chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

During the reign of several Ottoman Sultans, not only chess was banned, but also coffee, tobacco and alcoholic beverages like wine, because:

1. These corrupt moral codes according to religion.
2. They are a threat to social egality and order, because they are luxury items.
3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause them to rebel against the state.

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: metatuning@...m
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 0:54
Subject: [metatuning] Re: gum

>Newsflash: Ayatollahs or their decrees do not bind Sunni muslims.

Yes, I knew that, which is why I said it was a "Shia thing".
Plus, the "they" of the original message referred to Muslims
in power in Tehran.

> And because Jews like Kasparov play it so well?

According to this page...

http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lab/7378/religion.htm

...all three God-of-Abraham religions have forbidden chess
at various times. The reasons given seem to center around the
fact that it was once a common subject of gambling (still is
in places like Washington Square Park). I suppose it is
easier to determine if two individuals are playing chess
than if they are engaged in a wager.

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause them to
>rebel against the state.

I knew there was something good about them.

here here!!!!!!!!

if the state is so good they should be paying the people dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)

Dante Rosati wrote:

>>3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause them to >>rebel against the state.
>> >>
>
>I knew there was something good about them.
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

> if the state is so good they should be paying the people
> dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)

Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?

-Carl

one of the Cantos of Ezra pound between 40 and 50 , i can't find it right now!

Carl Lumma wrote:

>> if the state is so good they should be paying the people
>>dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)
>> >>
>
>Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?
>
>-Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

I am the most ferocious `enemy of the state` you can possibly encounter. And that, because I'm a muslim whose faith requires the abolishment of unjust social contracts. Touche.

----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 1:52
Subject: Re: [metatuning] chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

here here!!!!!!!!

if the state is so good they should be paying the people dividends not
taxing them (according to Pound!)

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

There is both benefit and evils in them, the evils being much greater.

----- Original Message -----
From: Dante Rosati
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 1:24
Subject: RE: [metatuning] chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

>3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause them to
>rebel against the state.

I knew there was something good about them.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

then we agree on a separation of church and state!
Ozan Yarman wrote:

>I am the most ferocious `enemy of the state` you can possibly encounter. And that, because I'm a muslim whose faith requires the abolishment of unjust social contracts. Touche.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kraig Grady > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 1:52 > Subject: Re: [metatuning] chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> here here!!!!!!!!
>
> if the state is so good they should be paying the people dividends not > taxing them (according to Pound!)
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have many these days.

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>There is both benefit and evils in them, the evils being much greater.
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Dante Rosati > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 1:24 > Subject: RE: [metatuning] chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> >3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause them to > >rebel against the state.
>
> I knew there was something good about them.
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Tx! -Carl.

> one of the Cantos of Ezra pound between 40 and 50 , i can't find it
> right now!
>
>>Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?
>
>>>if the state is so good they should be paying the people
>>>dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)

> one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> many these days.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
service, which market forces would make reliable.

I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
shot her!").

-Carl

> > one argument against anarchy is that the police would be
> > let loose on society without any safeguards, not that
> > they have many these days.
>
> Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more
> safeguards, since the police would no longer have a monopoly.
> That is, when in trouble, you could call your favorite
> private police service, which market forces would make
> reliable.
>
> I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> shot her!").

On the other hand, the police are far from free of the
forces of the market today. How many local newspaper
articles (at least on the East coast) have I read where
the DA or Sheriff or Chief of Police argues that since
drug busts are up lately, more money for drug busts is
required! (The busts are simultaneously the problem and
solution.) On Peter Jennings' _Pot of Gold_ special, an
Oregon drug-buster was asked point-blank if drug seizures
were profitable, and he replied that without them his
program could not function. (These seizures are of
course a stretch by any interpretation of the Constitution.)
An internet Classic on the subject:

http://deoxy.org/lawenfor.htm

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

The nature capitalism IS to grow and monopolize, I think.

The anarcho-capitalists simply try to bypass the 'starry-eyed'
anarchist ideal that humans left to pursue their own interests WOULD
leave each other alone, and claim the efficiency of the marketplace
to get the best job done, if there's a problem. I think it's a
crock, but I don't know what an alternative might be. I just read
about Nozick's trying to determine what is a "just" appropriation of
property to I guess to counter Proudhon's old dramatic assertion
that "property is theft", and made the whole argument stupider.

But the "conservative" "libertarian" free-marketers don't seem to
mind, as long as they can aquire more "property", let the stupid
idealists fight it out amongst themselves and leave THEM alone.

The discussion about how and why the need for police and military
assumes the need for coercion, which is why an anarchist wants to be
an anarchist, to stop coercion (and Plato can go ____ himself!
Hee!). So where you'd really get off on this is how to transform
cops and soldiers into something else. I think.
>
> > one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> > loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> > many these days.
>
> Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
> since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
> when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
> service, which market forces would make reliable.
>
> I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> shot her!").
>
> -Carl
>

> The nature capitalism IS to grow and monopolize, I think.

You mean the nature of entities in a capitalist system,
or the nature of the system itself?

> The anarcho-capitalists simply try to bypass the 'starry-eyed'
> anarchist ideal that humans left to pursue their own interests
> WOULD leave each other alone, and claim the efficiency of the
> marketplace to get the best job done, if there's a problem.
> I think it's a crock, but I don't know what an alternative
> might be.

Demarchy is a neat idea...

> The discussion about how and why the need for police and
> military assumes the need for coercion, which is why an
> anarchist wants to be an anarchist, to stop coercion

I think the idea is to minimize coercion -- does anyone
believe it can be stopped completely?

-Carl

Do you agree that narcotic and drug sales should be free in a free market economy?

----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 8:04
Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

> one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> many these days.

Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
service, which market forces would make reliable.

I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
shot her!").

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

they are safer than the one doctors prescribe

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>Do you agree that narcotic and drug sales should be free in a free market economy?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carl Lumma > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 8:04 > Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> > one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> > loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> > many these days.
>
> Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
> since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
> when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
> service, which market forces would make reliable.
>
> I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> shot her!").
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.

-Carl

> Do you agree that narcotic and drug sales should be free in
> a free market economy?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Kasým 2005 Perþembe 8:04
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
> > one argument against anarchy is that the police would be let
> > loose on society without any safeguards, not that they have
> > many these days.
>
> Anarcho-capitalists argue that there would be more safeguards,
> since the police would no longer have a monopoly. That is,
> when in trouble, you could call your favorite private police
> service, which market forces would make reliable.
>
> I think this argument is better suited to schools, though.
> Deadly force is something that naturally tends toward
> monopoly, I think. In some ways it is better to have no
> disagreement over such matters ("Cops-R-Us wouldn't have
> shot her!").
>
> -Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > The nature capitalism IS to grow and monopolize, I think.
>
> You mean the nature of entities in a capitalist system,
> or the nature of the system itself?

As I understand it right now, the system itself.

>
> > The anarcho-capitalists simply try to bypass the 'starry-eyed'
> > anarchist ideal that humans left to pursue their own interests
> > WOULD leave each other alone, and claim the efficiency of the
> > marketplace to get the best job done, if there's a problem.
> > I think it's a crock, but I don't know what an alternative
> > might be.
>
> Demarchy is a neat idea...

If I know what you mean by that, it's very much an old anarchist
ideal: local autonomy, and coordination with other similarly smaller
communities? I'm still wondering about concerns over crime
and "defense".
>
> > The discussion about how and why the need for police and
> > military assumes the need for coercion, which is why an
> > anarchist wants to be an anarchist, to stop coercion
>
> I think the idea is to minimize coercion -- does anyone
> believe it can be stopped completely?

Well, the anarchist position is that all coercion is unnecessary and
theoretically COULD be eliminated. Mostly it still just seems
so "far out", it's dismissed out of hand. And all the history books
tend to emphasize the failed attempts, even as they admit that in
the past they were virtually ALL put down by force, when they got
too successful.

Maybe it's just a matter of time 'til the ideas mature again.

P

And what should the punishment be in your view?
----- Original Message -----
From: Carl Lumma
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 11:03
Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.

-Carl

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> During the reign of several Ottoman Sultans, not only
> chess was banned, but also coffee, tobacco and alcoholic
> beverages like wine, because:
>
> 1. These corrupt moral codes according to religion.
>
> 2. They are a threat to social egality and order, because
> they are luxury items.
>
> 3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause
> them to rebel against the state.

When the Europeans first discovered chocolate (early 1500s,
when the conquistadors took over Mexico), it was made illegal
for exactly these reasons.

Rich people in Venice would have clandestine chocolate parties.
The whole titillation then was to learn how to add just the
right amount of sugar to balance the bitterness of the
chocolate.

I guess when people finally got used to the taste of chocolate
that was really loaded with sugar (as it invariably is these
days), it lost all of its taboo properties.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > if the state is so good they should be paying the people
> > dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)
>
> Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?

I don't know if it's still the case (i think it is), but
after the discovery of oil in Alaska and the building of the
Alaska pipeline, the state of Alaska would annually pay out
a dividend to all state residents, instead of collecting an
annual state income tax.

People i knew who lived there would typically receive about
$1,000 a year, just for living there! (and putting up with the
coldness and darkness in the winter)

-monz

Sounds like refrigerated heaven.
----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 17:00
Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > if the state is so good they should be paying the people
> > dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)
>
> Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?

I don't know if it's still the case (i think it is), but
after the discovery of oil in Alaska and the building of the
Alaska pipeline, the state of Alaska would annually pay out
a dividend to all state residents, instead of collecting an
annual state income tax.

People i knew who lived there would typically receive about
$1,000 a year, just for living there! (and putting up with the
coldness and darkness in the winter)

-monz

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> I am the most ferocious `enemy of the state` you can
> possibly encounter. And that, because I'm a muslim whose
> faith requires the abolishment of unjust social contracts.
> Touche.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Kraig Grady
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Kasým 2005 Perþembe 1:52
> Subject: Re: [metatuning] chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> here here!!!!!!!!
>
> if the state is so good they should be paying the
> people dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)

I'm with Carl on this one. It's time for a meltdown of
*all* national governments, to be replaced by a worldwide
organization of humanity which respects the rights and
powers of each of us as individuals, as well as of our
collective interests.

The crazy thing is that people will now argue that
i'm foolish to propose this, while it's inevitable that
it *will* eventually happen!

Better to recognize the inevitable and ease its way into
existence, than to instead keep trying to fight it off.

-monz

I have acute hypoglycaemia and gastritis. My infatuation with chocolate is not helping either. Abstinence... abstinence...

----- Original Message -----
From: monz
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 16:54
Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Ozan Yarman" <ozanyarman@s...> wrote:

> During the reign of several Ottoman Sultans, not only
> chess was banned, but also coffee, tobacco and alcoholic
> beverages like wine, because:
>
> 1. These corrupt moral codes according to religion.
>
> 2. They are a threat to social egality and order, because
> they are luxury items.
>
> 3. They increase the anarchist spirit in people and cause
> them to rebel against the state.

When the Europeans first discovered chocolate (early 1500s,
when the conquistadors took over Mexico), it was made illegal
for exactly these reasons.

Rich people in Venice would have clandestine chocolate parties.
The whole titillation then was to learn how to add just the
right amount of sugar to balance the bitterness of the
chocolate.

I guess when people finally got used to the taste of chocolate
that was really loaded with sugar (as it invariably is these
days), it lost all of its taboo properties.

-monz

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

punishment, punishment, are all his followers masochists!

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>And what should the punishment be in your view?
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Carl Lumma > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 11:03 > Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
> Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
> criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.
>
> -Carl
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

Nope. Most are just humble and devout people with high morals, higher than your bloated ego for sure. Not me, I'm a worthless insignificant hypocrite whose works are probably in vain. O Lord! Forsake me not... without Your Compassion how can I survive the darkness?

----- Original Message -----
From: Kraig Grady
To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 17:59
Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol

punishment, punishment, are all his followers masochists!

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>And what should the punishment be in your view?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Carl Lumma
> To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 11:03
> Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
> Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
> criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.
>
> -Carl
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

there is nothing humble in you contempt for all other religions being the way in which the almighty chooses to unveil itself or in aaron case choose not to unveil itself.
All i get from you is that you religion is the religion of disrespect.
even when you do not know what others believe.

Ozan Yarman wrote:

>Nope. Most are just humble and devout people with high morals, higher than your bloated ego for sure. Not me, I'm a worthless insignificant hypocrite whose works are probably in vain. O Lord! Forsake me not... without Your Compassion how can I survive the darkness?
>
> ----- Original Message ----- > From: Kraig Grady > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 17:59 > Subject: Re: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
>
>
> punishment, punishment, are all his followers masochists!
>
> Ozan Yarman wrote:
>
> >And what should the punishment be in your view?
> > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Carl Lumma > > To: metatuning@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: 03 Kas�m 2005 Per�embe 11:03 > > Subject: [metatuning] Re: chess, coffee, tobacco, alcohol
> >
> >
> > In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
> > Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
> > criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
>To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
>To post to the list, send to
>metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
>You don't have to be a member to post.
>
> >Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> >
>
>
> >

--
Kraig Grady
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
The Wandering Medicine Show
KXLU <http://www.kxlu.com/main.html> 88.9 FM Wed 8-9 pm Los Angeles

>> In a *purely* free market, I suppose there is no contraband.
>> Though I don't necessarily support this position, I do think
>> criminal law is an inappropriate way to address narcotics.

> And what should the punishment be in your view?

While many narcotics users are perfectly functional (and many
more could be if criminal law and attitudes were revised), at
worst their use is a health problem that requires medical
intervention. One can argue that insurance and/or the state
should not pay for this intervention, since it could have been
avoided by the user. However, there's some evidence to
suggest that only a certain small percentage of the population
is at risk for dysfunctional narcotics addiction -- many who
try them don't like them. This is true of alcoholism also.
If so, perhaps it really is like many other genetic health
problems. Meanwhile, many other health problems currently
covered by insurance are also completely preventable through
lifestyle choices -- most glaringly type II diabetes. And
indeed, why should I pay for your drugs if you fail to follow
the dietary and exercise recommendations of your doctor?

In the end, I tend to feel a cut-your-losses approach is
best for health care. Everyone needs it, a lack of it is
not commensurate with a civilized or humane society, and
nickel-and-diming it doesn't work. Remove the obcene
beurocratic overhead that private insurance has created,
use the "evidence-based" approach to make treatment
guidlines more efficient, attempt to calculate the total
cost of problems like narcotics abuse, mental health, and
hypochondria and *just write them off*, and charge everyone
a flat fee in their taxes. Then get on to making society
more pleasant and maybe fewer people will get sick. Sin
taxes on things like cigarettes, alcohol, and foods with
high glycemic indexes are a good idea. Mandatory labeling
of glycemic index and caffiene content, for sure.

That should cover services only, I think. I believe
pharmaceuticals should be paid for out of patients' pockets.
This solves a number of problems and creates only one:
development for new drugs might tend to focus on the
'diseases of luxury' (not that it doesn't already). The
answer is more state-funded research for the 'diseases of
poverty' and starting drug-patent timeouts from the time
of approval instead from the time of discovery...

http://www.forbes.com/2002/05/02/0502patents.html

Where was I? Oh, the above refers to the classical
definition of narcotics being opioids. Hashish and many
other currently-prohibited drugs are so benign they
should simply be over-the-counter.

-Carl

> I guess when people finally got used to the taste of
> chocolate that was really loaded with sugar (as it
> invariably is these days), it lost all of its taboo
> properties.

I got into chocolate last year, and for me it was far more
unpleasant than coffee, which for me is pretty unpleasant.
Absolutely nothing keeps me awake like strong chocolate.

More info here:

http://lumma.org/microwave/#2005.09.26.2

-Carl

> > > if the state is so good they should be paying the people
> > > dividends not taxing them (according to Pound!)
> >
> > Not that's an interesting idea. What's the reference?
>
> I don't know if it's still the case (i think it is), but
> after the discovery of oil in Alaska and the building of the
> Alaska pipeline, the state of Alaska would annually pay out
> a dividend to all state residents, instead of collecting an
> annual state income tax.
>
> People i knew who lived there would typically receive about
> $1,000 a year, just for living there! (and putting up with the
> coldness and darkness in the winter)

I believe that is still the case. And in Norway, the sum
is much greater.

-Carl

> > > The nature capitalism IS to grow and monopolize, I think.
> >
> > You mean the nature of entities in a capitalist system,
> > or the nature of the system itself?
>
> As I understand it right now, the system itself.

Can you think of a time/place when capitalism wasn't in
effect?

> > > The anarcho-capitalists simply try to bypass the 'starry-eyed'
> > > anarchist ideal that humans left to pursue their own interests
> > > WOULD leave each other alone, and claim the efficiency of the
> > > marketplace to get the best job done, if there's a problem.
> > > I think it's a crock, but I don't know what an alternative
> > > might be.
> >
> > Demarchy is a neat idea...
>
> If I know what you mean by that, it's very much an old anarchist
> ideal: local autonomy, and coordination with other similarly
> smaller communities? I'm still wondering about concerns over
> crime and "defense".

Oh, I thought that was a more general comment.

> > > The discussion about how and why the need for police and
> > > military assumes the need for coercion, which is why an
> > > anarchist wants to be an anarchist, to stop coercion
> >
> > I think the idea is to minimize coercion -- does anyone
> > believe it can be stopped completely?
>
> Well, the anarchist position is that all coercion is unnecessary
> and theoretically COULD be eliminated.

Who says?

> Mostly it still just seems so "far out", it's dismissed out of
> hand.

Humans are very coercive animals.

> And all the history books tend to emphasize the failed attempts,
> even as they admit that in the past they were virtually ALL put
> down by force, when they got too successful.

Which ones were? I'm not familiar.

The communes I know of all failed because of infighting, though
some *are* still going. The transcendentalist communes have
all failed for internal reasons, so far as I know. Apparently
there are very successful farming communes in Israel. ... don't
know if any of these qualify as anarchist.

-Carl