Survive!

[Money Dollars]

Really? asprin is safe for children? Did you read the label? .... It is common knowledge that you are not supposed to give aspirn to a child.

The label says not to give asprin for colds, chicken pox and flu syndromes......it's all about Reye's syndrome. It doesn't say never give it to kids.

"Is aspirin safe for children?
Pediatricians all over the world have for almost three decades discontinued prescribing aspirin for children for pain and fever, because aspirin has been implicated in the occurrence of Reye?s syndrome in children"

please note that it says they discontinued prescribing for pain and fever, not that they stopped perscribing it all together.

Here is more of the quote that you didn't post

Is aspirin safe for children?
Pediatricians all over the world have for almost three decades discontinued prescribing aspirin for children for pain and fever, because aspirin has been implicated in the occurrence of Reye?s syndrome in children following a viral (upper respiratory or gastrointestinal) infection, which syndrome could be fatal.

For fever or pain, physicians now prefer to prescribe acetaminophen (like Tylenol) or Ibuprofen, but for some specific illnesses (like Kawasaki disease, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, etc.) aspirin is still being used effectively by pediatricians.

Reye's Syndrome is listed as a "rare disease" by the Office of Rare Diseases (ORD) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

The cause of RS remains a mystery.

[bailey228]

Yes, they use all sorts of drugs on children, I never doubted that it can be used effectively and that most kids will never have a problem with it. Most kids will never have any problems with vaccienes but I choose not to take that risk with my daughter. I assume that is part of your reasoning for not vaccinating some of your kids as well.

[Michael Fisher]

i think you have a loose interpretation of the constitution, to say the least. one man's general welfare is another man's oppression. if my use of drugs (for instance) has absolutely no effect on anyone's welfare (which it doesnt), then the govt has absolutely no right to tell me not to use the drugs. the govt only has a right to dictate how i effect the general welfare. which means society. society isnt in my living room breathing my fumes or hearing my brilliant insights.

you're obviously not a libertarian. but i wish you the best. "steal this book" isnt for everyone, to be sure.

People hate admitting that the US constitution is too vague, sloppy, and statist. But it is. It even explicitly authorizes a government monopoly on several industries. The founders must have thought, "well, we don't want to limit ourselves too much now that we're in power."

Also, many of us now realize that our rights do not originate from a piece of paper, nor can a piece of paper protect our rights for any significant length of time. Only the generation of the founders lived partially according to the constitution, in my opinion.

Besides, the world belongs to the living, not the dead. We should decide how much freedom we will have rather than trying to pass that responsibility to prior generations and complain that we're supposed to be free because of their actions. That is senseless!

Hence Jefferson's idea of regular revolutions.

[Money Dollars]

10 copies should be showing up today......
The Gift Shop is located in the museum.

I'll take a look when I get a chance.

The Money Dollars museum hasn't been built yet, so its gunna be a few weeks of waiting.

U.O.I.

[firsty]

i think you have a loose interpretation of the constitution, to say the least. one man's general welfare is another man's oppression. if my use of drugs (for instance) has absolutely no effect on anyone's welfare (which it doesnt), then the govt has absolutely no right to tell me not to use the drugs. the govt only has a right to dictate how i effect the general welfare. which means society. society isnt in my living room breathing my fumes or hearing my brilliant insights.

you're obviously not a libertarian. but i wish you the best. "steal this book" isnt for everyone, to be sure.

People hate admitting that the US constitution is too vague, sloppy, and statist. But it is. It even explicitly authorizes a government monopoly on several industries. The founders must have thought, "well, we don't want to limit ourselves too much now that we're in power."

Also, many of us now realize that our rights do not originate from a piece of paper, nor can a piece of paper protect our rights for any significant length of time. Only the generation of the founders lived partially according to the constitution, in my opinion.

Besides, the world belongs to the living, not the dead. We should decide how much freedom we will have rather than trying to pass that responsibility to prior generations and complain that we're supposed to be free because of their actions. That is senseless!

Hence Jefferson's idea of regular revolutions.

whatever. whichever. regardless.

i support a revolution.

[Jason Rand]

Firsty,
I checked out "Steal This Book" from the library and read a lot of it.  I don't understand what connection you see between Hoffman's philosophy and libertarianism.  What does libertarianism mean to you?  And what, precisely, appeals to you about this book?

[mraaron]

    "Steal this book" looked like it promoted anarchy, not libertarian ideals.  But I appreciated the post about it.  I did read some of it, and although some stuff was outdated, it was entertaining and authored from a different perspective.  Maybe this should be the handbook for the free lunch project!   One of the reasons I like NHfree is stuff like that, you never know what a post will contain, and at the very least, it forces us to use our greatest weapon, the one we carry in our head. 

[KBCraig]

    "Steal this book" looked like it promoted anarchy, not libertarian ideals.

I admit, I have not read the book. But Abbie Hoffman and anarchy have about as much in common as the "anarchists" (as they describe themselves, dutifully parroted by the media) who smash windows and burn cars at every G8 meeting, have in common with Leo Tolstoy.

Abbie Hoffman and the Yippies, just like today's pseudo-"anarchists", demanded univeral "rights" to things like free health care, free education. mandatory living wages, etc.

Anarchy does not mean pulling a black hood over your head and smashing things until you get your way. The true anarchists on this forum can elaborate more. None of them are smashing things.

Well, okay, Russell wants to turn over tables. He's a work in progress.

Kevin

[firsty]

I may not agree with every bit of reference in this book, but that is why I?m involved in it. I may not hold values identical to each contributing writer or editor, and in some ways may differ critically, but that is why I?m involved in it, and that is why they are involved in it, too. This isn't about promoting one of those ?isms, one of those broad beliefs. This isn't about promoting socialism or communism or capitalism or ism ism ism ism ism. This is about helping fellow citizens who, for a number of reasons and coming from a billion different points of view, feel the need for change. Dramatic change. But not a change to simply one thing, one ism or one source of cash. Rather a change to the one original thing, the set of ideas that America was founded upon. The things we want are not new or revolutionary. That this can be considered revolutionary is an (appropriate) insult to our social, political and economic leaders in the first place, and it?s also an insult to us, rightly so.

The founding fathers didnt define the change until after the revolution. The revolution was followed by years of collaboration between different philosophies in different states. They didnt even have much of a model to follow.

At least we have the model.

[Lex]

This isn't about promoting one of those ?isms, one of those broad beliefs. ..... But not a change to simply one thing, one ism or one source of cash. Rather a change to the one original thing, the set of ideas that America was founded upon.

Americanism? Constitutionalism? 

The things we want are not new or revolutionary. That this can be considered revolutionary is an (appropriate) insult to our social, political and economic leaders in the first place, and it?s also an insult to us, rightly so.

Unlike you I do not want to continue to repeat history over and over and over and over and over again. I realize that we do have to try something new. So please do not say WE. As far as I can tell you are a Constitutionalist (I am not):

United States
In the United States, a constitutionalist refers to those who advocate strict adherence to the intentions of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Constitutionalists are also called constitutional conservatives in the United States. The Constitutionalist Party differs significantly from the Constitution Party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutionalist

The founding fathers didnt define the change until after the revolution. The revolution was followed by years of collaboration between different philosophies in different states. They didnt even have much of a model to follow.

At least we have the model.

Here is something to ponder (if you don't read everything, at least read the bold towards the end):

Some Principles of History

99. Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends.

100. FIRST PRINCIPLE. If a SMALL change is made that affects a long-term historical trend, then the effect of that change will almost always be transitory - the trend will soon revert to its original state. (Example: A reform movement designed to clean up political corruption in a society rarely has more than a short-term effect; sooner or later the reformers relax and corruption creeps back in. The level of political corruption in a given society tends to remain constant, or to change only slowly with the evolution of the society. Normally, a political cleanup will be permanent only if accompanied by widespread social changes; a SMALL change in the society won't be enough.) If a small change in a long-term historical trend appears to be permanent, it is only because the change acts in the direction in which the trend is already moving, so that the trend is not altered by only pushed a step ahead.

101. The first principle is almost a tautology. If a trend were not stable with respect to small changes, it would wander at random rather than following a definite direction; in other words it would not be a long-term trend at all.

102. SECOND PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is sufficiently large to alter permanently a long-term historical trend, than it will alter the society as a whole. In other words, a society is a system in which all parts are interrelated, and you can't permanently change any important part without changing all other parts as well.

103. THIRD PRINCIPLE. If a change is made that is large enough to alter permanently a long-term trend, then the consequences for the society as a whole cannot be predicted in advance. (Unless various other societies have passed through the same change and have all experienced the same consequences, in which case one can predict on empirical grounds that another society that passes through the same change will be like to experience similar consequences.)

104. FOURTH PRINCIPLE. A new kind of society cannot be designed on paper. That is, you cannot plan out a new form of society in advance, then set it up and expect it to function as it was designed to do.

105. The third and fourth principles result from the complexity of human societies. A change in human behavior will affect the economy of a society and its physical environment; the economy will affect the environment and vice versa, and the changes in the economy and the environment will affect human behavior in complex, unpredictable ways; and so forth. The network of causes and effects is far too complex to be untangled and understood.

106. FIFTH PRINCIPLE. People do not consciously and rationally choose the form of their society. Societies develop through processes of social evolution that are not under rational human control.

107. The fifth principle is a consequence of the other four.

108. To illustrate: By the first principle, generally speaking an attempt at social reform either acts in the direction in which the society is developing anyway (so that it merely accelerates a change that would have occurred in any case) or else it only has a transitory effect, so that the society soon slips back into its old groove. To make a lasting change in the direction of development of any important aspect of a society, reform is insufficient and revolution is required. (A revolution does not necessarily involve an armed uprising or the overthrow of a government.) By the second principle, a revolution never changes only one aspect of a society it changes the whole society; and by the third principle changes occur that were never expected or desired by the revolutionaries. By the fourth principle, when revolutionaries or utopians set up a new kind of society, it never works out as planned.

109. The American Revolution does not provide a counterexample. The American "Revolution" was not a revolution in our sense of the word, but a war of independence followed by a rather far-reaching political reform. The Founding Fathers did not change the direction of development of American society, nor did they aspire to do so. They only freed the development of American society from the retarding effect of British rule. Their political reform did not change any basic trend, but only pushed American political culture along its natural direction of development. British society, of which American society was an offshoot, had been moving for a long time in the direction of representative democracy. And prior to the War of Independence the Americans were already practicing a significant degree of representative democracy in the colonial assemblies. The political system established by the Constitution was modeled on the British system and on the colonial assemblies. With major alteration, to be sure - there is no doubt that the Founding Fathers took a very important step. But it was a step along the road that English-speaking world was already traveling. The proof is that Britain and all of its colonies that were populated predominantly by people of British descent ended up with systems of representative democracy essentially similar to that of the United States. If the Founding Fathers had lost their nerve and declined to sign the Declaration of Independence, our way of life today would not have been significantly different. Maybe we would have had somewhat closer ties to Britain, and would have had a Parliament and Prime Minister instead of a Congress and President. No big deal. Thus the American Revolution provides not a counterexample to our principles but a good illustration of them.

110. Still, one has to use common sense in applying the principles. They are expressed in imprecise language that allows latitude for interpretation, and exceptions to them can be found. So we present these principles not as inviolable laws but as rules of thumb, or guides to thinking, that may provide a partial antidote to naive ideas about the future of society. The principles should be borne constantly in mind, and whenever one reaches a conclusion that conflicts with them one should carefully reexamine one's thinking and retain the conclusion only if one has good, solid reasons for doing so.

[firsty]

 

oh well dude. i'm not a constitutionalist by your definition of the constitution. everybody's a constitutionist if they want to interpret it that way. nobody is.

i'm looking more for fewer labels and more freedom.

i done my reading for a while. it's time to come out of the library.

[Lex]

oh well dude. i'm not a constitutionalist by your definition of the constitution. everybody's a constitutionist if they want to interpret it that way. nobody is.

i'm looking more for fewer labels and more freedom.

i done my reading for a while. it's time to come out of the library.

Saying that you want a revolution without really knowing what you want to be the outcome of a revolution is stupid.

Revolution is a tool not a destination. So unless you know where you're going you've got a hammer with no nails.

[Jason Rand]

Firsty wrote:

?if one is unfamiliar with the original, they won't understand the spirit of the update. we want people to become familiar with the original first - it's available in web form, pdf form, and all new content is shown alongside original content to put it into context.?

As I mentioned earlier, I took Firsty?s advice and became familiar with the original.  If Firsty?s project is intended to be an ?update? then one would presume that he is intending to provide new and accurate information while maintaining the spirit of Hoffman?s original.

From the introduction to the original ?Steal This Book?:

The first section ?- SURVIVE!? lays out a potential action program for our new Nation.  The chapter headings spell out the demands for a free society.  A community where the technology produces goods and services for whoever needs them, come who may.  It calls on the Robin Hoods of Santa Barbara Forest to steal from the robber barons who own the castles of capitalism.  It implies that the reader already is ?ideologically set?, in that he understands corporate feudalism as the only robbery worthy of being called ?crime?, for it is committed against the people as a whole.  Whether the ways is describes to rip-off shit are legal or illegal is irrelevant.  The dictionary of law is written by the bosses of order.  Our moral dictionary says no heisting from each other.  To steal from a brother or sister is evil.  To not steal from the institutions that are the pillars of the Pig Empire is equally immoral.
   Community within our Nation, chaos in theirs; that is the message of SURVIVE!

For Firsty to claim that ?we don?t advocate any illegal activities? strikes me as either disingenuous or evidence of a complete misunderstanding of Hoffman?s work.  Hoffman says point blank that it is immoral not to steal from the ?Pig Empire?.  The rest of the book does not disappoint in providing instructions on how to steal clothing,  airplane tickets, services through counterfeiting, and food from both stores and restaurants.  I particularly like the part where the reader is encouraged to give a good tip to the waiter if you use the ?roach-in-the-plate? gambit.  But he intones, ?You should try to avoid getting the employees in trouble or screwing them out of a tip.? 

Don?t look within these pages for any sort of consistent or principled approach to stealing from ?the man?.  It is apparently laudable to steal from a restaurant owner, but an employee of that same ?Pig Empire? institution somehow has a right to be tipped.  I wonder why he doesn?t encourage us to tip our bank tellers as well?  (Even while he tells us to withdraw $10 more than you have when closing an account because they won't chase such a small amount)

Firsty wrote above that ?my opinion on the theft material is that it could only be suitable for certain people at certain points, literally to survive.?    Are we really to believe that stealing your way into a concert for free is ever necessary for ?survival??   Or how about the extensive section entitled ?Food Conspiracies? in which elaborate systems of ?hunting parties? are encouraged to steal food from grocery stores and then redistribute them to communes (about 20 is the number he suggests) with each commune paying a membership fee?  This obviously has nothing to do with survival per se.

I suggest that Firsty seriously reconsiders calling for an ?update? of ?Steal This Book?.   Hoffman?s book is not primarily about how to get by on less, or how to survive when you?re down and out.  No matter how amusing the style, do not kid yourself that this book is anything other than an assault on the legitimacy of private property.

[mraaron]

    If we are to survive as a country, first we have to agree how we will clean up this mess.  Call me in forty years.  Meanwhile, I'll be helping the succession folks.   

[firsty]

theres room for lots of opinions.

if you're not interested in the book, then dont read, dont steal it, dont buy it, and dont help write the update.

if you're interested in it, join the party.

good luck with, secession? is that what you mean?

i seriously cant argue with people who say that i'm saying more than one thing at a time. the bottom line is, the book is a project, it's a living document, and the result it undetermined. if you want to add your two cents based on the spirit of the original, please do so. if not, good luck with everything.

hopefully, whichever group of dissenters comes out on top (if thats how we want to look at it) will involve other dissenters in the resulting organization of government. if not, we'll have the same problems.

i'm less concerned with trying to create a utopia based on a political or economic philosophy and more interested in trying to regain, as an individual, a role in determining the course of my country.

as we can see from many threads here, even the most basic demonstration of dissent results in indepth philosophical discussions about motive, method, the law, ownership and property rights.

these discussions are good. great. they are great. but more important than these discussions is getting to a place where these discussions are mainstreamed, not marginalized. we dont get from marginalized to mainstreamed by arguing amongst ourselves about the details, nitpicking this or that, or feeling threatened by different groups of people who are already threatened by common problems but who are trying out/testing/discussing/debating different solutions.

i find that i have a lot in common with some people here, some people with peace movements, some people involved in some political movements (democrat, republican, green party, libertarian party, etc), some people with involvement in religious movements, some people involved with economic movements.

what i'm trying to do is find connections in these groups. it's a shame (i think) that we're focusing more on what makes us different instead of on the things that make us similar. if only one or two people here provide material for our update, thats great. in fact, i'd love a new section on medication, which seems like it could be pretty well-done be a few people here. but thats their choice.

with peace and respect,

firsty