal before they made it legal. It was governments who made segregation legal before they made it illegal. As they admonish terrorists, it is governments who sanction torture. Right to privacy? Governments don't recognize one. Many governments even make it a crime to be homeless. Anyone who has been in a courtroom on the opposite side of the government can tell you that due process exists in name only and is otherwise an outright Newspeak fraud.

Contrary to popular belief, there aren't any nations that operate solely under the free market or capitalism. Government monetary policies are constantly destroying economic values (the latest throwing us into the Second Great Depression) with all sorts of techniques such as printing/manipulating fiat currencies (e.g., Zimbabwe, Weimer Republic, US), going trillions of dollars into debt (a concept that even Saturday Night Live understands is wrong), freely giving tax money to bailout big businesses (e.g., too-big-to-fail banks, General Motors, AIG) while everyone else suffers, subsidizing so-called "government-supported enterprises" that distort and disrupt the market from operating properly (and even put the financial industry in crisis - e.g., Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae), outright lying about statistics such as unemployment, and even preventing much-needed corrections to occur. In summary, government officials are openly bribed so that redistribution of wealth schemes benefit certain groups. (As an aside, labor unions make up 11 of the top 20 "special interest" groups buying politicians and associated political "favors.") That's not capitalism, or even remotely close to capitalism.

For all intents and purposes, governments generally only seek to expand their power. Although there are exceptions, rarely do governments repeal laws. Government surveillance efforts of innocent people are going through the roof. Crimes against humanity by government officials are protected from view through assertions of "state secrets" laws, providing wrong-doers with total immunity. Tyranny always increases.

The Alternatives

Although I agree with "V" from the movie V for Vendetta that violence can be used for good, I'd rather it not come to what I fear will happen: violence of men and women in uniform against men and women in uniform. As I see it, I think there are two reasonable alternatives to preventing the bloodshed of which governments are so fond. Granted, I'm not sure either will make much of a difference, but I do think one has much more chance of success if implemented than the other.

The first alternative is what is already occurring: people properly directing their anger at government, publicly declaring that they are "mad as hell and not going to take it anymore," supporting alternative political parties and populist movements (e.g., the Tea Party) or just not voting at all, continuing to educate others about where the blame for the underlying causes belongs, and overall civil disobedience. I don't see any logical reason to stop these actions, especially considering I think these individual displays of integrity are philosophically important. However, I do think that, at this point, their impact will be rather limited.

It is the second alternative that I think would make an enormous difference, and one that could impact our world rapidly. Ayn Rand's most famous and influential book Atlas Shrugged called on the "men of the mind" to go on "strike." Without giving away too many spoilers, the central theme of Atlas Shrugged was that the mind, being the source of all values and the means to attain them, is what provides the "destroyers" with the tools and the sanction to destroy. Effectively, it is those who create wealth and prosperity, promote humanity through innovation and hard work (as opposed to theft), and live rationally that support the lives of the moochers (e.g., government). Her premise is that, should these thinkers remove their minds, the destroyers' capabilities will collapse. Then we can rebuild.

How would the men of the mind going on strike manifest? Consider scientists, engineers, and computer technicians who are helping the government build and maintain technologies that support war - what if they were to quit? The computer system professionals who support the too-big-to-fail banks, or the court systems, or the local police? Quit. Doctors, nurses, or other medical professionals working for government-run hospitals (e.g., Department of Veterans Affairs)? Quit. Working for the government division of an otherwise private company? Quit (or transfer to another division). Architects designing modifications for government buildings? Quit. Mathematicians developing new models to analyze Internet traffic and data which enable government surveillance? Quit. News reporters regurgitating the press releases that the government gives you? Quit. Investors looking for new opportunities? Don't invest in any company that sells its products or services to governments.

Is anyone doing this, especially considering how terrible the economy is? The most recent and visible example I could find is the very public resignation of Professor Emeritus of physics Hal Lewis from the American Physical Society in protest of "the global warming scam," which he described as "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist." Of course, it is government all over the world pushing and funding this "with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists."

Hal Lewis, a man likely to have a high IQ, took a public stand based on principle and went on strike. He refused his mind to those who were using it to destroy the very principles of his love: science. Can you imagine if the leadership from high IQ organizations like Mensa, Triple Nine Society, Intertel, The International Society for Philosophical Enquiry, The Mega Society, or The Prometheus Society issued formal declarations that, as organizations, they did not support specific government policies (based on whatever explicit definitions, axioms, inferences, consequences, etc. they chose) and, more specifically, they were encouraging members to remove their sanctions? Although it wouldn't have to be binding on members, a formal statement to its membership (and the public-at-large) stating its rejection of government force could have a profound effect on setting an example for others. "We, as an organization who knows the importance of a free mind, reject the government's use of our capabilities to force the minds of others. We, therefore, encourage our membership to reject and/or leave organizations and projects that support the government's use of force."

Granted, members in these high IQ societies might not want ideological statements from the leadership, especially considering that these organizations are not for the purposes of lobbying. One of their primary purposes is to bring people together to discuss topics and raise questions, oftentimes with discordant views. I spoke with one high IQ society member who considered high IQ organizations issuing formal declarations as problematic and would oppose any official statements in the political realm. To quote him: "politics makes stupid... and official stupidity is the worst." In addition to the fact that, generally, official ideological assertions from these organizations are either not allowed or are frowned upon, his argument was "that the discussions in these groups should not be limited to any creed whatsoever." (He did approve of individual statements, such as "We, members of [Mensa, 999, etc.], representing ourselves as individuals and not our organizations, affirm...") As he told me, these organizations "welcome frank discussions and friendships across professional, class, ideological, religious, and all other divisions (except that of intelligence)." So an attempt to take official stand on, say, politics "would be the beginning of the destruction of this broad welcome mat."

But, of course these organizations are, by their very nature, selective and limited. After all, you have to meet certain IQ requirements to become a member. And isn't an ideology necessary for practically all thinking in life? What is an ideology? According to Merriam-Webster:

1 : visionary theorizing
2 a : a systematic body of concepts esp. about human life or culture
b : a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
c : the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

Ideologies, like mathematical axioms, don't require proofs for every conceivable problem. That would be impossible (not to mention impractical). But I personally question whether you can have an intelligent, intellectual discussion about any topic without some ideology. For example, how can you discuss Euclidean geometry without understanding the five axioms or proofs that are fundamental to its "nature?" In fact, how can we even enter the realm of evaluating solutions to problems without an ideology?

The Solution

We cannot expect to solve mathematical problems without understanding the nature of numbers. Likewise, we cannot expect to solve the problems that plague the world without understanding the nature of government. The nature of government - its most fundamental tenet - is force. Even those who want to acknowledge the purported benefits we received from government (e.g., water, air traffic control, public health, education, libraries, roads) cannot escape that the provisions for these services, which could all easily be provided through alternative mechanisms, are provided only through the compulsion and associated violence of taxes. No amount of government retooling will correct government destruction that is fundamentally caused by philosophical problems. To change our world, our philosophy must change. A burning platform is unlikely to provide the impetus for that change (although an economic collapse on the scale of the US might). There must be many men and women of the mind who will publicly remove their sanction. Do we really need to further study the ideology of governments murdering individuals to understand the consequences? Do we really need to further study the ideology of governments forcing the transfer of wealth from one individual to another to understand the consequences? At minimum, hasn't government dogma produced enough evidence to deduce the properties that are not proper to life?

Where are the real men and women of the minds - those intelligent enough to oppose every "progress" made in Washington in the name of the people? Washington is an utter failure - someone needs to put it out of our misery. At risk of sounding hypocritical by ending with a quote from government official Ronald Reagan, doesn't history provide us enough case studies and examples already to determine that "government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem?" I call on you - the men and women of the mind - to "shrug" and put your minds officially on strike.

Don't Vote: 20 Practical Reasons
by John Roscoe and Ned Roscoe

1. You know the present political system doesn’t work. You know it doesn’t make a difference who wins. It won’t make a difference who wins. It won’t make a difference to you.

2. You don’t believe the majority is always right. Your parents told you the truth when they said they didn’t care what the other kids did, you ought to do what’s right on your own.

3. You think the government has your name on a enough pieces of paper.

4. You don’t want to give any candidate the idea that he or she represents you.

5. You think all candidates are lying.

6. You believe you are victimized by politics and politicians. You don’t want to give the sanction of the victim to any politician.

7. You think it’s immoral to impose your view on others. You believe the best course of action will be decided by individuals without government interfernce.

8. You think the candidates would say anything, promise anything, and do anything to get elected.

9. You believe power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. You believe incumbent politicians attain absolute power.

10. You want to send a message to politicians that government isn’t the most important thing in your life and you are not going to waste your time voting.

11. You have something better to do with your time.

12. You want to join the 75 percent of American adults who won’t vote for the next President of the United States.

13. You don’t think political parties represent ideologies. You think the parties are a collection of people who combine to attain power over others.

14. You don’t have an intelligent or logical reason to vote. You prefer to act in ways that make sense to you.

15. You know the incumbent almost always wins. You don’t think it’s in your best interest to add to the power of politicians.

16. You don’t believe in the Civic Religion. You don’t worship this way.

17. You didn’t register. You want to avoid jury duty.

18. You don’t believe what they told you in high school Civics. The system doesn’t work as they said it would. Since they were wrong about the system, they were almost certainly wrong about the good voting does.

19. You don’t want to give government any reason to get bigger, or to legitimize it. You think the 44 percent of the Gross National Product they now spend is enough.

20. You think nonvoting makes a bigger statement than voting.

I just happened to see this statistic yesterday in USA Today, in a story describing how business travel is increasing.


That's what they'd like you to believe. Alas, I read the statistic a different way: The average business will only spend $1 for business travel if it can anticipate $15 in increased profit from the trip.

I think my interpretation (selection bias) is closer to the truth. But it sounds so much more, well, persuasive the way USA Today chose to report it.

This article originally appeared yesterday online at The Freeman -- a highly recommended site.

The Crime of Living
By Wendy McElroy

The new term 'overcriminalization' describes the last few decade's legislative orgy of criminalizing trivial or harmless behavior. From 2000 to 2007, Congress added 452 new federal crimes to the 4,450 some already in effect and the approximately 300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally.

Confronted by a powerful coalition -- ranging from the conservative Heritage Foundation to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union – a Congressional committee is currently scrutinizing the legal morass and needless suffering that Congress itself has been instrumental in creating. For decades, 'get tough' punishments and innovative new crimes brought career-making headlines to politicians who encountered little resistance.

Under 'zero tolerance' the legal system has shifted ever closer to a vast police state. Traditionally civil offenses now resemble criminal ones in their punishment; for example, it is commonplace for imprison 'deadbeat dads' who can not pay child support for civil contempt of court. Even children are not exempt. Petty offenses such as sexting between teens are felonies and can be severely punished; in grade schools, police are sometimes called to control children who throw temper tantrums. Everday life has been criminalized.

The book “Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent” by libertarian attorney Harvey Silverglate details how you are a felon right now because it is virtually impossible to go through one day without violating the law repeatedly.

THE LAW MEETS ECONOMIC REALITY

Congress' new willingness to focus on 'the problem' of overcriminalization may not be humanitarian.

The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics states that "in 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults." 92,854 others were held in juvenile facilities according to the 2006 Census of Juveniles in Residential Placement.

In 2008, the cost of imprisonment was estimated to be $15,000 per inmate. In the crushing grip of recession, America cannot afford to feed, clothe, house and administer all the justice it metes out.

Some states now give judges cost-of-sentence guidelines to use while deliberating. The Washington Independent reports of the guideline given to Missouri judges, “For someone convicted of endangering the welfare of a child, for instance...a three-year prison sentence would run more than $37,000 while probation would cost $6,770. A second-degree robber...would carry a price tag of less than $9,000 for five years of intensive probation, but more than $50,000 for a comparable prison sentence and parole afterward. The bill for a murderer’s 30-year prison term: $504,690.”

Whether from economic necessity or a bout of common sense, legislators are giving a nod to the negatives of overcriminalization. These include: the mis-allocation of resources; the vesting of widespread discretion in police forces who abuse it with impunity; and, the decimation of the civil liberties of an accused, including the extraction of plea bargains from innocent people who are threatened with life-destroying prison terms.

THE FACE OF THE LAW'S VICTIMS

Abner Schoenwetter, formerly a Miami seafood importer, chose to fight. In 1999, he was accused of buying lobster tails from a long-time supplier; the purchase allegedly violated harvest regulations in Honduras. Among the violations: the lobsters were in plastic bags rather than cardboard boxes. Schoenwetter provided American prosecutors with evidence from Honduran officials that no law had been broken; the Attorney General of Honduras filed a friend of the court brief, stating that the cited regulations had been voided. Despite having no prior record,, Schoenwetter was convicted and served 6 years in prison. Now released, the 'convicted felon' is without a job to support his ill wife and faces possible eviction from his family home.

The Heritage Foundation and ACLU have chosen Schoenwetter to testify before the Congressional committee as the 'face' of those brutalized by overcriminalization. A good man with no criminal intent who has lost the fruits of a lifetime due to the zealous application of Kafkaesque regulations.

TOWARD A SOLUTION

I do not believe that anything short of eliminating the current Justice System and establishing one on free market principles will bring true justice. But certain practical steps could greatly alleviate the suffering of the law's innocent victims. They include:

**eliminate the ability of civil judges to imprison debtors on contempt of court
**re-establish the need to prove “criminal intent” for criminal charges
**cease to prosecute victimless crimes, like drug use and consenting sex between adults
**eliminate prosecutorial immunity for corrupt or excessive prosecution
**enforce Constitutional protections such as “the presumption of innocence”
**make all courts, including family ones, transparent

Overcriminalization threatens everyone. It does not matter how peaceful or law-abiding you mean to be. Today you are a criminal. Tomorrow you may be a prisoner.

I post the following commentary from Manny Klausner even though I disagree with it. An affiliation between libertarians and the Tea Party can do nothing but harm libertarianism. Ask them if they are against big government when it comes to social security. Ask them if they are for personal liberty when it comes to open borders. Ask how tolerant they are about gays or abortion...

Manny Klausner writes, Libertarianism is on the ascendancy, as Dick Morris notes in his piece below, "Economic Issues at the Forefront," from National Review Online. As Morris states, "The libertarian strain in the American electorate has long been neglected by the mainstream media. But, through the Tea Party, it has gained ascendancy on the right. Those who want the government to stay out of both boardrooms and bedrooms have come to dominate the [Republican] party and its nominating process." In this increasingly oppressive era of Big Government, what a happy development this is for the cause of Free Minds and Free Markets!

Economic Issues at the Forefront
This election season, fiscal conservatives own the GOP grassroots.
By Dick Morris & Eileen McGann

The coalition Ronald Reagan assembled of fiscal and economic conservatives, evangelicals, and national-security advocates has always been dominated by the social issues at the grassroots level. While free-market economic conservatives lived in New York and dutifully attended their Club for Growth meetings and national-security types inhabited Washington, the Republican social conservatives dominated the grassroots of the party. They alone could turn out the numbers to rallies and to the polls on primary or Election Day.

[ Read the rest ... ]

Remember the early days of the BP oil spill? Roger Pielke Jr. reports that not only was the government lowballing the estimate of the flow rate, the administration actively blocked publication of a higher (and more accurate) estimate:


So much for President Hope'n'Change and the promises of greater transparency. As with any administration, it's all spin doctoring and damage control, and keeping away from you information they think you can't handle. Feel safer now?