By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
Tony,
That would be correct. I do not think that. I see both the wisdom and value of true democracy, something Objectivists and Libertarians have a real problem with. Any other vestment of political power is suspect.
Skip says: Gene believes that those who gain power by what ever means possible allow us to have what ever rights they choose. This is more truthful than fiction and why the masses have been fighting back against the tyranny of government for centuries.
I won’t speak for Gene, but I do not think he thinks that. You again commit the error of treating a loyal servant that does your bidding and an armed robber that subjugates you into doing their bidding as the same thing.
A dictator subjugating a population by violence with mercenary gangs is not a valid Government, but a criminal enterprise. One we may not have the power to end, but a criminal enterprise nonetheless.
I believe, and I think Gene believes approximately the same, that only a government willingly supported (without coercion) by the people it governs is a legitimate Government.
So no, I do not believe “those who gain power by what ever means possible allow us to have what ever rights they choose.”
I do not believe a dictatorship or gang grants Rights, they grant Permissions, which they can grant and revoke on an individual basis, in their own self-interest.
I believe Rights can only be determined by a persistent super-majority of Society. Rights are not granted by Government, Government is told what they are and given the power to use force to ensure they are protected.
I believe that government employees (including soldiers, civil servants, clerks and all elected officials) are employees of the people, bound to function in the best interest of all the people. If people determine that we are entitled to safe commercial food and medicine, the Government is obligated to form the Food and Drug Administration and fund it with taxes from the people.
To the extent government employees use their power for self-enrichment I consider them individually corrupt; to the extent they collude to do that, I think the entire government is corrupt. But corruption is obviously measured on a spectrum between 0% and 100%, and 0% is probably impossible to achieve with more than about a thousand employees.
You and DavidM and Bron all make the same mistake; you rail against Government as if IT subjugates you, you mistake the Employee for the Boss. It is Society that denies your claimed absolute Right to every penny you earn, it is Society that denies your claimed Right to a free and unregulated Market. It is Us, the people around you, that deny you the right to exploit the desperation of others, to ignore the needs of the disabled, to force individual responsibility for our own retirement upon us, and on and on. We grant the population Rights and deny the population Rights.
To some extent our ability to do that in the USA has been corrupted, and that is something we need to work on, but virtually all of the things you three complain about are things a super-majority of us just do not believe in, because a super-majority of us truly believe we are obligated to contribute a fair share to the care of the disadvantaged. Which itself is a relative term; “disadvantaged” is just that inevitable set of people that, for whatever reason, find themselves on the under side of “average.”
Tony C wrote: “I believe, and I think Gene believes approximately the same, that only a government willingly supported (without coercion) by the people it governs is a legitimate Government.”
So then the Third Reich was legitimate government. The dissenters in the minority were illegitimate?
Tony C wrote: “We grant the population Rights and deny the population Rights.”
This is the philosophy of tyranny. When our President expresses this sentiment, or the Judiciary expresses this sentiment, civil war will be upon us.
And progressivism is a religion/bad philsophy for sure built on the notion that government and “extremely smart” [or so they think] people are infallible and know how many oranges should be grown and how many tractors should be built.
It doesnt care one wit for what the average man wants in the way of oranges or tractors.
In short it puts the thoughts of a handful above the thoughts, needs, wants and desires of the many.
That is not civil society, that is a dictatorship.
We havent seen self help practiced in this country for nearly 100 years. The delusion is that government can provide all things to all people.
Bron,
Consider this: there is noting wrong with the way the BBQ tastes, but part of the ingredients are opium which is highly addictive. You’ll have lines around the block. Business will boom. Your customers will also end up opium addicts.
And if you think this is too wild an example of unethical behavior that would result in repeat business?
It is based on a real case that happened several years ago in NYC (if memory serves) of a Chinese restaurant that did exactly that.
You seem to be under the delusion that free markets are capable of just solutions with any kind of predictability or logic or capable of making decisions that are for the common good rather than the individual profit motive, Skipper.
You are a true believer.
That is not a compliment.
Objectivism is built on a foundation of ethical sand. One of the many faulty pillars of that religion (and yes, it is a religion and/or a pseudo-philosophy at best) is the notion of the infallibility of laissez-faire market doctrines. As demonstrated many times here and by history, business and markets incapable of self-regulation in any substantive fashion when there is profit to be had in not considering the common (or even individual) good of others. It’s also based on the delusion that self-help is a viable remedy on the scale of civilizations. It is not.
Gene H sez: “If you sell me bogus goods, that is against my economic self interest and in your economic self interest as a matter of unjust enrichment or fraud, . . .”
How so? Maybe if it is a one time deal. But it is certainly not in my self interest if I run a store or a restaurant or other business.
Please explain how I, as a proprieter, would gain if I sold you bad BBQ so that you would never come back?
Tony C:
“I want to make smart people taking advantage of stupidity in order to rob people illegal.”
So now you are saying that a smart person who gets the better end of a contrat negotiation because he is better prepared is taking advantage of someone who is less prepared?
Why do you want to do away with contracts because someone may not get a good deal?
I have a house, an old house, with a stainglass window above the front door. The house is 130 years old and sits on 5 acres. I sell the house for $300,000 dollars, which is the market price, to a nice couple. I later find out the house was worth $800,000.00 because that stainglass window I looked at everyday for 20 years was actually a Tiffany.
That nice couple turned out to be art dealers and they knew it was a Tiffany window.
They robbed me because I was unprepared? I had 20 years to check on that stainglass and didnt do it. I was stupid, the couple should be arrested for robbing me? They were smarter and better prepared than I was, they didnt rob me. I gave them the combination to my safe and told them to take whatever they wanted. I then regretted it and called the law to wipe my nose and make my boo boo go away.
And so here we are again, back to a paternalistic, soft [or maybe hard]tyranny. All roads with you lead to that point. It is as much a part of your nature as freedom is part of mine. You just cant help yourself. You must be in control in all things. Why is that?
That is actually a true story told to us by a real estate agent when we were looking for a house.
Skipper,
I’m confusing nothing. You are confusing physical self defense with kind of weird excuse for acting in economic self interest over seemingly any other consideration. If you are trying to kill me, I’m perfectly within my rights to kick your ass or even kill you (if left no other choice) as a matter of self defense. If you sell me bogus goods, that is against my economic self interest and in your economic self interest as a matter of unjust enrichment or fraud, but I’m not within my right of self defense to beat you or kill you over it even though such an action would be in my economic self interest if beating or killing you resulted in the return or retrieval of my property/money I was swindled out of by you.
Your Randian gibberish fails because it is based on a false assumption: that property rights are equal with your rights to personhood.
They are not.
Gene H. You seem to be under the erroneous conclusion that property rights are different than others and that there are no free market approaches to nullifying devious business people. Devious people exist and their are way to stop them without government force.
Skip: It is erroneous to believe that everyone voting in their own self interest will somehow end up collectively working out for what is in the best interest of the majority.
It depends on how you define “self-interest.” If you mean financial self-interest, I virtually never vote in my own self-interest, and the only time I do is if that coincides with my interest in helping others.
If my self-interest includes advancing my ideals of socialist programs, then sure, I vote in my self interest; I want to see grade schools with more funds, infrastructure built, aid delivered, more cops on the street, and I don’t mind if my taxes increase in the process.
People will not enter into your non-aggression agreement because they don’t believe in it. I don’t believe in it. I believe there are criminals, sociopaths and psychopaths, that will only be restrained by force. The police need force, the government needs force, without it, they cannot enforce the law, which must always have the end-game of escalation to overwhelming force.
Why would I ever agree to anything that prevents Society from using Force to protect my Rights?
I think most people, when I talk to them, haven’t thought it out that explicitly, but intuitively understand pacifism won’t work, sometimes you have to fight back or be oppressed. And for every Gandhi you think you can trot out, I will point at millions of black slaves in the South, worked under the very real threat of beatings, maiming, and death.
Let me give you the non-aggression principle (NAP). Man people will and do actually sign it when properly introduced to it. It the initiation or threatening of force, not self defense the NAP involves.
“Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as the initiation or threatening of violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another. Specifically, any unsolicited actions of others that physically affect an individual’s property or person, no matter if the result of those actions is damaging, beneficial, or neutral to the owner, are considered violent or aggressive when they are against the owner’s free will and interfere with his right to self-determination and the principle of self-ownership.”
it is not so bad once you consider self defense as a legitimate position.
Like I said before, all law is really based on this simple premise.
It is interesting that Government is supposed to do this very thing; protect us and our property from being harmed by others, yet they are arguably the greatest perpetrator of the NAP.
As a friend of mine pointed out, self defense is sometimes a difficult thing to prove, but never-the-less an essential element of a civil society. Even force is something difficult to prove. The only two people I have known that have been murdered, was my Uncle Bill and a golf buddy; both still remain unsolved.
I have noted a misdirection on a couple of issued we have been debating. I will go back to them later.
Tony,
That works for me in general although I think some very few rights are simply inherent by nature of existing (self-defense for example).
Skip: If everybody votes in their own self-interest, then whatever the majority vote turns out to be, it is in the self-interest of the majority, by definition.
Tony C.
If a large group of people working for military contractors vote for a candidate that wants to increase defense spending, they are not necessarily voting for what’s in the best interest of the majority. They may think they are, like many people who vote for their own self interest. It is erroneous to believe that everyone voting in their own self interest will somehow end up collectively working out for what is in the best interest of the majority. This is one of the reasons why democracies fail over the long term. If everyone were to vote for what is in their own self interest, instead of what is in the best interest of the majority, almost no rights would exist and the majority would sure not be served. The self interest of each individual theoretically can negate the self interest of others. A fireman will vote for more taxes and the businessman will vote for less taxes. The politician will of course try to serve both by lower taxes and more spending on fire protection, thus running a deficit, causing inflation which negatively effect the elderly on fixed incomes.
Gene believes that those who gain power by what ever means possible allow us to have what ever rights they choose. This is more truthful than fiction and why the masses have been fighting back against the tyranny of government for centuries.
Gene appear to think “he” or somebody else should be able to pick and choose what rights the majority should and should not have. Much of the majority, I believe, would not be able to answer questions pertaining to individual rights.
I chose to believe Gene is an individual that will just go along with the power structure, not matter how despotic they become because he believes it is therefore the social norm. If the people don’t physically rebel, it must be ok. Gene would not have had any problems with slavery, nor does he have any idea how economic slavery can burden the ability of the majority to achieve prosperity.
That is why he generally does not take a stand on anything and feels few rights are inherent. I think we understand that rights are not inherent or natural but only that they should be. It’s an agreement that is smart to enter into by all individuals, yet you will find many people that will not enter into the non-aggression axiom/agreement.
Gene stance on self defense as a “some very few rights” as he notes above, is not that he doesn’t believe it’s a good Idea, he confuses it with the ability to determine when someone acts in self defense or not. I could be wrong and if I am I would like to hear his position.
Skip: I cannot speak for Gene, but I do believe in certain fundamental and self-evident Rights that a super-majority agree upon.
Again, speaking only for myself, I don’t think it makes much difference if the super-majority is right or wrong; if 90% of the people agree that something is “right,” and you do not, I don’t know what you think you can do to stop them. Persuade them they are wrong? If that worked they would no longer be a super-majority!
I disagree with your formulation of “one basic law,” I disagree with your formulation of absolutist property rights, and fortunately for me so does a super-majority of people. Some things that you call “property rights” infringe upon what we think are OUR Rights.
If there is one basic law, it is equitable treatment, which I personally see as an extension of a majority collective view of what people naturally sense as “fair” treatment, combined with rational logic to determine what is achievable.
OUT of that springs derivative rights you call Life, Liberty, Property rights and self-determination (the pursuit of what makes you happy). All of those are products of (and members of) a coherent system of equitable treatment. But equitable comes first, and so there are caveats involved, including responsibilities of protecting these rights.
DavidM says: Would it not be enough for the FDA to issue a statement that said treatment is considered a fraud?
No, that would not be enough.
Would you support the government imposing its own values about health care upon a citizen who reads the government warning but decides he trusts the treatment in dispute more than the government’s warning about it?
The government should not impose its “own values,” its values should be strictly the laws passed by Society. I am getting tired of reiterating that, and if you continue to pretend the “Government” is an entity in and of itself I will discontinue this conversation. Only a corrupt government is an entity in and of itself, and I am not interested in the philosophy of a corrupt government! It is incoherent. And so is your stance in treating Government as an overlord. Who cares about the philosophy of a Dictator, psychopath, or Totalitarian? I don’t.
I support rule of Society BY Society; if Society’s values are that a treatment is a fraud, then Society should make it illegal to practice it, and illegal to frequent it. And Society’s servant, Government, should enforce their wishes as written in the Law.
Forget medical treatment, and let’s look at something simpler. Our Society has determined, contrary to Biblical and Historical practice throughout the world (still practiced legally in some countries), that it will prohibit sexual intercourse with ten year olds. Some in our Society may disagree with that prohibition.
Your question is equivalent to asking me this: Do I support Society imposing its own values on a citizen that reads our government warning about engaging in sexual intercourse with willing ten year old, but decides he trusts the Bible or Koran more than he trusts Society’s judgment on this issue?
Yes, I do Support Society imposing its own values on that citizen. The same thing goes for any medicinal “practice” that Society outlaws. However, its jurisdiction is the borders of the country, and over its citizens. So if a citizen travels outside our country to have sex with ten year olds, or to engage in an illegal medical practice, I think for some crimes, if we warn citizens in advance, we can punish the citizen if he ever returns to the country for acting contrary to our law. Or banish them from the country.
It is not Government imposing its values on you, it is Society, and we don’t care if you don’t like it or don’t support it. It makes no sense to care, if we excluded everything everybody didn’t like, we would be left with precisely Nothing, including no Rights and no roadblocks to 100% subjugation by totalitarian rule and effective slavery.
The only way forward, the only way to secure Rights and Freedom at all, is with less than 100% setting rules For 100%. Period. If you can’t see that, you are living in a fantasy world.
Tony C. I get a sense from you and Gene H. that you believe that the majority is always right and that they, the majority will always vote for the protection of individual rights. If rights are protected. you do not need for any minority to be outvoted.
All laws are just specifications of one basic law. You don’t harm others or they property and it you do you have usurped their rights to life, liberty and the pursuits of happiness. Property, my wages, profits and things I produce myself, all qualify as being under rights, we call property rights.
Thinking that the majority will always vote for what is in the best interest of the majority instead of themselves is naïve.
Bron: so you want to make stupidity illegal?
Not at all, you are safe. I want to make smart people taking advantage of stupidity in order to rob people illegal.
tony c:
so you want to make stupidity illegal? the only way to do that is have government in our lives and up our a$$es 24/7.
DavidM: If you believe in assisted suicide, then why would you not support a person making their own medical decision, even if it results in their death?
I do support that, if the decision is not made in the light of fraud in the service of profiteering. If somebody’s religious (or secular) belief is they would rather die than have bypass surgery, or an amputation, I would not stop them. If their belief is that drinking the $50,000 milkshake will cure their cancer when the person selling the milkshake is just a convincing liar preying upon their desperation for profit, that is the target of my restriction.
My support for choice is limited to informed and truthful choice. The less informed the choice, the more fraudulent the claims, the less I support it. I think it is the responsibility of Society, NOT to be a nanny state, but to protect each other from predation, fraud, theft, and exploitation by those wielding asymmetrical power.
You apparently do not believe that. I am not inclined to restrict one’s choice to commit suicide, as long as they know they are committing suicide. I don’t want them to commit suicide thinking they are saving their life because a fraud convinced them of that, and I don’t want THEM to let ME commit suicide while thinking I am saving myself because some fraud convinced ME of that. I am not restricting their “freedom” without restricting my own “freedom,” and everybody’s “freedom,” in exactly the same way.
I put that in quotes on purpose, I do not consider the free choice to be unwittingly victimized by a predator a form of “freedom,” I consider it a danger that can be reduced by regulation that does more good than harm.
Tony C wrote: “I do support that, if the decision is not made in the light of fraud in the service of profiteering. If somebody’s religious (or secular) belief is they would rather die than have bypass surgery, or an amputation, I would not stop them.”
Okay, I like hearing this. What about the situation where a fraudulent operation moves outside the country and cannot be shut down by our government court system? Would it not be enough for the FDA to issue a statement that said treatment is considered a fraud? Would you support the government imposing its own values about health care upon a citizen who who reads the government warning but decides he trusts the treatment in dispute more than the government’s warning about it?
By the way, I support limited government regulation in this area. I think there needs to be oversight, but I do not support the government imposing its values upon me.
Sorry, the second link did not paste correctly. Following is the video I meant to share:
http://youtu.be/sBjnWfT8HbQ
DavidM: I think in years to come, they [government] will force the wisdom of the medical profession on people rather than allowing them to choose for themselves.
First, I believe one should have the Right of medically assisted painless suicide (for example, by helium, or by carbon monoxide) particularly justified by a terminal illness.
However, in my view, the government has a role to play in “forcing medical wisdom” upon people, as you put it (in the negative). I see that as a prevention of fraud, particularly predators preying upon the terminally ill, permanently ill or disabled, with fake medicines, fake products (quantum water!), fake services (the Wiccan Power Prayer), and straight up con jobs.
Like the beleaguered genius doctor that had to flee to Mexico to practice, he can cure cancer with his secret elixir, but in the USA big Pharma was trying to crush him and steal his formula, they had Government in their pocket and he was in fear for his life. But for $50,000 you can be cured of cancer… Of course there are guarantees and an enforceable contract! (if you don’t mind that both are fraudulent fakery). But this elixir must be administered under tight controls at his private clinic, built for him on a ranch in Brazil by a grateful patient. He has a 100% success rate so far! (of bilking dying patients that fall for the scam of all they are worth.)
I know you and other free marketers might consider that fair play, buyer beware, whatever. I consider it a fraud and a crime. If you want to call that “forcing medical wisdom upon people,” feel free. I will call it prevention of the exploitation of desperation.
If you believe in assisted suicide, then why would you not support a person making their own medical decision, even if it results in their death?
If a person believed strongly in God, such that God was his only trusted physician, should that person not have the Constitutional right to make that decision, even if it resulted in his death?
I have looked at a few YouTubes presented by Thomas Seyfried. Interesting stuff. I would be interested in seeing an actual diet for say a week that the book puts forward as a remedy.
http://youtu.be/lZZCLlX05PQ
DavidM: Is it true that his remedy is a ketogenic diet?
Not exactly, it is more severe than that. There is an alternative to cell respiration the body resorts to when starving, that is burning fat. Seyfried’s research (including the research of others) shows this alternative pathway is virtually always broken in cancer cells; all they can use for energy is glucose. So the first step is to starve the body, and because proteins can be converted to glucose, the idea is to induce starvation with calories derived about 80% from fat (oils will do), zero carbs, some protein, at low caloric daily doses (600 calories a day for months). That kills most of the cancer cells.
It is true the body is in ketosis, but this isn’t “ketogenic” like an Atkins or low carb diet, which is typically heavy in protein, and what you are thinking of as a body builder. This diet is not compatible with body building (and exercise is not recommended during it). This is tricking the body into long term starvation mode, so any cell that can’t burn fat for fuel will starve and die.
This is like living on about half a cup of oil a day (or, perhaps more helpfully, living on half a cup of mayonnaise mixed into a few boiled eggs). Plus a multi-vitamin and some other off the shelf supplements. He starts that diet with a three day water fast; and I believe the diet is maintained at the starvation level for as long as weight reduction continues, and tumors are shrinking.
One patient deemed terminal with inoperable brain cancer has been on this diet for over ten years (with a higher caloric content) and is still alive and active. Her tumors have shrunk to invisibility on an MRI, unfortunately, attempts to go off the diet causes her brain cancer to return; so in her case the diet is not exactly a cure. In any case, if the diet alone isn’t a cure; it may shrink a tumor to an easily operable size, perhaps even small enough to be zapped with a gamma knife (no surgery at all).
And even if the diet is not a cure, it may produce an equilibrium that allows long term survival. There are other things in life to enjoy besides food.
DavidM: Wouldn’t you say that a book costing over a hundred dollars has a for-profit motive, preying upon the desperation of people with a terminal disease?
No. As I said, it is an academic work; it won’t be sold to very many people, having written similar heavily researched treatises myself I know it probably took Seyfried several years or a decade to write; unlike a novel these things can exceed 50 or more drafts per chapter.
Seyfried isn’t writing for desperate laymen; he is writing for physicians and trained medical researchers and trying to start a research movement. He doesn’t get $114 for his book, he gets a royalty from Wiley, the publisher. Seyfried will be lucky to make a “profit” on the book considering the three decades of work he put into it.
Publishers charge more for textbooks and works with a narrow audience in order to cover their costs. A novel sold to millions defrays those costs over millions of purchases, a textbook sold to 1% of that market concentrates those costs a hundred-fold in each book.
Even if Seyfried DID make a profit off of his book, he isn’t holding anybody hostage to buy it in order to get the benefits of it. I am free to tell you anything you want to know about the book; I have read it cover to cover. It is science, not a trade secret and not patented.
So your choice is not to “pay for the book or die.” If you want to know what is in it, you can find out for free.
You really can’t get it through your thick head I am not opposed to people earning profits, I am opposed to people holding other people’s lives hostage. Seyfried isn’t doing that, by any means. Nor is any author, once an idea is published it is public — the two words have the same root. He doesn’t own the ideas and conclusions or the protocols he recommends for treatment; nobody has to pay him anything for that. I paid for the book to get it fast and keep it as a reference, to look up other papers and studies Seyfried cites. And to reward him for the effort, I think whatever he gets out of a purchase he deserves, for sharing his knowledge and expertise with the world. His work may provide the key insights to providing a general cure for cancer, and he won’t make a dime off the patients saved if it does.