The Philosophy and Efficacy of Health Care

The American ethic is about individualism—which makes the false assumption that the individual is more important than the group.

(CALGARY, Alberta) - I’ve said it many times before and I’ll repeat it again: The one reliable aspect of democracy is that you can almost always count on people to vote against their own best interests. And Americans, the most democratically mythologized country in the world—even in history—rely on their Constitution in the same way that the Israelites relied on the tablets that Moses brought down from Mount Sinai.

In opposing universal health care, many Americans accept the myths of the nation’s founding as trumping the realities of the 21st century—no matter how harmful or contradictory those beliefs are to themselves and the nation as a whole.

Hilary Clinton tried to reform American healthcare system almost twenty years ago, but the Republicans reared up on their hind legs and prevented it. True, the Clintons were in part authors of their own failures, but it should not have made any difference. Rule 1: Americans tend to believe myth over reality. Rule 2: All human beings (except many Americans) are social creatures.

There’s one word that Americans have been brainwashed into rejecting in all its variations: social. They have been taught to chain the word social—socialism—cooperation—government—communism—statism—totalitarianism…no matter that there is little or no connection between some of the words. Americans have been afraid of communism for so long, that it’s in their cultural DNA and they unconsciously do a reverse chain—anything to do with government or activities that involve social cooperation or social interaction, is vilified as a step on the road to the hated and feared communism.

I can present an example from here in Republican Alberta. In 1956 a consumer cooperative was started in Calgary. More than half a century later, it is one of the largest (if not the largest) consumer cooperatives in North America. It has over 435,000 members, 4,000 employees, assets of $374 million and annual sales of $1.06 billion. It currently operates 22 food centres, 22 pharmacies, 26 gas bars, seven travel offices and 18 liquor stores.

I was working with a woman named Fay and we got talking one day and I asked her what part of town she lived in. She told me approximately where she lived which was about two blocks from one of the Co-op stores. Oh, I said, you must shop at the Co-op. She became quite indignant and said: I’d never shop there. That’s socialism.

What she couldn’t understand was that the Co-op is a voluntary organization (costs $1 to join) and that at the end of each year, shareholder profits are divided among the membership proportional to the amount of their purchases. It’s called a patronage refund. In 2006, $33 million was distributed to the membership. From 1957 to 2006, Calgary Coop returned more than $450 million to members. Fay shopped at Safeway and at the end of the year the profits went to the Safeway shareholders and she received nothing. On an individual level (like many Americans) she let ideology stand in the way of her own best interest.

Here is a larger, more relevant example. Political scientist Francis Fox Piven wrote:

“During 1968 in New York City, for example, approximately 150,000 families were eligible for wage subsidies (according to the welfare department’s own estimates), but only about 15,000 families were claiming them.

“That few people know the welfare regulations only partly explains this peculiar situation, for even when poor families are informed of the funds available to them, they usually refuse to claim the payments. That the working poor are ready to forfeit such substantial funds is powerful testimony to the force with which the ideology of work and success, together with abhorrence of the dole, has been driven home to those who gain the least from their labor. It is especially powerful testimony considering that, while the poor shun ‘the dole,’ affluent groups profit greatly and regularly from public subsidies of many kinds.”

Leonard Peikoff, as a Randroid, may be a bit of a straw man here, but in opposing the Clinton health plan, he did lay out some of the fundamental American objections. In a December 1993 speech opposing the Clinton health care proposal titled ”Health Care is not a right” he said:

”Most people who oppose socialized medicine do so on the grounds that it is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical; i.e., it is a noble idea—which just somehow does not work. I do not agree that socialized medicine is moral and well-intentioned, but impractical. Of course, it is impractical—it does not work—but I hold that it is impractical because it is immoral”.

Against all the evidence of public healthcare in Canada and Europe—he simply denies that it works. But, his main argument is about morality.

”What is morality in this context? The American concept of it is officially stated in the Declaration of Independence. It upholds man's unalienable, individual rights. The term "rights," note, is a moral (not just a political) term; it tells us that a certain course of behavior is right, sanctioned, proper, a prerogative to be respected by others, not interfered with — and that anyone who violates a man's rights is: wrong, morally wrong, unsanctioned, evil”.

“Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them. The very fact that he needs these services so desperately is the proof that he had better respect the freedom, the integrity, and the rights of the people who provide them”.

“The only hope—for the doctors, for their patients, for all of us—is for the doctors to assert a moral principle. I mean: to assert their own personal individual rights—their real rights in this issue—their right to their lives, their liberty, their property, their pursuit of happiness. The Declaration of Independence applies to the medical profession too. We must reject the idea that doctors are slaves destined to serve others at the behest of the state.

“I'd like to conclude with a sentence from Ayn Rand. Doctors, she wrote, are not servants of their patients. They are ‘traders, like everyone else in a free society, and they should bear that title proudly, considering the crucial importance of the services they offer’.”

There, in essence, is the American argument against “socialized medicine”. It’s clear in this context why Canada and European nations are comfortable with “socialized medicine”. They have not been brainwashed by the American mythology. They are able to see, accept and understand a bigger picture.

The American ethic is about individualism—which makes the false assumption that the individual is more important than the group. This totally misses the symbiosis between the two aspects of society—the group can exist without individuals, but an individual cannot exist without a group. As Lewis Thomas writes:

"The most intensely social animals can only adapt to group behavior. Bees and ants have no option when isolated, except to die. There is really no such creature as a single individual; he has no more life of his own than a cast-off cell marooned from the surface of your skin."

We are not bees or ants, but we are social creatures. No human can survive as an “individual” although the Constitution is based on the concept of individuality which was an idea that came out of the Enlightenment, influenced primarily by the philosophers Montesquieu, John Locke and David Hume. In the more than two centuries since these men wrote, their ideas have evolved and been superseded. The Constitution, on the other hand, has stood still and Americans haven’t even noticed.

Rand, just quoted, said that doctors are, like everyone else in society, traders. This is true. You want your toilet unplugged, you pay a plumber; you want your car tuned up, you pay a mechanic; you have a heart attack, you pay a doctor.

Wait a minute, it’s not that simple! We need many things in society. Some are luxuries (vacations), some are conveniences (automobile to drive to work, instead of public transit) and some are essential for life itself (food). Some things we only need occasionally—like medical care, especially as we get older.

I personally have been very fortunate in that I had no need of medical care for more than thirty years. I took what I called the René Levesque approach. He was the late Quebec premier who avoided doctors almost all his adult life, saying that doctors mean trouble.

I’m going to tell you something now that no one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever said before that lies at the foundation of the health care imbroglio. Doctors do not own their medicine!. Let me explain.

The practise of medicine goes back to the beginning of history and before. The original physicians were priests and witch-doctors. Such individuals were always high status in their society. The modern doctor is no different.

How does a person become a doctor? First, he goes through twelve years of publicly paid schooling. Some attend private schools because they were fortunate enough to be born into a family wealthy enough to afford such privileges.

After that he attends university and medical school both of which are funded either by public money, or the money of philanthropists. In either case, the prospective doctor pays only a relatively token amount in tuition.

The doctor then becomes an intern at a hospital, funded again by public money. In this case all the expensive tools he needs, from the facility itself, to all the costly diagnostic equipment he has access to for treatment of his patients are supplied at no cost to himself.

And what of all the knowledge he crams into his skull? It, too, comes to him as a no-cost gift from all the dead practitioners who came before. This, in fact, applies to everyone in society, not just doctors.

“post-social, in the sense that he brought with him into his accidental isolation not only many artefacts of the culture that formed him—guns, an axe, saws, nails, etc. from the shipwreck—but also the skills and concepts formed in that culture, his calculation of times and seasons, of means to accomplish tasks without a long process of trial and error over what works and what does not. He had an accumulation of practical knowledge (which things are edible, which animals are useful, how to make and control fire, and so on). The society he left not only made his axe, which was so useful to him as a weapon or tool. It made him. He knows what to do with the axe, how to build with it, keep it from rust, turn it to things it can accomplish most efficiently. He learned all those things through prior social intercourse, before he was isolated. In order to imagine a truly pre-social individual, we would have to think of a Crusoe with total amnesia about the world he had left without any artefacts from that world. Would such a person in fact be freer than when he was back in England, no matter how undemocratic the government he had been living under?”

The only thing a prospective physician brings to profession is his native curiosity and intelligence. Everything else is supplied by his family and society itself. This is the nature of social existence.

Americans, as I mentioned earlier, deny this social existence and claim priority for individuality. This is impossible as a Google search for “feral children” will show. There are well documented cases of what are called feral children, children raised in the wild by animals (usually wolves) and when returned to society, they cannot be fully socialized. Depending on their age when found, some cannot even learn to speak.

Now, having said these apparently critical things about the medical profession, it’s important to recognize that it applies to everyone in all walks of life. People with mechanical inclinations become technicians, people with empathetic understanding of people become salesmen, and so on. With whatever inherent intelligence and skills they have, people earn their living in a wide variety of ways. We have just lost sight of the fact that people in different walks of life are not sui generis.

Doctors, for the most part, take their apparent uniqueness seriously and, as a profession, have ended up with a technocratic arrogance. As physician Robert Buckman writes in his book Magic or Medicine?

"The truth is that medicine has never been the major factor in improving the health of large populations; doctors are experts in changing the lives of seriously ill individuals, but rarely as skilled in dealing with large communities. It has now been shown to the satisfaction even of doctors that the largest decreases in the most dangerous infections of this century occurred on a country-wide scale many years before the advances in medical science that brought about cures (or prevention) in individuals. Tuberculosis had already declined dramatically by the time streptomycin was introduced; scarlet fever and diphtheria had dwindled before vaccination; and polio was on the run long before the Salk and Sabin vaccines. This does not diminish the achievements of medical science—it is just that sanitation, housing and living standards in general have always been more important factors than medical advances in the true health of a population."

“A friend of mine was recently told that he had advanced cancer of the intestines. He should prepare for the worst. Forty-eight hours later, on the operating table, it was discovered that he had appendicitis. This was no more than an error; a frightening one, but errors are bound to occur. What was revealing was the reaction of the doctors. They denied any error. They described the event as a one-in-a-million medical oddity. They had done everything correctly, followed all the rules. Not only was there no apology, the patient was left to feel somehow responsible. Somehow a troublesome, non-conforming oddity. Instrumentalism, obsessive structuralism, narrow professionalism; all of these force sensible, intelligent people to think, speak and, if necessary, act in an irrational manner.”

In the same vein, concludes physician Robert Mendelsohn in Confessions of a Medical Heretic: “Modern medicine is an idolatrous religion, for what it holds sacred are not living things but mechanical processes. It doesn’t boast of saving souls or lives but of how many times this or that new machine was used and how much money was taken in by the process.”

"In Montana, a change in financing of private hospitals led to many general hospitals quickly changing themselves into psychiatric hospitals. Unfortunately, there were not enough patients to fill them, so there was a sudden epidemic of new diagnoses. Teenagers who had failing grades at school were now diagnosed as psychiatrically disturbed (with a major advertising campaign to get the point across to the parents) and were admitted to hospital—at four times the rate that occurred in neighboring Utah. Adolescence was clearly a disease in Montana. Is it a disease in Utah or anywhere else, and, if so, is it being under-diagnosed everywhere except Montana?"

From my own observations over the years part, probably a major part, of the problem with the health system is overuse. I have known people who, as soon as they had a runny nose or cough, they ran off to the doctor or clinic—wasting the doctor’s time and draining public resources. It’s well known that the vast majority of human ailments go away on their own requiring no medical intervention whatsoever.

I can testify to this from my own experience. When I was in my twenties and thirties, I used to get pneumonia fairly frequently--once every year or two. I never went to a doctor except on one occasion on the insistence of my wife. The doctor examined me and said I had double pneumonia. But, he added, I had come too late because I was almost clear of it.

My strategy when I got pneumonia was simple. I would climb into bed with every blanket and quilt I could lay my hands on and just bake it out. I would sleep a lot and not feel very well, but in two or three days at the most I was cured. I never even took anything so simple as an aspirin.

I know that in this sense I am fortunate, but I hardly think I am unique. If people could learn to trust that they have their own healing powers, it would take a significant amount of pressure off the health care system.

"The change of focus from people-doctoring to scientific disease-doctoring produced some major side effects. Although the improvement in the science was a great help to those conditions that would benefit from the mechanistic approach, it had no effect at all on a wholly separate class of conditions for which patients sought the help of a healer. A large percentage of patients' visits to doctors are not for 'scientifically treatable' diseases at all, but for conditions of disease caused by psycho-social or emotional factors (at least 30 per cent, perhaps up to 60 per cent of all visits). In these cases, conventional doctors search in vain for signs of the diseases that were defined and taught at medical school."

"The idea of 'a pill for every ill' never became reality because unfortunately a large number of human ills are not treatable with pills (or surgery or radiation), but require that other part of health care—the healer....The exact definition of what constitutes a disease or an illness is determined not by biology but by society."

Medical science has created its wonders (e.g. organ transplants) and it has its gifted practitioners as healers, but I believe the greater problem (not just in the U.S.) is the mis-education of the population at large. The overwhelming majority of people get their medical knowledge from TV. By coincidence, Reuters today (February 14, 2010) reported a study by researchers from Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia. They found that from 327 episodes of “Grey's Anatomy," "House," "Private Practice" and "ER", nearly half the time, TV doctors and nurses do the wrong thing in responding to seizures.

I would bet that if people were properly educated into what medicine can and cannot do, medical costs could be cut at least in half. Break your arm? Go to a doctor. Have a stroke? Go to a hospital. But other than obvious medical situations, stay home and look after yourself. People, I’m sure, would be genuinely surprised if they could learn how powerful self-healing can be. Buckman reports:

"A remarkable example of the complex interactions in medical treatment was cited by Stewart Wolf of the University of Oklahoma. He told of a patient with long-standing and almost continuous asthma who obtained no relief from a series of drugs tried by the treating doctor. When an experimental drug with a high promise of effectiveness became available, a supply was obtained by the doctor. The new drug relieved the asthmatic symptoms immediately. When it was stopped, the asthma returned. The doctor substituted a placebo without the patient's knowledge; this failed to relieve symptoms. Shifts from new drug to placebo and back again were tried several times with consistent results in favour of the experimental agent. When the pharmaceutical company was approached for an additional supply, the doctor was amazed to learn that, because of worry about unjustified claims, the company had, in this instance, provided only a placebo preparation. The patient had never received an active drug at all."

Salem-News.com Top Stories

2025: Hope for the Best, Prepare for the Worst

Two Wars with No Way Out

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Bania July 17, 2012 10:43 pm (Pacific time)

Hi Sunshine,Individual health inrcsanue is must for following reasons:1. Whether you have any financial dependents or not, you are responsible for your own health care expenditures. And cost of medical treatments are rising every day.2. Now days it is very common for people to switch jobs, so when you switch you are medically un insured till you join new job. It also changes the type of cover offered by every employer and may not suit your needs.3. Also medicliam offered by your employer usually doesn't cater for critical illnesses, which is also important now days.So it is important for every earning individual to have individual health inrcsanue. Regarding denial rate, if you take precautions then there won't be any denial for a valid claim.I do have critical illness care and surgi care policy from HDFC Standard life and I am satisfied with it.If you need further explanation, you may contact me or any financial planner.Regards,Pranav

February 18, 2010 2:38 pm (Pacific time)

Sweden has a fantastic healthcare program. People live much longer because there are no waiting periods for treatment. It is the best. Same thing in England and Canada.

byafi February 17, 2010 11:57 am (Pacific time)

Since you cannot understand the issue of coercion by government, I don't expect you to recognize that Sweden is socialist only to the extent that its citizens earnings are extorted. Socialism is always by force. I regret that this isn't a discussion about coercion, as that is the only topic that matters.

Okay, let's talk about coercion. Sweden is one of the most peaceful, civilized nations in the world. They have a homicide rate of 0.89/100k. In the US its 5.4, more than six times higher. I would say that people being murdered against their will is pretty coercive.

byafi February 17, 2010 10:00 am (Pacific time)

Pretty amazing: I accuse you of advocating government force - and violence - to compel citizens to participate in your collective health care system, and you talk about violence in the streets. No wonder communication is difficult. No matter; if you must force participation, it isn't the best solution for all (obviously). Not only does socialism never work, it can't even be tried without the use of force. And facile comparisons with voluntary cooperatives merely distract from the main issue, the use of force to achieve political (and other) ends.

I guess my comment about violence was a little too subtle for you to understand. Socialism can never work? What about Sweden? QED. What about the U.S? There is a prime example of democracy not working.

ORACLE February 17, 2010 7:29 am (Pacific time)

CANADIAN EFFICACY! NO DOUBT CANADA HAS DEMONSTRATED A COMPLETE LACK OF PROFICIENCY IN ANYTHING THEY ATTEMPT AS PER BELOW COPYRIGHT STORY CLEARLY PROVES. THIRD WORLD STATUS IS COMING SOON AS THEY WILL CONTINUE TO FALTER. MAY ALL CANADIANS REALIZE THAT IT IS THE RADICALS THAT MUST BE REMOVED "PHYSICALLY" FROM THEIR LAND. SOONER THE BETTER! "Woe, Canada! Olympic problems and missteps pile up The cancellation of 20,000 more tickets to events at Cypress Mountain, on top of myriad other woes, is putting Vancouver Olympics organizers increasingly on the defensive as they attempt to salvage the world's impressions of the Games taking place here." LOOOOOSERS...By Jack Broom Seattle Times staff reporter

In 1988, Calgary put on one of the most successful Olympics, ever. Probably before you were born.

Hank Ruark February 16, 2010 7:08 pm (Pacific time)

...And then it got worse. Thank Tim for his patience and kind restraint re the gormless making his channel contribution that much more meaningless for serious readers interested in what the report by DJ stated. THAT's the purpose here, NOT gormless repetition of psychologically driven search for personal "win" via having last word in gormless debate. Would you stand up in any public place, with ID hanging out for those there who know you, and do same thing ? I doubt it...and if you really would do so, then that psychological symptom is that much more highly evident. DJ, report is solid, as is your usual stuff...keep firing even when encountering such gormless goggling as some of this one. (Documentation for ref. to psychological symptom on request to Tim with working phone and complete ID.)

Daniel Johnson February 16, 2010 6:54 pm (Pacific time)

What makes the Salem-News contributors (including me) stand out is that we have open minds and tend to read widely. This why so many come to our site. They expect to be informed and challenged in their way of thinking, and they are not disappointed.

One comment on this story brought up the subject of violence. This reminded me of the "Back Story" in the Dec 28/Jan 4 2010 issue of Newsweek, so I just dug it out.

The title is "What do the bestsellers of 2009 say about us?" The result, to a Canadian, is not surprising. The results were:

God, politics 10% each
Vampires 20%
youth 40%
sex 45%
money 60%
violence 70%

Not a positive picture, but many Americans are more concerned with things like opposing universal health care and gun control.

Tim King February 16, 2010 6:23 pm (Pacific time)

Anyone with a brain knows that Canada has a mere fraction of the crime of the U.S. Anyone who says otherwise is a blatant liar who is easily disproved.

What kind of a name is Diki? February 16, 2010 6:12 pm (Pacific time)

Daniel, you present solid facts and they can't change those facts or outwit you, just consider who you are dealing with. These are rich snobby little Americans who could give a rip whether their neighbors, fellow countrymen, etc. have health coverage, that makes them non-rate human beings. They don't have a love of their fellow man, they try to repeat the same old lines and they get mad and bang their little fists like babies over it, they have no worth at all. I would just delete their little words because they have no meaning. Some day they will deal with their decisions on this earth, and the only motivation they have involves their time here on earth, so I doubt that will go very well. As I always remind rich mean asses, 'burial cloaks have no pockets'. Oh yes, I favor wealth redistribution in ways that would make these guys pee their pants.

Dexter February 16, 2010 4:50 pm (Pacific time)

Diki, I think we are swaying way off the point of the story here... If I had describe the whole situation here when describing the water elements as people in general. I would call this whole thing... as what oil rig workers use to refer to is "“Wet H2S cracking” Think of the water as the pro free health care, and the H2s as the anti pro Health care. It just does not mix, and when this does happen, very tedious, dangerous problems will occur until the whole situation is resolved. Until we all find a compromise that fits all, and cures this rather tricky dilemma, it is going to cause an extremely high risk to all of us.

Diki February 16, 2010 6:03 pm (Pacific time)

Don't waste your time, byafi. His mind is "closed like a steel trap," and no amount of logic will penetrate his preconceived notions. At first, he didn't even start a discussion; he jumped straight to insulting me right off the bat. The first thing he said in response to me was, "I can lead you to knowledge, but I can't make you think," which he was quick to delete and replace with the currently displayed first response. When I came back with more points (which he ended up never addressing), he ignored my words completely and called my argument gormless. That's right: he called me stupid, rather than participating in constructive discourse. And look now, he is insulting byafi, rather than actually discussing anything byafi said. His statements are utterly condescending (see "smug"). Are you all really so blind that you cannot see how completely lacking in substance Johnson is? You folks on his side should re-evaluate how highly you think of him. Don't bother wasting your time by responding, Johnson; you've made it very clear that your definition of "argument" is just as bizarre as your definition of "individual."

I've been writing (and publishing my stuff) for more than 35 years. Not everyone agrees with my conclusions, or points of view, but you're the first to suggest that my arguments are "bizarre". Your comment is like the proud mother watching the soldiers march by: "Look, everyone is out of step but my son Diki". I have to wonder why you keep coming back to these comments.

Mike February 16, 2010 6:02 pm (Pacific time)

"Thanks. Here in Canada we have universal healthcare and there is so much violence that I take my life in my hands every time I cross the street for fear of being shot or mugged. I hear things are equally satisfactory in Europe." This doen not apply where you live in Calgary, and here in Oregon we are just as urban with a similar population, but have just 1/2 of your murder rate. We Americans often consider all politics as being local, ditto for crime and quality of life. Gormless huh? How about myopic? Fatuous? Uninformed? Plain wrong?

Gormless I call you and gormelss you are. A typical American who has almost no knowledge of Canada, it's largest trading partner and international friend all these decades.

You want to compare Oregon to Alberta suggesting that Oregon is "just as urban with a similar population". You should check your facts before you hit the keyboard. The populations of Oregon and Alberta are about the same but Oregon is not similarly urban. O's largest city is Portland at just under 600k. O's ten large cities total about 1.5 million. Alberta's two largest cities, Calgary and Edmonton, are more than a million each. As for homicide rate we are much lower than O's but as an American you don't like to acknowledge your native culture of violence.

byafi February 16, 2010 5:27 pm (Pacific time)

I may be "gormless" (whatever that means), but you are still advocating force and violence. Best of luck.

Thanks. Here in Canada we have universal healthcare and there is so much violence that I take my life in my hands every time I cross the street for fear of being shot or mugged. I hear things are equally satisfactory in Europe.

Roger von Bütow February 16, 2010 4:46 pm (Pacific time)

Actually this whatever-it-is (not sure if it's actual dialogue or just truncated monologues) reminds me of a famous migraine headache-producing dialogue written by Plato: PARMENIDES. Maybe y'all should read it a few times, it's kind of the "ESCHER" of such tidbits. We were given this in one of my advanced logic classes, it's not that long but is as convoluted and better yet written by one dude. I'm not sure if Socrates knew he would become a stage prop, a foil frozen in time like a fly stuck in amber, but every time I read it I take away the same brain freeze. It is good exercise for those who like things like DJ's column.

byafi February 16, 2010 3:35 pm (Pacific time)

You replied, "Force? Where does force come into play, pray tell." I'll play along. In the current discussion, force is the means by which your neighbors are made to contribute to "universal" health care, no matter what their needs.
P.S. The individual is not just more important than the collective, the individual is the only economic entity of any importance. (See Mises, _Human Action_)

Are you gormless like your friend Diki who doesn't understand the symbiosis between the individual and the group? Don't bother responding, because I've wasted too much time on this issue with people whose minds are closed like a steel trap. Unfortunately, the mind is locked down before there is anything in it.

Jeff Kaye~ February 16, 2010 2:27 pm (Pacific time)

Good, provocative article, as usual, Daniel. Thank you, Hank, for reading my mind about this Dikless Diki wasting space, spouting inane blather ad nauseum. POS indeed. Knowledge is a powerful thing, but not for an imbecile reduced to foul-mouthed ever-shrinking (thank God) diatribes as his pointless prattle peters out.

Diki February 16, 2010 12:32 pm (Pacific time)

I know what "gormless" means, you smug POS.

Those who don't know and wilfully keep their minds clouded, only have name-calling as a last resort.

BTW, I'm not smug. I just know things and I don't pretend otherwise.

Hank Ruark February 16, 2010 8:35 am (Pacific time)

To all: Sorry, friends, but to me this dialog was mostly an horrendous waste of time. DJ's point re medical myth and massive malpractice, with or without myth as motive, was valid, intriguing, worth full time-spent to read.
Happens I, too, have had the self-cure system work well for me --but with exceptions, too. Re "individual"-def., for me will accept Random House or any other standard -- and fly away... Rest was, for me, ridiculous repetition and only personal reaction, wrecking, ridiculing real impact of facts laid out by report. No skin abraded for either or any dialoger...but do now suggest "direct contact" when obvious side/issue takes over from topic itself. Disclosure: "Guilty as charged" re own/stuff, even before anyone charges !!

Thanks for your comment Hank, and for reading all the posts. Turns out I could lead the guy to knowledge but I couldn't make him think. I wonder if he looked up "gormless" as I had suggested. LOL

Diki February 15, 2010 7:50 pm (Pacific time)

Actually, no. I am using widely accepted definitions of both words. The definition of individual I use here is one of THE most common meanings. Shall I reference a more standardized dictionary (as opposed to dictionary.com)? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "individual (noun)" as simply "an indivisible entity," rendering your rambling about the word "distinct" irrelevant. Definition 3 of distinct is very common in usage (see its example phrase) and does not imply a difference or group at all. So, once again, as it seems very common in this fruitless discussion (if you can even call it a discussion), the intellectual belittlings which you direct at me apply only to you. You're just throwing a fit because you can't prove me wrong.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I'm just trying to find something that we can agree on. Dictionary.com btw is based on the Random House Dictionary. Me rambling about "distinct"? You were the one that brought that word into the discussion.

I'll state my thesis one more time: A group is a collection of items. If those items are indistinguishable, then there is no individuality because you cannot point to one as being distinct from any of the others. And you can't bring up their physical separation because, as in your rock example, if you put two of them on a table and say the one on the left is your choice; then the table gets knocked over and both fall on the floor. Which, then, is your choice? If you can't tell items apart, then they are not individuals with the group.

Anonymous February 15, 2010 6:41 pm (Pacific time)

The trouble is I was not going by the 1st definition of distinct. Your question still fails to address the point. Does being unable to tell them apart make them any less individual? I'll give you a hint: no.

You're using what philosophers call a "private language" one that you use in ways that no one else shares. I cited a dictionary definition of "individual" which you won't accept. You introduced a definition for "distinct" that you won't accept either. So, no hard feelings but I can't see this going anywhere useful. I have other work to do tonight so I'll get back to that.

Diki February 15, 2010 6:11 pm (Pacific time)

My point is that whether or not you can tell them apart does not make them any less individual. Telling them apart is not necessary for my definition of individual; that applies only to your own.

I'll go with your first definition of distinct: "1. distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate". You've already said they are "identical" which means that by your definition they are not distinct. So, how do you tell them apart?

Diki February 15, 2010 5:41 pm (Pacific time)

My definition of distinct does not fit your definition of individual- at all, and your question is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. Your question presupposes that your definition of "individual" is correct; it acts not to prove your definition, but to accept it offhand, without thought. I will not be caught in this trickery. It is clear and unmistakable that each of the two rocks are separate, individual rocks. Just as it is clear and unmistakable that two men are separate, individual men.

It's not trickery. They are your rocks. If they are, indeed, "two rocks are separate, individual rocks" how do you tell them apart?

Diki February 15, 2010 5:03 pm (Pacific time)

No, we are not in agreement on what an individual is. Your bizarre definition literally requires a group, which appears to be our source of conflict. I've gone by something more like your definition #3 in the previous post: 3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item In other words, I go by a definition people actually use on a daily basis. Now let's define distinct, to clear up any possible confusion: 1. distinguished as not being the same; not identical; separate (sometimes fol. by from): His private and public lives are distinct. 2. different in nature or quality; dissimilar (sometimes fol. by from): Gold is distinct from iron. 3. clear to the senses or intellect; plain; unmistakable: The ship appeared as a distinct silhouette. 4. distinguishing or perceiving clearly: distinct vision. 5. unquestionably exceptional or notable: a distinct honor. 6. Archaic. distinctively decorated or adorned. It appears you would go by definition #1, which requires difference. I would be going by #3: "a clear, unmistakable, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item" "Individual" to me, and to most people I've seen and heard use the word my whole life, means, in a nutshell: "singular." Put two identical rocks (or even atoms or molecules, etc.) next to eachother, and they would still be referred to as individual rocks. This segues rather nicely into my original point that a group cannot exist without individuals: the concept of "many" is impossible without the concept of "one."

Your definition of distinct is basically the same as my definition of "individual". Okay, let's take your "two identical rocks". Let's say they've both been painted blue. If someone says, "give me the blue rock"--which one do you give them?

Diki February 15, 2010 4:09 pm (Pacific time)

Very well. We can start by addressing that paragraph, which you had thusfar ignored.

You wrote:

"So you are saying that because the belief they share does not differ between them, they are therefore not individuals. People aren't defined by who they agree or disagree with."

The first thing on which we have to agree is what an individual is. An individual is an element or object that differs in some defined way from others of the same type in a group. For example: Take a group of men. They are all physical individuals because they vary in terms of height, weight, age, etc. The key point here is that individuals differ in a defined way. Agreed?

Diki February 15, 2010 10:46 am (Pacific time)

So you are saying that because the belief they share does not differ between them, they are therefore not individuals. People aren't defined by who they agree or disagree with. Even if that belief they share is identical for each of them, they still came to believe it individually. Nobody decided for them what they would believe; each single person had to actively choose to believe it. If nobody actively chose to believe that one thing, the group of people who believe it would not have come into existence. Individuality does not require differentiation in the sense which you are touting. The fact that their minds are separate makes them individuals, and that is the only differentiation necessary. So it looks more like you are the one splitting up the issue. For someone asking people to see the bigger picture, you sure are ignoring it here.

If you want to go through this again, I'm willing, but it has to be step by step, so we can be clear on every point. Okay with you? If so, I'll respond to your comment in this post.

Diki February 15, 2010 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

All that has clarified for me is YOUR position, Daniel. Good day.

Diki February 15, 2010 2:11 pm (Pacific time)

You have not addressed a single thing I said about separate individual minds. Until you do, you have little of value to say. On a single group criterium where all individuals share the same stance or property, the fact that their minds are separate makes them distinctly individuals. As for your lone particle in completely empty space, you can say something about it without being in relation to anything else: is it spinning or not? Spinning is something relative to the particle itself, needless of anything external. You can also say that that particle is distinctly individual, as it is the only thing in existence. Is there anyone else reading these comments who sees how absurdly wrong Mr. Johnson is?

Go to dictionary.com and look up the word "gormless". That should clarify your position.

Daniel Johnson February 15, 2010 1:36 pm (Pacific time)

Is there anyone else reading these comments who is unsure of the relationship between individuals and groups?

Diki February 15, 2010 12:42 pm (Pacific time)

Well, as you have not posted or addressed the post I was referring to, I shall assume it did not go through and will now repost it:
So you are saying that because the belief they share does not differ between them, they are therefore not individuals. People aren't defined by who they agree or disagree with. Even if that belief they share is identical for each of them, they still came to believe it individually. Nobody decided for them what they would believe; each single person had to actively choose to believe it. If nobody actively chose to believe that one thing, the group of people who believe it would not have come into existence. Individuality does not require differentiation in the sense which you are touting. The fact that their minds are separate makes them individuals, and that is the only differentiation necessary. So it looks more like you are the one splitting up the issue. For someone asking people to see the bigger picture, you sure are ignoring it here.

In light of your response to my inquiry:
"an individual can only be defined in relation to other individuals. Thus, individuals require a group in order to exist."
That statement is little more than absurd. In your own article right here you address the existence of feral children, who exist just fine without a group of people. They are strange and socially inhibited, but they exist. That alone is enough to show the complete lack of thought behind that statement. An individual is still an individual regardless of how or even if they compare to other individuals.

An individual is an entity in relation to other entities if they can be differentiated from others in the group. The problem with this discussion is you keep changing your definition of individual (probably without realizing you're doing it). Go to dictionary.com and here is the definition of individual:

1. a single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2. a person: a strange individual.
3. a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item. (my underline added)

On what criteria is individuality defined. Let's consider a group of 100 people. We can divide them into men and women. Then all the men are the same in that on that one critera, they are indistinguishable--You cannot say that one man is more or less man than another. Or you can differentiate them on the basis of hair colour. Thus all the red-haired people are the same on that criteria. Or you can differentiate by height, weight, shoe size, etc.

I'll repeat what I wrote earlier: If you consider all the Catholics who believe in the Catechism as a group, then you have a group but no individuals because, on that criteria, you have no way to differentiate them. On the other side, an individual can only be defined in relation to other individuals. Thus, individuals require a group in order to exist.

Here's an extreme illustration. Think of the universe of empty space. It is absolutely empty. Then put a single atom in it. What can you say about that atom? Nothing, because there is nothing to relate it to. Is it moving or sitting still? In order to give it a location or movement in space, you would need at least two other atoms to give it a reference. Add a bunch more atoms and you have a group. Say they are oxygen atoms from my earlier example. They are a group, but how can you tell one from the other? You can't, on that criteria. Same with the Catholics who believe in the Catechism. On that criteria all the people are the same. You can't select one to be an individual because they are not differentiated from any of the others.

douglas benson February 15, 2010 11:55 am (Pacific time)

Nice article Dan .A couple of issues that you failed to mention ,the first being that the US has partial socialism allready . social sec, disabilty ,unemployment ,food stamps ect ect. All of which if you tried to take away or severly limit the public would go nuts . There are some concerns though such as goverment sticking thier noses in personal choices such as smoking ,eating,recreational drug use ect by the trojan horse of socialized medicine . The true resistance to reform is not the people of this country not wanting health care reform its how . Forced participation in health ins without serious regulation is just a big BJ to ins comp and their stockholders . Other countries have laws that limit profits and costs and are most likely the best model that this country could adopt . Prescription drugs are another big stumbling block for price control .As long as re-formulation is allowed costs will be excessive . This is a huge issue that most folks dont even know about and is why big pharma was willing to make huge payouts to keep them out of regulation . The we cant afford socialized medicine crowd is silly ,if we can pay out trillions for war we can afford a few billion a year for health care .What we cant afford is health care with health ins companies that pay out 431% returns to stockholders [2009 returns from health net stocks ] on the backs of taxpayers . Manditory health ins is crazy . I dont have an extra 100 dollars a month let alone 1200- 1600 to pay for health care without my employers health care package I cannot pay for health ins out of my pocket . Since I am un-employed that is not possible for me at all so that would make me a criminal or at the very least in debt to the goverment beyond my means to pay due to the fines for not insuring my family . Our current politicians are bought and paid for ,good luck getting them to bite the hand that feeds them .We need serious political reform before any type of health care reform is possible .We have spoken loud and clear that we want reform on many different issues but our voice has no meaning compared to big money for campains and personal gain . We need more control of how our elected officials vote once we elect them and in this age of instant communication, with a little personal involvement education ect. we could force them to vote our way by changing how they can vote on major issues .Our officials should be sent to washington with specific directions on how to vote on certain issues and allow the people to decide on all compromise on those issues . They are the servants of the people and we need some way to hold them to thier duty once they climb the hill.

Good points, Doug. Thanks for commenting.

Diki February 15, 2010 11:26 am (Pacific time)

Are you taking a while on your next response, or do I need to resubmit my post? The page doesn't say there's a comment waiting for approval, so I can't really be sure of what's happening.

I was away and am back, now. This returns me to my original statement. If you consider all the Catholics who believe in the Catechism as a group, then you have a group but no individuals because, on that criteria, you have no way to differentiate them. On the other side, an individual can only be defined in relation to other individuals. Thus, individuals require a group in order to exist. QED

Diki February 15, 2010 10:17 am (Pacific time)

Perhaps I was not clear enough when I said that every single person is an individual with an individual mind and individual thoughts. It does not matter how many ideas different people share: their thoughts are individual. They can share the content and results of their thoughts with eachother, but no one can think in place of another person. It would not matter if (by some miracle) two people agreed on literally everything: the process of their thinking is still individual, and they cannot know that they agree until they share their individual thoughts with eachother. The only way for a group to contain no individuals would be to eliminate individual minds by somehow combining them into one, such as with Star Trek's Borg.

Individuality is about differentiation. You're splitting up the issue. Stay with one criteria. Yes, people can have different thoughts, but I am talking only about one thought at a time as a criteria. If you gather together a group of people all of whom believe that the sky is blue, on that criteria alone, how do you differentiate one of them from another? You have a group of people, but no individuals. On that one belief, they are all the same, just like oxygen atoms.

Take religion as an example. If you have a group of Catholics and they all believe in the cathechism (which is a whole bunch of thoughts and concepts) how do you differentiate them as individuals? You can't. You would need one of them to believe a little differently, which would make them an individual. In that way they would no longer belong to the group of "people who believe in the catechism". By having slightly different beliefs, they would become a group of one on their own.

Diki February 15, 2010 10:01 am (Pacific time)

It seems my previous submission was premature. In response to your explanation: The difference between people and water molecules is that no two people are identical. You differentiate between people by actually looking at them. Even identical twins, with the exact same genetic code, are different from eachother. Your comparison is effectively meaningless. Every single person is an individual with an individual mind and individual thoughts. This is a fact that cannot be avoided (unless you manage to assimilate everyone into a borglike collective).

Yes, there are physical differences and there are individuals on that criteria. But if you have a group of people who all believe the same thing, how do you differentiate them and claim that any one of them is an individual?

Diki February 15, 2010 6:28 am (Pacific time)

"the group can exist without individuals, but an individual cannot exist without a group" OK, I'm calling BS. Without individuals, the group cannot exist at all. Without members, there cannot be a group. It is literally impossible. How could you possibly think that statement is logical?

The difference is between concepts like individuals and members. Think of a drop of water. It's made up of atoms of oxygen and hydrogen. Every atom of oxygen is identical to every other oxygen atom in the universe. Which one is an individual? Individuality means differentiation in some way. It's the same with many Americans. If they all believe believe the same thing, which one is the individual and, in the group, how do you tell one apart from another? Does that clear up your confusion?

clay barham February 15, 2010 9:03 am (Pacific time)

Ayn Rand has little affinity for the Republicans, more with the libertarian 19th century Democrats who followed Jefferson and Madison. (See The Changing Face of Democrats on Amazon and claysamerica.com). The modern Democrats follow Robespierre and Marx, while Republicans hang with Hamilton, Clay, Lincoln and TR, all interventionists. She identifies with the result and not the cause, when we consider the Pilgrims, their Geneva Bibles and the foundation of American law.

byafi February 15, 2010 5:17 am (Pacific time)

You actually left out one of the most important aspects of the implementation of your ideas for health care: they require you to use force - and violence - against your neighbors. You may be comfortable in that arrogance, but most people are not. And having the government use that force in your name is just plain cowardly.

Force? Where does force come into play, pray tell.

gp February 15, 2010 4:33 am (Pacific time)

I would hazard a guess that nearly 100% of Patagonians practice herbal remedies and folk medicine. Poverty does have some benefit in that healing has not been given over entirely to professionals.

Anonymous February 15, 2010 4:23 am (Pacific time)

learn something: http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/henry-liberty.html

What's your point?

[Return to Top]