Jerry Story

About building standards: In Alberta, Canada and probably lots of other places there is a building code, which is a fat book that describes in detail how a building must be built. It is enforced by law. If the inspector doesn't like the way the building is being built, then there is hell to pay. Of course in the completely free world there would be no such law. But there could be a non-government organization that would, upon request, inspect the building process and give its stamp of approval if the building met the standard. This stamp of approval might be of business value to the contractor, the landlord, the person who sells the building, and of interest to the person who buys it or rents. The contractor or landlord could even brag the the building exceeds the standard. There could be several companies in the inspecting business, perhaps competing. A landlord might brag that his buliding exceeds the standards of all of them. The vaue of the stamp of approval would depend on the reputation of the inspecting company. ---- About doctors: (slightly off specified topics, but on the same general idea) Roughly the same idea would apply to doctors as to buildings. For my purposes, I consider any doctor who is not IAHP certified a quack. http://iahp.cisnet.com/ The following doctors are IAHP certified. http://drbass.com/ http://www.iig.com.au/anl/fielder.html http://goldberg.getwebspace.com/doctor.html http://healingbyregeneration.com/ http://vetrano.cjb.net/ http://www.alecburton.com/ http://drsidhwa.com/

On the subject of whether science and government mix: I read somewhere that there are three and only three valid functions of government. These are: police, courts, military. Under which of these three functions would you put science?

Considering that you asked, I guess it's proper for me to answer. Be careful what you ask, you might get an answer. Herbert Shelton was definitely NOT an Objectivist. But Shelton was an intellectual giant, and Bo7b Wynman, who admires both Ayn Rand and Shelton, commented more than once over the years that if Rand and Shelton could have met and learned from each other, that would have been a great event. Bo7b Wynman thinks they were geniuses in opposite ways. I tend to agree. But if you really truly want to know about Herbert Shelton, here is one of his best books: http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglib...e/020125toc.htm Also there are many more free books, a few by Shelton: http://www.soilandhealth.org/ Shelton was a man with a mission. He passionately devoted his life to the subject of health. Shelton goes down in history as the man who fanned the "dying embers to fierce flame" by his writings, and he salvaged a whole body of literature from oblivion.. I have no opinion about Shelton on CroMagnon man. That's the first time I saw that myself. I don't know what to make of it. Here is a passage from Shelton: --- [begin quote] --- Since the morning stars first sang together no single event has occurred in this earth of ours more significant in its nature and more instructive in its consequences than the rebirth of Hygiene. Hygiene holds out to every human being the most perfect health, the best physical and mental development, the most entire liberty and the most perfect happiness of which man is capable. In that glorious future which is even now, with the aid of our advancing knowledge, opening before us, when man shall live in a day-long, life-long observance of the laws of his being, there shall be no diseased life, no painful death. Such unceasing obedience of the laws of life can result only in health and length of life. Happiness and peace shall reign where now is misery and strife. Beyond that, what is there to be wished for? We assume radical ground for Hygiene and insist, as we have done for years, that if the Hygienic revolution is permitted to complete itself, it will sweep over the world with its saving message and means. Before it, in its majestic march, the prejudices and false theories of centuries, the passions of the interested, the opposition of physicians and the cynicism of skeptics will fall. The gross habits of the masses, the wretched modes of life of the more particular and select, the thoughtless, careless conduct of the guardians of youth, the prevailing ignorance of the laws of life and the yet worse indifference on the part of those who have been set apart to proclaim to man the "way to heaven," will all be destroyed and a new, fresh, unsophisticated life will evolve. Out of this turbid, dark, half-chaotic mass will evolve good health, physical beauty and intellectual and moral excellence. What poor creatures are men and women! How little do they do that lasts! They are born, they suffer, they die and are forgotten. They give birth to offspring that suffer and die as they do. How departure from the laws of being has tamed man and shorn him of his pristine glory! How it has destroyed the image of his Maker from his face and left in its place horrible disfigurement! How it has dimmed his eyes and quenched the bright flash these should wear! How it has bowed the back of once majestic man till his carriage resembles that of felon or slave! How it has robbed his heart of noble impulse and planted there instead low desire and passion! How it has transformed man! With exceptions so rare as to be remarkable, man has presented himself in every phase a creature of low, grovelling appetites and passions, a bond-slave to desires that are abnormal and overpowering. His higher faculties have been subordinated to his propensities, his habits are masters of his principles; his convictions constantly yield to his desires. His aims are low, his gratifications lower; his successes, about which he boasts and swaggers, are sheer fictions; his achievements are practical defeats. From all this degradation and defilement, from this low tone of existence, this groveling in indulgence, this hibernation in darkness, this sub-bestial life, is there no deliverance? Are no means of redemption at hand? There is the primrose path of self-destruction; is there no straight and narrow way to health and happy old age? Let the truthful answer be to all these questions: yes, there is a way to superior health. To those of us who love our bad habits and who refuse to look at them in the bright light of noonday to see what they really are and who refuse to give them up, either for health or for life, but will die first, there is no redemption. For the rest of us, if we start new and saving habits and keep them growing until they have smothered the bad ones, we will have laid the foundation for future health. When all of mankind has been freed from the thralldom of disease-producing habits --- [end quote] --- Another passage: --- [begin quote] --- Our highest ideals, whether of manhood and womanhood or of institutions and life, are merely foreshadowings of possible realities. The wildest speculations of one age become the common-place facts of the next. We may seek every day for the perfect man and woman; but we are not, therefore, justified in declaring that they are never to be found. Perfection comes within the range of human capability. It is a possibility for the race if not for the individual. "There is no telling what tall oak may grow from this little acorn, especially if it is warmed with golden sunshine and watered with silver showers." --- [end quote] --- Warning: Be careful when you ask a question, you might get an answer.

Perhaps a concretization of this question would help. Would smoking be an example of this? Would a person with the disease PKU who intentionally and knowingly eats a diet high in phenylalanine, when he could do otherwise, knowing that this is bad for PKU, be an example of this? Would a person who refuses to wear a helmet when he rides a motorcycle and then gets a concussion and is paralyzed in the hospital for a few months be an example of this? Maybe the first time he didn't know better. What if he does it the second time? I have extreme difficulty understanding philosophy if it is not concretized. Am I the only person in this group who has this difficulty?

There are good fats and bad fats. We need good fats. A low-fat diet can cause health problems. I've seen horror stories about people who lived on a low-fat diet. If the damage is not too far, their health problems tend to recover when they increase the good fats. Low-fat diet is a mistake made by many heath-minded people. There is plenty of evidence that correct life style can reduce heart disease, etc.

We are limited by our genetic potential, at least with current technology. Even the genetically best humans are limited to 90 to 130 years or so no matter how healthy they live. But we can try to achieve or approach our genetic potential. The goal of living healthy is not to live long but to be healthy while we are alive. (Altho that tends to add a few years as a bonus.) Some people live long and are in very bad condition but in such a way that doesn't kill them. For example one does not die of blindness or of deafness or of senility. For me energy is more important than longevity. For example I can accomplish more in two hours with energy than in two months without energy. This is not an exaggeration. Some people do in one lifetime what some very capable people would take 10 very productive lifetimes to do. Energy (of body and of mind) is a very important factor in productivity and enjoyment of life and everything that you might want to do with your life. An old man 100 years old was the oldest employee in Canada. He was asked for advice how to live long. His advice was: "Don't die."

Somehow the following passage from Shelton seemed relevant to the discussion about Ayn Rand heroes. --- [begin quote from Shelton] --- Some years ago, I walked into the Hall of The Age of Man in the Museum of Natural History, in New York City. Inside the entrance, on a table, was a display of skulls. In the middle was a beautiful skull. It was larger than the other two, was beautifully proportioned and very symmetrical. The two smaller skulls were disproportionate and asymmetrical. I stopped and surveyed them a minute and remarked to my wife, who was with me, "The one in the middle is a human skull! The other two must be the skulls of apes-perhaps a gorilla and an orangutan." Now there are great differences between the skulls of man and ape, but the contrast between these skulls was so great, that I was fooled for the time. Imagine my chagrin when, upon approaching the table, I found that those two skulls were the skulls of modern European and American white men. The one in the middle was the skull of an old Cro-magnon man. What a fine head that old man had! If the rest of his organism was as much superior to the bodies of modern man as his head is superior to the heads of living man, what a super-man he must have been! We have come a long way down the slope since those far off days when the men of Cro-magnon painted and carved in their caves. The Hygienic System alone holds out to us the possibility of re-ascending that hill and re-attaining the position once occupied by the men of Cro-magnon. It has been suggested that the Greek gods and goddesses were Cro-magnon. Perhaps. --- [end quote from Shelton] --- Perhaps Cro-magnon man would have at least looked like an Ayn Rand hero.

I guess I qualify as what you call "straight-edge" altho I don't think of it as a philosophy or as any big deal. To me, this is just normal. Also this is the first time I saw the term "straight edge". And, contrary to what some people probably expect, I am not self-righteous or anything like that. I don't belong to a group or a cult or anything like that. I merely try to make rational decisions for myself. I don't give a rat's @$$ about decisions other people make for themselves. Not consuming alcohol does not in any way impair my ability to interact with people or to enjoy life. And I am not into some special kind of music that is somehow associated with living "straight-edge". Most people probably see me as weird, but they don't have any problem with me. To me it is obvious that a rational person tries to make rational decisions in everyday matters of living.

Apart from tobacco, this is of course true, at least of rational people, if they know the true merits and demerits of the product. Which leads to the next subject. There is a very serious danger here. If you want government (eg FDA) to tell people what is fraud and what is not fraud, that is a mistake. http://www.whale.to/vaccine/fda2.html "The thing that bugs me is that the people think the FDA is protecting them. It isn’t. What the FDA is doing and what the public thinks it’s doing are as different as night and day."—Dr Ley former Commissioner of the FDA. This is the history of the FDA. Corrupt as 773H. http://www.swankin-turner.com/hist.html The solution is to get FDA out of the way and let consumers protect consumers, just as janitors can take care of janitors (as Rand said). Also get rid of the Food Disparagement Act and any similar law. Howard Lyman on the Oprah show told some millions of people that cattle are fed "protein concentrate" which includes manure etc. This is true. The audience was shocked. Oprah swore off hamburger. The sales of beef went down. Howard and Oprah were sued by the cattle industry under the Food Disparagement Act. They won because the judged ruled that we have freedom of speech. But ever since, Oprah was reluctant to do shows that criticize food. In a completely free world, there would be no such thing as a food disparagement act, and there would be freedom to criticize the gajabors out of products and there would be no need for the FDA. Whatever FDA may have started out being, now it is about politics in the dirtiest sense of the word and has nothing to do with health and nothing to do with science and there is no justification for its existence..