Self Ownership

[The following post is by Redmond Weissenberger, Managing Editor of the Dollar Vigilante and Director of the Mises institute of Canada]

"...the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another's person."

Murray Rothbard, 1982.

Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills. The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute. Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity. Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Perhaps one should look for the root cause for such a behaviour. Liberalness might work in an Utopian society where we are are all perfect Human beings. http://hussain-fahmy.blogspot.com/2012/01/shariah-islamic-law.html

February 29, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Incorrect.
A person having his own body as an absolute property certainly can abuse his own body. This has nothing to do with others. Let me break it into 2 commonly believed myths regarding Hussain's statement:

1. A person under influence of drugs can commit a crime of aggression against someone else's body or property. True? Yes. Tell me how is this different from a person not under influence of drugs that commits the same? As you might know, the government enforcement officers TYPICALLY commit crimes of aggression against someone else's body and property while not being under influence of drugs. So, there, is the proof that it is incorrect to assume that the influence of drugs has anything to do with crime. Secondly, on this same point, a crime is a crime, and a person committing it had decided "premeditated" to commit it, whether on drugs or not, and shall be dealt with in exactly the same way, do you object?

2. A person abusing his own body ends up consuming the state resources for two reasons and no others:

a - because that person was VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute to the state resources. Are you saying that while being VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE to contribute, he has no right to consume them back? Do you personally save for retirement with an intent to not spend it sometime?

b - because the state decides to spend it's resources to "help" this person who had abused his body. This decision to waste resources is a VOLUNTARY one, a person in trouble DOES NOT FORCE the state to do anything about it.

February 29, 2012 | mava

@ Hussain:

Some quick thoughts:

"Having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills."

Since the state produces nothing of value, it can foot no bill without stealing money from those who actually do produce something of value--i.e., the entrepreneur, tradesman, farmer, artisan, etc. If someone wishes to abuse their own body, that is their business--not yours or mine, but neither should we be forced to pay for the consequences.

"The human race is interdependent with each other and individual freedom was and never in reality absolute."

"[I]nterdependent" is a statist's dream-word, connoting an infinite number of totally imaginary relationships, to all of which can be attached an infinite number of equally imaginary responsibilities. Instead, try thinking in terms of voluntary interaction. The only reason individual freedom isn't "absolute" (yet) is that the state got the jump on us.

"Freedom carries responsibilities and thus are monitored for the greater good of humanity."

The only "responsibility" of freedom is not to infringe on the freedom(s) of others, which would also automatically secure "the greater good of humanity," Or, as the Spanish (language) saying goes: Vive tu vida, y no la mia! (Yes, I know the punctuation isn't right.)

February 29, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava – Please apply the power of Critical Thinking. My point is: if a person in his right Mind (Sane) commits a crime on himself or others, they are equally punishable by law. Are you disputing this? If you are then we have a serious issue with our belief system. If you mean and believe paying Taxes is a VIOLENTLY FORCED BY THE STATE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE STATE REVENUES then as human beings we have the birth right to migrate to a safer zone as we all did many years ago. Most Tax payers pay their hard earned money as taxes for the common good, to support the needy, the destitute and a correctional institution to the self abuser. Now taxes are collected to wage War. As for your grievance with the so called elected Democratic Government please read my statement - Corrupt governance and policies adopted by the post WW2 Rulers of USA have caused death and economic destruction to its people and beyond. Wonder why no comments on this statement. 

I have all the right to spend my saving for retirement on anything I please as long as I do not harm myself or anybody else and in compliance with the tenets of my belief system. 
If your intention behind paying taxes is to secure the welfare of the self abuser. By promoting this ideology you are opening a can of worms. Perhaps you should look at the birth place of Democracy. (Greece) The US being the richest country in the World does not have the resources to HELP the millions of homeless who have no opportunities because their Elected Governments chose to spend Trillions on Death and Destruction in faraway lands, let alone for those who abuse themselves. We should refrain from wasting valuable resources and direct all available resources to those who believe that self abusing is COOL.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@Jaybird – As for the state produces nothing of value defers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens. Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay. What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote. False belief leads to False conclusions. We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body. They are not a Statist Dream-Work. They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy. Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights.

March 1, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@ Hussain Fahmy

There are several problems that I have with your statements.

First, is the one where you put forward that I should force you to not harm yourself, because if you do, then I will suffer, in my conscience, for the sake of humanity.

I am not very clear on who do I care about, you or myself? If I my conscience is suffering by seeing you harming yourself, then it is clear that I only care about myself. If I cared for you, then I should feel happiness instead, seeing you doing self harm, because this is what you want to do.

The way I understand caring for someone, is to see to it that that someone does what he wants, not what is good for him. It may or may not be the thing that harms him. As long as it is what he wants, I am happy.

Why do I say this? Because, my friend, you are tossing objective and subjective together. These are separate things, and the distinction has been put forth by many Austrians. Before we can find who is right or wrong about this, you should let me know if you reject the distinction between objective and subjective or not. If you new to this, just see further on "objectivism". Also, Gary North (Religious writer, but in this case the writing is completely secular) has a great short paper on Price Stability, which explains objective vs. subjective through economic devices.

Now, let me assume for a second that you are familiar with the distinction, and wholly reject it. In this case, I can not continue talking to you, because we can not understand each other. For instance, I believe that I always shall let the other person to make choices, because the choices are subjective, and there is no way for me to make them. You, on the other hand, would say that some choices you can make for me, because you know no such distinction. Thus, we can not agree, and guess what, we will have to each mind our own business, or go to war against each other.

Each minding our own business to keep the peace, is, incidentally, the objectivistic outcome. Now, you have mentioned Islam. I have to say that I do not know much about Islam, so whatever I say below, do not take it as an offence, but as a mistake.

It seems to me, that Islam rejects objectivism. As a consequence, it has to want war. Think about it. If you are unable to trust me that doing something that you think is bad for me, is actually good for me, then you must stop me. And I do not want to be stopped, so you must use force. Since you use force, I will have to respond with force, - I have no other choice. You might say, yes I do have the choice, just do what you want me to do. But, will you also do what I want you to do? No, you will not, because it will not be what you think is good for yourself. Now, we are at the dead end. How are we going to decide who knows best? You will say: let us read from the holy book, and whatever it says on the subject, must be true, and we both shall accept it. But, my friend, you are a follower of Allah (PBUH) and Mohamed who was his prophet, true, but I am not of your religion. I have my own views on things that are in your holy book. And thus, we can not have one single judge. So, we are back to war. Is the war good for you? I know it is not good for me. I do not want to fight to make you do what I think is right. I only want to fight to stop you making me do what you think is right. And, I suspect, you think the same thing. Because of this reasoning, we can agree that what is really good for both of us, is not to make war, and allow each of us to do what he believes is right.

Come full circle and back to an objective truth: It is good for both of us to mind our own business. As you can see, once an objectivist, always an objectivist. Pretty much as with Islam (or so I been told).

What do you say?

March 2, 2012 | mava

Hussain,

Thanks for your followup.  Some further thoughts:

"As for the state produc[ing] nothing of value[, this] d[if]fers from country to country. Mine produces and spends it on the welfare of its citizens."

I fear we are using different definitions of "the state."  The definition I prefer is Murray Rothbard's "a gang of thieves writ large."  (Cf. St. Augustine, et al.  You Austrian scholars feel free to correct!)  A state may appear to "produce" something of value, though I cannot imagine what or how, since, at least theoretically, the only capital a state "owns" it acquired from someone else--i.e., a "citizen" and that "from the barrel of a gun."  Rothbard (following, I believe, Etienne de la Boetie) also speaks of the state as "a monopoly on the use of force in a given territory," and, if you doubt this definition, go ahead and try to compete with your friendly local SWAT team.  Moreover, as you say, your state "spends [what you allege it produces] on the welfare of its citizens"; therefore, your state is by definition a "welfare state," which leads to the problem with your next point(s):   

"Let me get this right, what you are stating is that the self abuser has the right to destroy himself with no consequence to us as long as we do not pay.  What about our conscience? Can we watch a human being destroy himself even if it is his choice. My conscience will bother me a great deal for the sake of humanity. Don’t you think that we should make every effort to prevent that rather than promote."

Our God-given natural rights encompass our life, liberty, and property, which includes our individual body and what we choose to do or not do to/with that body.  I realize that last clause may strike some as odd, though it shouldn't when properly understood.  The basic idea is that just as no one has (or should have) the right to take your life or liberty from you, neither has anyone the right (without your permission) to do anything with your property--including those "50 to 70 Trillion cells" between a homey's hoodie and the soles of his Timberlands.  If he wants to tattoo his armpits or staple his buttocks shut, let him knock himself out.  Again, it's no business of mine, not because I think it's "good" and not because I want to "promote" that sort of thing and not because I lack a conscience.  If the guy were later to accost me from a park bench saying, "Hey, Dude, help me out, I stapled my buttocks shut!" of course, my conscience would dictate that I call him an ambulance, but only because he asked me to help him and not because I wish to save him, in particular, or "humanity" in general.  Whatever our moral or religious persuasion, on a purely pragmatic level, shouldn't we let live simply because we want others to let us live too?  But in any case, you're darned right, I'm not willing to pay a penny of it.

As for someone's choosing to "destroy himself," the same approach applies.  This doesn't mean you wouldn't try to talk him out of it--e.g., A hot babe gives your buddy the cold shoulder and he  falls into a deep funk, so you say: "C'mon, Bro', there's plenty good fish in the sea--let's go down to the strip club!"  Or, as a friend once advised, "Look, Man, no chick is worth this!"  ('Took his advice to heart and, hey, still got her in the end!)  But, by not "preventing" him--i.e., by not intervening in what has to be the most important decision in a person's life--"to be or not to be" (See Hamlet, Act III)--you are allowing that person to exercise his free will, which is the sine qua non of natural rights.

"False belief leads to False conclusions."

You're scarin' me here, Hussain . . .  Just like the word "humanity" gives me the willies.  Can you really believe this stuff?  A heckuvalotta bad's been done in the name of "belief" and "humanity."  One often hears these slippery kinds of words dripping off the forked tongues of "our leaders," usually right around the time they are preparing to use yet more violence to quell ongoing violence that they themselves incited in the first place.  Beware "humanity," Hussain, especially when "crimes" are being committed "against" it!  Ever hearda Libya or Syria?  Or maybe Eye-WRECK or Af-GONE-istan?  

As for "[f]alse belief lead[ing] to false conclusions," since anything we might believe, as opposed to knowing through reason, depends on faith, which is unproveable (at least in this existence), it follows that all conclusions based on belief (alone) will be more or less false. Your statement would make more sense as follows: False premises lead to false conclusions. Remember: ¡Vive tu vida, y no la mia!  ("Live your life, not mine."  But is sounds more beautiful in Spanish.)

And now, I reascend to my normal state of snarkily brooding cynicism.  Until next time, Selam!    

"We have approximately 50 to 70 Trillion cells in our body."

Yes, but a great blue whale's probably got quadrillions.  Not to mention, his "manly hydraulics" are twice as long as your car. What's more, he can hear more acutely than you can think. So? (Incidentally, I do believe that the cetaceans and pinnipeds, in general (perhaps along with all the "great fishes?"), "should be protected," and I applaud whenever Sea Shepherd scores against the Japanese or other whale-hunters, er, "researchers." I imagine a sort of "jubilee" year or decade for the seas, especially after Fukushima. It (i.e., a fishing moratorium) has worked for various species such as the striped bass. And, yes, I freely admit, this reveals an inconsistency in my "anarcho-capitalist" thinking. DIscussion anyone? Jeff must surely have an opinion on this, hailing as he does from marine-resource-rich Canada.)

"They are not a Statist Dream-Work."

Who said they were?

"They co-operate and communicate to keep us fit and healthy."

Which ain't easy for those of us who hate to work up a sweat!  (Sorry, Hussain, my morning coffee's done wore off . . .)

"Individual Freedom is a Pipe Dream and no state can jump on to absolute Rule, Focus on Human Rights."

"Individual Freedom" may be a "Pipe Dream" for those afraid to light up. By definition, the state's goal is "absolute rule." And, once again, the only "Human Rights" are (or should be) our natural rights--i.e., to life, liberty, and property.  All the other supposed "rights" are for sale--cheap!--to the lowest . . .

common . . .

denominator. FADE TO THE SOUND OF BLEATING SHEEP . . . . 

March 3, 2012 | Jaybird

@mava - A healthy discussion is based on a dialogue with facts and not assumptions. First I never used the words FORCE and ISLAM. This is a serious defective assumption. If you are thinking of diverting this discussion: Sorry. Let’s stick to having absolute jurisdiction over his own body gives the right to abuse his body and as a result someone else (The State) ends up footing his medical bills.

Seeing someone doing self harm brings you happiness. So if you see someone harming him/her self, it will make you happy as long as that is what they want. This is a self preserving belief. ME, I. Is this applicable to a Stanger like me or someone you deeply care? There is a difference between what someone wants and what’s good for them. Sometimes, what we want may not be good for us. I am sure you have heard of “Life’s full of Choices”.

I personally do not believe that I have the right to make choices for anyone. However, my belief is that if someone does make an incorrect choice which will harm them: only then, I have an obligation to point out the fact of its evil consequences. It’s entirely up the person to make his choices, but I will never ENCOURAGE it by PROMOTING it. For example, if you have someone who you care deeply is self abusing with drugs and you see them destroying their life in front of your very eyes and if YOU can live with the CONSCIENCE that’s OK because that is what that person really wants. Then my dear friend you have made a choice you will have to live by it. 

CONSCIENCE IS A SPIRITUAL QUALITY THAT BIDS MAN GOOD ATTITUDE AND THOUGHT AND HELPS HIM THINK STRAIGHT AND TELL RIGHT FROM WRONG. ONE OF THE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF CONSCIENCE IS THAT IT IS COMMON TO MOST PEOPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF A MAN ALSO FEELS RIGHT TO THE CONSCIENCE OF MOST OTHERS PROVIDED THAT THE SAME CONDITIONS PREVAIL. THE CONSCIENCE OF ONE MAN NEVER FALLS OUT WITH THAT OF ANOTHER. THE REASON LIES IN THE SOURCE OF CONSCIENCE. 

In conclusion, I do not agree with what you say about a self abuser but you have the right to believe and make choices as you wish. This discussion is solely to enlighten the effects of promoting an EVIL act which of course you have the freedom to label or give it a another meaning as you please. You don’t have to believe that WE ARE ACCOUNTABLE FOR OUR ACTIONS until that day arrives.

March 3, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the circumstances are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same circumstances first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

March 3, 2012 | mava

@Jaybird - Your statements reminds me of Proof by Verbosity. Warning: Application of Excessive knowledge takes us nowhere. Finally, a statement to reflect on or you could call it a shocking statement - Every soul will taste of death. And we will be paid on the Day of Resurrection only that which we have fairly earned. Whoso is removed from the Fire and is made to enter paradise, he indeed is triumphant. The life of this world is but comfort of illusion. Believe or Not.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

@mava - Conveniently you have replaced CONDITIONS with CIRCUMSTANCES. Bravo. Your statement: want to use drugs and your conscience says it is the right thing to do is remarkable. A conversation is to learn from each other not to win over the point of view at all cost. We have made our positions of each other very clear. We part company with; to you is your way and to me is my way. Ponder very hard on this - When truth is hurtled against falsehood, falsehood perishes, for falsehood, by its nature bound to perish. I know you have the conscious capacity to prove this wrong however, I wonder if you could convince your subconscious Mind.

March 4, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Sorry, I did not mean to replace it. This was how I understood "conditions" in the context of your post.

I am now restating my question, with your correction, and wait for your answer.

Alright, Hussain.

So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do. Since conscience of all men, according to you must tell them the same thing provided the CONDITIONS are the same, then explain to me how you came to conclusion that I am harming my body rather than helping it. Are you capable of examining my consciousness without trying to put yourself in the same CONDITIONS first?

Main question: how do you know what is right for me?

Where my question is going: it is fair for me to ask this, since you are stating that I have no freedom to harm my body, and therefore you then must know how to tell when I am harming it. If you do not know, then you can not apply the restriction to my freedom.

March 4, 2012 | mava

@mava – Our CONDITIONS are not the same. I chose to live my life in accordance with the Last Testament. I believe we have the freedom to harm ourselves as long as we are prepared to face the consequences. My position is to promote the good in the form of advice to those who I care. At times this could also be to a total stranger like you. No compulsion or force applied. Now we could pick on the nitty gritty of what is good and beneficial to the human kind and take a philosophical route for the sake of winning. Sometimes, a win is not the correct solution. My intention was to respond with my belief on the subject as you did with yours. I like to keep Life simple and stupid. I feel about your affirmation – “So, I want to use drugs. My conscience tells me this is the right thing to do” – If I could switch off my emotions I will not find any harm with your affirmations. Obviously we follow different belief systems and what makes it interesting is we can discuss openly and agree to disagree peacefully and by this process we sow the seed to change whenever our hearts open up. End of the day what counts is happiness. If you are happy with your affirmations, SO BE IT. Thanks and my sincere respects for being a good debater.

March 5, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Rev. Hussain,

The extra words were deemed necessary because you didn't appear to get "vive tu vida . . ."

As for what you characterize as "debate," your contribution is more like a sermon from a would-be bully pulpit.

And speaking of "paradise," TDV has a new overnight passport program you might want to look into.

Cheers!

March 5, 2012 | Jaybird

@ Hussain,

Yes, I too, treasure people around me who can talk peacefully, and are willing to allow me to do my own things. I am glad we have come to agreement.

The reason I argued was that it appeared to me for a second that you would want to stop me from harming myself, even if it was my intention.

My point was, that the road to peace with everyone is not to insist that others follow your beliefs. We can, and may-be should offer our assistance, but we can never insist on it. This is the core of peace.

As to the state taking a loss, I am glad it does, and I am guiding my life in such a way as to inflict biggest losses possible. This is because the state INSISTS on enslaving me "for my own good", leaving me no exit, nor room to stay away from it's goodness. Please, contrast this to my absolute indifference towards any private charity for example. Since they don't force me, I can ignore them and we both, I and them, remain in peace.

Right now, there is a war heating up against the so-called "Tax Heavens". Huge, obsessive - abusive states do not like the fact that some people prefer to escape the "inevitable paradise" that those states are building. My forecast is as follows: If they succeed and there is no more room left, they they are going to start paying big time, because all those cornered people will too try and succeed in inflicting the biggest financial damage possible.

March 5, 2012 | mava

@mava - I was fortunate to have got advice; after sifting the good from the bad to the best of my knowledge through the process of trial and error: the application has resulted in tremendous happiness. I try to impart advice that works without any coercion, force or in expectation of any reward. My Motto: I expect to pass through life but once. If therefore, there be any kindness I can show, or any good thing I can do to any fellow being, let me do it now, and not defer or neglect it, as I shall not pass this way again.

Road to Peace can be achieved from different routes depending on someone’s belief and the environment that person is bought up. What works for me will not necessarily work for someone else. The man with the money consciousness is constantly attracting money. The man with the poverty consciousness is constantly attracting poverty. Both fulfil the exact conditions by thought, word, and deed that make the path for the thing of which they are conscious, come to them.

In my long experience, fighting a State system never paid any dividends. Rather it drains ones resources and creates depression/anxiety. So rather than inflicting loss to the State/Country; move to a friendlier location and focus with faith and abilities to generate wealth rather than be dependent on any State/Country. Yes, some countries have misused public funds and have linked themselves to the force of evil. Their absolute power will not last long. It puzzles me how these people get voted in through the Democratic process. I do not agree with Senator Ron Paul on some issues; however he is probably the only POTUS candidate who could bring some solutions to the economic woes. Then again he does not stand a chance of winning as long as the Zionists Masters/Bankers have control over the manipulation of governance.

Salaam in my lingo means, Peace.

March 6, 2012 | Hussain Fahmy

Gold Vs Currency

Self-described anarchist Jeff Berwick bemoans on the "debt fantasyland" the Western World is mired in, reveals the foundations of his conversion to a libertarian and anarchist worldview and, in his most controversial statement, declares, "...everything Obama does is unconstitutional!"

Money supply should be created in co-ordination with GDP and with the proven reserves of the natural resources of a country. The strength or weakness of a Fiat currency is on the purchasing power, that is; determined by the demand and supply of a country's produce. Remember how the Barter system was formed in the early days before paper money was invented. Today it has evolved to digital bits and bytes. There is not enough physical Gold or Silver to use as a medium of exchange.

January 27, 2012 |  Hussain Fahmy

Hussein: You've been brainwashed by the Keynesians. Even if there was only one ounce of gold in the world, it'd be enough to be money. They tell you that so you accept their debt slave paper. Also, the money supply does not need to be constantly increased, that's more propaganda. If you were on an island with 10 people and you fished, another guy got coconuts and others did other similar things and you all traded, would you need to constantly increase the money supply to survive? Of course not. Time to wake up, amigo.

January 27, 2012 |  Jeff Berwick

@Hussein
You're not realizing the divisibility factor of gold (or any other commodity or even virtual commodity)..

An ounce of gold can be broken down into grams and grams into grains, etc.
In a free-market there would likely be MULTIPLE kinds of competing monies anyways...and no shortage of facilitators for conducting trade.

January 27, 2012 |  Shane

Jeff: Are we forgetting the size of the world economy. Cross border trade. Your logic applies in a Barter system. However we have moved into a more complicated financial/economic system. Not every country's money supply is created out of Debt. The economic system we have adopted in the UAE is backed by solid tangible income producing assets. Currency is only a medium of exchange and we, the people put a value to it and set the price of a commodity through collective measure. We should research and study the authentic Islamic economic system. BTW we love this Blog.
@Shane: I agree with the divisibility and the possibility of an electronic means of transaction, which enables fraud. Try carrying a grain of Gold around for practical purposes. A change in the monetary system is inevitable.

January 30, 2012 |  Hussain Fahmy

@hussein Explain to me how Jeff's logic only works in a barter system? People who see freedom as the only consistent 'system' in which no man has to obey at gunpoint to another man, do not have any objection against money. Usually not even against the prevelent form of money, debt based money. We would argue however that people are not likely to freely chose fiat moneys. If an institution borrows 1000 units into existence, but demands 1050 units back, there will always be chronic shortages, which they then have to combat by issuing more debt based money. The institute that has a monopoly on issuing this money, will always increase it's powers and assets.

History has shown that governments that tried to stick to hard money, have always given up in the end, since it limits their spending and as the fiat currencies around them lose value, the exports of their tax slaves becomes to expensive and imports become too cheap, destroying their industries. This could be avoided by reducing wages in the hard currency (not a problem, since everything becomes cheaper anyway), but this is usually prohibited by minimum wage laws and other legal provisions.

January 30, 2012 |  Opperdienaar

@Opperdienaar: In an island with 10 people or a small number of people can effectively trade their goods and services with a mutually agreeable trade off. My fish for 2 coconuts. This worked for a while until we shifted to Gold as a medium of exchange. My point is when the population increases and with that more goods and service are produced in the market place; the Law of supply and demand says as the supply of money of claims increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy. The disparity occurs when the Federal Reserve issues Bonds without being backed by tangible wealth rather by the promise to payout by future tax revenues.
Where we live nobody points a gun at us. The vested authorities point a gum at those who threaten peace and harmony. In our system of finance we do not borrow rather we participate on a profit and loss on trade. We do not create wealth out of thin air. You are describing the Zionist economic system and probably you are a victim as well. As long as the they have control of your monetary system they will rule you with the fear weapon. This "fear weapon" is invoked in numerous ways, for example through the control of money and debt, and the conditions of its distribution for basic survival needs. Another very major and pervasive deployment of fear is through the media, who portray a vengeful, jealousy, whose much more insidious application of control through fear created in the last couple of decades, particularly in and by the USA, is the so called "war on terror", which seeks to make people feel fearful and insecure so that the "controllers" can exert all manner of oppressive and invasive controls over the people. Please note however, although all Zionists are Jews, not all Jews are Zionists. We are living in two different worlds. In my world we are accountable to our actions to the one who created us.

January 31, 2012 |  Hussain Fahmy

@hussein
"Where we live nobody points a gun at us. The vested authorities point a gum at those who threaten peace and harmony."

I think you have not carefully thought this through (as I had not). Government always and everywhere has a monopoly on violence. That means that the salary of the police is paid by taxpayers effectively at gun point. When government issues a new law or requires a business to have a license (say to sell alcohol), and the bussiness owner would proceed without their license, he will be shut down with force at gunpoint. This is effectively a robbery, since the bussines owner was only voluntary dealing with other people using his own property.

As such you obey them at gun point, not for their wisdom but for their forrce.

February 1, 2012 |  Opperdienaar

@Opperdienaar: I beg to differ; not all governments have a monopoly on violence. We know some thrive on it and as a result frustration, unemployment, food stamps, deception, trillions of public wealth spent on destroying the lives of Millions of people thousands of miles away around the world. Our Leaders are not power hungry. Here the citizens/residents have never PAID any Income/Wealth/Inheritance TAXES ever. So salaries have to be pitched in from the fees levied from the users of a particular service that offered. Our Law enforcement officers are highly paid and rewarded for ethical behaviour. They have a deep conscience to serve their people irrespective of nationality.
You fail to see the positive effects of licensing and competency issues related to it. This could be because you are focussed on individual freedom rather than collective Human Rights. What we are witnessing in the West is the return to the Law of the Jungle. Sad but true. Values are replaced with Brute Force. In conclusion please ADDRESS THE ROOT CAUSE and learn to apply the wisdoms in the Last Testament.

February 2, 2012 |  Hussain Fahmy

@hussain,
Wel we differ about our views of reality. Although your government is maybe less totalitarian power hungry than most western ones are at them moment, I think this is only temporarily. The west used to have a lot of freedom also, it resulted in a lot of wealth being created, then a lot of it taxed, then an empire built. The state always grows.
Although I do not know the particulars of your government (UAE ?) I am certain they are the first ones to use violence against me even though I have not committed an act of violence or theft. Say I decide to buy some property from someone (voluntary exchange) and hire some people (voluntary exchange) and build a church on it (to which I have no intention, but for arguments sake). The government will use force to shut me down, right?

Suppose I start an internet service provider, i recruit workers, machines, property and customers (voluntary), but I do not buy a license from the government, they will shut me down using force. They will use force against me first. Look what happened to blackberry. It is a fact of reality that the government uses first force against their subjects. If they do not and just sell services, it is not a government, but a company. Even if they provide services that I want for payment, but they threaten other people from supplying the same services, they are immoral. Truth begins with looking at the facts for what they are. A law is just an opinion of a guy with a gun. It is not called a government if it acts just like a company providing services.

When I was in Dubai, a native came up to me and wanted to have a beer with me, the minute I set foot outside my hotel. Why is that? Was he not allowed to buy alcohol himself and was I the means for doing so? Would violence be used against him or the bar tender if alcohol was served to him?

Note that this is totally separated from supposed utilitarian benefits of licensing. I will also claim there are no benefits from it either, but the first thing to realize is that they are a monopoly on first strike violence against innocent people. After you recognized that part of reality, we can talk about supposed benefits.They always start harmless and small banning things that make sense and they will always grown to dangerous killers, killing abroad first and domestically later. That being said... I really liked Dubai as people were very friendly and helpful and everyone was just looking to make some money and not interested in controlling each other through the state, as you could expect with so many foreigners.

February 2, 2012 |  Opperdienaar

@Opperdienaar: We do not differ on reality but with choices. Yes the West was a shining star once upon a time until they started associating with the Zionist regime. We see them getting stronger and its people weaker by the day. You are absolutely right that you do not know the sincere intentions of Emirates Philosophy unless you actually know the natives of the desert and spend time with them. Accusations should be backed up by hard evidence not by the repetition by the media to brain wash one sided opinion. If you are referring to using violence against you (911 - Hoax of the century) THAROUGH RESEARCH REQUIRED. CONFLICT BEGINS WHEN MUTUAL RIGHTS ARE VIOLATED. Return land to its rightful owners and leave nations to fend themselves; in short mind your own business. Ron Paul.

No places of worship ever shut down here; on the contrary they have facilitated for every denomination. Regarding your internet/Blackberry issue, this may sound radical to your way of thinking. If we are law abiding citizen, we should not care if the government is listening and watching us. Nothing to hide. We should in reality concerned about our actions and the accountability to one who created us. The crux of our discussion is: assuming that you follow man made and man thought rules, while we follow the divine law set forth through revelations. Like your term IMMORAL. Where do you extract the values of Morality? The native you met here has chosen his life of Alcohol. So what: there is no compulsion; however the government’s duty is to protect its people from the evils of a disease sold in bottles. This may sound absurd based on your beliefs. To us the greater good for Humanity is more preferable.

Afghanistan is where it is said that "Empires go to die". In chronological order:
The Indus, Kushan, Scythian, Parthian, Saffarid, Ghaznanavid, Ghorid, Timurid, Hotaki, Durrani, Aryan, Persian, Sassanid, Hepthalite, Hun, Mughal, Arab, Turk, Hazaras, Kwharezmid, Mongol, British (three times) and Soviet empires. So the current incumbents, the USA, obviously have not read the history books yet.

February 3, 2012 |  Hussain Fahmy

Depression

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH – THE SOURCE OF MERCY – THE MOST MERCIFUL

Is Depression caused by a lack of Serotonin in the brain, or are we being conned?

I feel like I need to start this post with a caveat: I am in no way saying that depression does not have biological correlates, or that medication is a useless route for depression. No no no! I am simply taking a look at why serotonin has found its way to the forefront of public consciousness when talking about depression, and if there are drugs which target other neurotransmitters which may be just as good as, or better, than the classical SSRI antidepressants. Ok cool.

In the 1950s, scientists accidentally discovered that increasing levels of the monoamines (serotonin, dopamine and noradrenaline) in the brain was associated with increased positive mood, and the hypothesis was made that depression is due to decreased levels of neural monoamines, particularly serotonin. To what extent is this correct and to what extent are we being deceived by ‘Big Pharma’?

The pharmaceutical industry is estimated to be worth over $600 billion and, of this, over $3.1 billion is due to sales of the antidepressant Zoloft the seventh best selling drug in the world. Arguably, it is in the best interests of this industry not to highlight and even to suppress the efficacy of other drugs which do not conform to the depleted serotonin hypothesis which has served drugs like Zoloft so well, for not doing so would mean remarketing their stance on the cause of depression, branding a new drug, and advertising it to the public – all of which are costly endeavours.

Hundreds of studies have demonstrated that antidepressant administration increases mood, affects cognition & reduces fear responses in the depressed & the healthy, but why do they not work in all people? Although antidepressants which serve to increase monoamine levels are effective, their immediate chemical effects take weeks to be translated into increased positive mood (average 6 weeks) - surely if depression was due to not having enough serotonin, we would all be happy as soon as we took an antidepressant pill, as they increase serotonin levels immediately.

Latency aside, some recent studies have proposed that the antidepressants currently on the market are not as effective as pharmaceutical companies would have us believe. Kirsch et al (2002) found, through analysis of all antidepressant clinical trials submitted to the FDA for approval, that the antidepressant response was matched by 80% of the placebos used, and in 57% of the trials there was no significant difference between antidepressant and placebo. Let’s just consider that for a second: 8 out of every 10 placebos they used worked just as well as antidepressants - that’s a huge number. Is simply being told you are taking something which will make you happier enough to make you happier? Lacasse and Leo (2002) contrast this with trials concerning insulin imbalance in studies aiming to find relevant medications for diabetics. In these trials, they claim, there is no such modest efficacy or high placebo response…so why should antidepressants be approved by the FDA with less evidence for their efficacy? Perhaps what they are hinting at is that although antidepressants have mild side effects such as dry mouth, anxiety, constipation and weight gain, incorrect adjustment of blood sugar levels can lead to coma and even death; so drug companies can successfully market antidepressants - even though the research to support their efficacy is not as well replicated as one would desire – because the negatives of doing so are less than for other disorders and medications.

Also troublesome are the findings of the efficacy of drugs which do not directly target the serotonergic system. For example, bupropion, reboxetine, and even St. John’s Wort have performed as well as or even better than SSRIs in recent randomised controlled studies. Most interesting perhaps is tianeptine, which is actually a selective serotonin reuptake enhancer. This actually reduces the available serotonin in your brain, so it would make you more sad, right? - Wrong: it has found to be clinically efficacious in the treatment of depression, with few side-effects. It even alleviates comorbid anxiety without sedation. This is an advantageous property, considering the high comorbidity of anxiety and depression (as high as 50%).

Regardless of whether we should be looking to increase or decrease serotonin, the question remains: can biology ever truly be a cause? Given that biological factors don’t necessarily lead to depression (they often provide only a vulnerability which must be ‘triggered’ by environment), it is too hasty for drug companies to claim that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin.

So why have antidepressants and a serotonin explanation come to the forefront in advertising literature and the minds of medical professionals and the general public if there are other plausible candidate mechanisms at play in depression? Turner et al (2008) highlighted a ‘publication bias’ prevalent in the scientific literature by comparing published and unpublished outcomes of 12 antidepressant studies involving 12,564 patients submitted to the FDA. 31% (3449 patients) were not published, and this was significantly associated with study outcome: out of 74 studies, 37 with a positive result were published as opposed to only 1 with a positive result that was not published. It therefore appeared, according to the published literature, that 94% studies were positive. However, when they returned to all the available literature, including the studies that were refused publication, only 51% were positive. That’s no better than chance! We cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. What does seem clear, though, is that there is a publication bias prevalent in the FDA and academic journal system, which may have skewed evidence more towards the pharmaceutical companies’ opinions.

Another important aspect at play here is journalism and the media, which Leo & Lacasse (2008) recognised in their study in which they looked to the media for support of their hypothesis that, whilst the cause of mental disorders such as depression is unknown, “the idea that neurotransmitter imbalances cause depression is vigorously promoted by pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatric profession at large”. They received responses from multiple sources, including practicing psychiatrists, clients, and a major pharmaceutical company. The evidence offered was “not compelling”, and several of the cited sources flatly stated that the proposed theory of serotonin imbalance was known to be incorrect. When they asked one particular journalist about why she had said in an article that depression was due to a “chemical imbalance”, ”the author mentioned that: psychiatrists would be the best people to talk with about chemical imbalances; mental illnesses have been linked to chemical imbalances; psychiatrists are trained to figure this out through a variety of tests; and that “numerous studies have been done” and “the research is definitely available.” We pointed out to her that, if there are “numerous studies” which are “definitely available,” then it should be relatively easy to cite at least one article. She did not reply.” In this way, journalists are the main link between scientific researchers and the general public, and careless writing can easily influence common thought about this disorder.

In summary then, I do not dispute that there is indeed convincing and statistically significant evidence within studies to support the hypothesis that a lack of serotonin has a role to play in depression, but rather I wish to show that such evidence may have been shown favouritism both in the media and in publication biases present in many of the most prominent scientific journals. I am drawn to agree with the recent literature, which suggest that the view of the cause of depression as a “chemical imbalance” is oversimplified at best: we have insufficient evidence to view it as a cause and, until we can, this may even be detrimental to patient recovery. As proponents of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy would argue, viewing oneself as the passive ‘victim’ of one’s own biology may even be detrimental to recovery.

Open Society

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH – THE SOURCE OF MERCY – THE MOST MERCIFUL

Open Society

In 2012 Resolve to: BE CURIOUS, BE BOLD, BE FAITH FILLED, BE DECISIVE, BE COURAGEOUS, BE STRONG, BE AUTHENTIC, BE PLAYFUL, BE GRATEFUL, BE...?

Those who are familiar with the Bible will know that the only time Jesus (Peace Be Upon Him) lost his temper was with the "money changers" at the temple. Today's "money changers" are the bankers who have, through their own greed, brought the entire world to the brink of financial collapse in the name of Democracy.

When we look at the World today, we see a World that is almost totally under the control of the self styled "Global Zionists" through the international banking system through which they totally control countries, governments and people, supported by the so called "elected governments" which are absolutely 100% under their control.

Ironically, the countries that are free, and evolving outside of this malign influence are those same countries which, just two decades ago where even more oppressive, the so called "BRICS" countries - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, all of which demonstrate the truth that, left alone without external interference, the people of any country can prevail, change the "system" and evolve naturally.

I am personally impressed by Arab awakening that is a shining and dramatic example as to how "the power of the people" can change their own destiny in a previously oppressed country where the Will of the People prevails over political idealism. So what does this mean in the context of 2012 and rest of the World? Well today we are a global population of 7 billion Souls, which implies that there is vastly more "variables" and opportunities "in the mix". At the same time we have billions more people who can "make it or break it".

The Nine Most Absolutes of A Truly Free And Open Society

1. Rights Belong To The Collective, And Not The Individual; They Derive From Our Nature And Can Neither Be Granted Nor Taken Away By Bureaucrats Supposedly Acting On Our Behalf.

2. All Peaceful, Voluntary Economic And Social Associations Are Permitted; Consent Is The Basis Of The Social And Economic Order.

3. Justly Acquired Property Is Privately Owned By Individuals And Voluntary Groups, And This Ownership Cannot Be Arbitrarily Voided By Bureaucrats Supposedly Acting On Our Behalf.

4. Government Of Any Kind Whether It Be Local, State, Provincial Or Federal May Not Redistribute Private Wealth Or Grant Special Privileges To Any Individual Or Collective body.

5. Government May Not Claim The Monopoly Over A People’s Money And Governments Must Never Engage In Official Counterfeiting, Even In The Name Of Macroeconomic Stability.

6. Aggressive Wars, Even When Called Preventative, And Even When They Pertain Only To Trade Relations, Are Forbidden.

7. Jury Nullification, That Is, The Right Of Jurors To Judge The Law As Well As The Facts, Is A Right Of The People And The Courtroom Norm.

8. All Forms Of Involuntary Servitude Are Prohibited, Not Only Slavery But Also Conscription, Forced Association, And Forced Welfare Distribution.

9. Government Must Obey The Law That It Expects Other People To Obey And Thereby Must Never Use Force To Mould Behaviour, Manipulate Social Outcomes, Or Tell Other Countries How To Behave.