Wow. Is that guy doing chest to bar pull-ups?

I enjoyed the video, that workout looks like a lot of fun. I personally thought the music was good for it. But I will check back tomorrow and read all the people who found the song to be offensive. Oh well. I may give this workout a try tomorrow since I couldn't do Monday's.

Yessss! I was hoping it would be a rest day after the Tabata Pukie Marathon.

A question, why are bench workouts so rare in crossfit?

Thanks for the heads-up on the lyrics...much appreciated.

howard

Hey CF community, my friend (and client at CrossFit NYC) Rachel Kramer Bussel wrote a wonderful piece about training at our gym and it's up on Huffington Post. Read it here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-kramer-bussel/weight-lifting-shapes-the_b_55522.html#postComment

Currently Rachel trains with me 5 times a week (3 times a week doing heavy squats, presses, and deadlifts, 2 times a week doing met-con work. She recently did 3 x 5 back squats at 165 pounds--10 pounds over her bodyweight--after training with me for just 10 weeks.) I've encouraged her to try classes and it looks like she will try them out soon.

Anyway, I just wanted to ask you to read her piece and take the time to leave a comment on it. Huffington Post has a huge readership and there's often lots of comments on their posts, not all of them positive and/or informed. Since most people don't "get" CrossFit when they've never tried it, it'd help to have some fellow CrossFitters testifying to all the good things Rachel has to say about us.

Thanks in advance!

while doing yesterdays workout i was praying today was an off day...my prayers have been answered.

#4 If you are new.. go to the main site and download the Oct 02 Crossift Journal. It is under " Start Here!" Read it an da lot of questions should eb answered.
Unlike other workouts and programs, Crossfit is about variety.. trying to train your body in many ways. Just doing the same basic wokout and exercises can lead to stagnation.. and you most likely will not master your own body.. being able to do pullups, handstand pushups, etc

Medwig, #4,

Because the movement is so rare in sport and nature. Cheers.

Thank god for this rest day!

Now those were some serious, quality pull-ups by the guy on the right--none of that eyeball-to-bar stuff that seems to pass as a pull-up to some people.

Personally, I don't think a rep should count unless you're at least hitting your shoulders to the bar.

Notice the sunglasses so you don't look each other in the eyes..... Inside joke! Awesome work guys! Posting this one soon.

I left a comment on the Huffington blog for Rachel, but it is being held pending approval. I just hate that, don't you? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

As for the lyrics in the song on the demo, it does seem odd that this site is carefully filtered to keep offensive language out and then the demo throws the F bomb over and over.

I certainly would not want to play this demo for any younger kids that I was trying to get interested in Crossfit.

Personally, the mute button worked really well.

Tony - you have been producing some awesome videos (great music in this one!). In case some people don't remember or are new here, look in the archives...we used to only get pictures with the workouts. The videos have been really outstanding lately and I'm sure have helped a lot of others as much as the help and motivate me. It was great meeting you and the whole HQ crew last week. Thanks for all your effort!
Mary Ann

Those pull-ups were awesome by the guy on the right in the video.

Allison I liked your friend's insight, it is very similar to just about everyone I know who has started CrossFit. Rather leave my comment here then sign into a place I'll never log in to again.

I always have liked Heinlein's writing.

Now, somebody start some controversy! =D

Thanks to all the staff and athletes at this weekend's cert. I had a great time as always. I can't say enough about the CF cadre.

If you haven't attended one of these events, you need to, whether you're an athlete or trainer, its an inspiring and invigorating experience.

Tony Blauer

#15 I couldn't agree more! As a new crossfitter, the videos are what got me into crossfit in the first place. I think that the music is great, and would even propose an iTunes crossfit mix, good motivational music for crossfitting!

How do I get a copy of your music library...I was moving all over the place hearing that! nice choice!

Great job on the workout and even better job on the video...interesting time on the overall video timeframe...serious editing!

5th WOD - "Cindy" (a day behind)

30yr/m/160lbs

17sets (+5 pull ups)

any reccomendations for muscle soreness? ibuprofen, etc?
thanks.

Two technique tips for doing overhead KB work.

1)The KB handle should be at an angle in your hand, with the corner up tight against the webbing of your index finger and thumb, and the handle should cross low on your palm, hitting the corner of your palm below your little finger. Don't hold a KB like a DB... It ain't one.

2)Don't rotate your palm fully forward. While this is great for max strength (great contraction of deltoid) this isn't the best for strength-endurance efforts [I know this WOD isn't the ideal example of S-E overhead work, but it'll do.]. Turn your palm in about half-way (about 45 degrees) in the lockout position. The overhead lockout position is the same for the KB press, push press, jerk and snatch.

Tom

p.s. looked like another great weekend in Santa Cruz. Look forward to seeing "the crew" in Portland!

Great article on an author who truly blends fiction and philosophy. Discovered RH through the Marine Corps reading list and continued on with whatever I could find in the library.

Shoulders are pumped from Tabata. I need some rings!

thanks for the KB tips Fireman Tom.

the music is bumpin! There should be a music section or thread somewhere. motivational stuff.

Respectable workout. Disrespectable song choice.

im a bit behind, did cindy last night 22 rds as rx'd.
still encouraging others to do cf. Got a mate of mine to come over and try it this week. he is a die hard gym goer, u know the type preacher curls, wieght machines flyes. my results not my speaking finaly won him over! Now if i could just get my wife to do it...

John Seiler,

I disagree with your claim that you don't do that motion in sports or life.

Reason being....of which you can read about in our manifesto that makes up BassAssFit, there are many times that you might have to break through walls, pulled cars off of pinned children, and act as a substitute for a wreaking ball when your construction equipment fails.

Only kidding...I do agree that the Bench isn't entirely practical, especially in a workout program such as Crossfit that is mainly predicated on functional strength/fitness but I would like to occasionaly see some bench. My friend and I are always talking about doing some bench work after the WODS...yeah right! I am always so smoked that I can't even see straight, let alone move on the to the bench.

BadAssFit for life!

If you want to bench, then bench. Crossfit is not your overlord. If you are too tired to do it after the workout, do it beforehand.

i agree with #27. i usually do the crossfit workout and then continue on with my own workout. for example, i felt like doing shrugs today, so i did shrugs.
sometimes, these three minute workouts just don't cut it:)

i hear slim shady. that song is cool; quite amusing.

Jay #28 - If you have enough leftover to go do another workout after a WOD, then your intensity is too low. Period. It isn't about how long the workout is.

Those worried about doing bench, try doing "Linda" or "Lynne" and get back to us. If you don't know what those WODs are, check the FAQ section.

Good article on Heinlein. Always a great read from a great author.

36/M/64kg

Wanted to start pushing my injured knee a bit. Did a "Fran"
21-15-9 of
40kg Thrusters
Pull-ups

6:59

First time under 7 mins! Even though my thrusters felt very weak, and I have not done any weighted squatting for the last month. Happy with that. Pull-ups unbroken and feels like resting.

Anyone else having trouble downloading the WOD videos today?

Welcome visitors from Huffington Post.

Hope Coach has an extra batch of Christopher Hitchens, Mark Steyn, Reason and National Review rest day posts teed up.

I just flew in from Santa Cruz, and boy are my arms tired! Of course, so is everything else!
Coach, Lauren, Eva, Annie, Nicole, Brandon, and everyone else at HQ - Thank you so very much for your time, effort, and hospitality.
Coaches lecture's are much like the WODs - so simple and straight-forward that it seems obvious, but profound in impact.
Unfortunately, I've got to go do some Tabata squats now...

THANKYOU CROSSFIT!!!! FOR CHANGING THE WAY I LOOK AT FITNESS!!! CAN`T WAIT TO DO A CERTIFICATION MY SELF....

Cool workout vid, might have to work that one in on a double duty day or something.

Wow, CrossFit and Heinlein - a great combo. Also, how does that guy in the video do so many chest to bar pullups?

The guy on the right is Ronnie Boose, one of the most humble guys you will ever meet and one hell of an athlete. Just don't look him in the eye when he pats you on the ass.

Any of you maniacs up for Mark Twight's "regurgitator" today?

I'm off to do it now. It comprises the following:

Workout: “Regurgitator"

1)
Max Pull-ups, strict form required

2)
Row 500m (must be <1:40) +
30x Bar Dip +
30x Atomic Sit-up +
30x Front Squat Push Press @ 2x 30# DB +
30x Push-up +
30x Box Jump @ 24" box +
30x Get-up @ 25# (15 each side)

Multiply Pull-up max by 2, subtract (in seconds) from total time.
If 500m Row is not faster than 1:40 row a 500m penalty immediately (pace irrelevant) though stopwatch is still going
If 500m Row is faster than 1:40 subtract 30 seconds from total time for every second faster than 1:40, i.e. if rower finishes in 1:30 he begins the "Dirty Thirty" with five minutes of credit ...

Yes indeed: The Vomit Comet.

Pain is temporary.

Writing to you today from the grave...after doing Mon. WOD --- Tabata.

43/M/160

12-15-3-6-9 = 45

I have been "Crossfitting" since February and my wife now refers to CrossFit as "her husbands exercise cult" (jokingly of course). I love it! I see changes in my strength and appearance that I have been trying to achieve for years.

I have been hired as the assistant football coach at the local high school. Because of the workouts I have designed for the athletes(Crossfit style), I have now been given the title head strength and conditioning coach as well.

My challenge is that the workouts are becoming popular. I refer to each player as an athlete and we work together as a team. The athletes love pushing themselves and each other and cheering for those who need encouragement. But, the numbers of athletes are increasing to where I am having a difficult time keeping everyone busy due to the lack of equipment and space. The weight room is pathetically small, so we use the b-ball gym and the fields and track outside when the weather is good.

Does anyone have some pointers or workout ideas? I need some fresh ideas to mix with my ideas.

Thanks,
Mark R

Nutrition Question:

How do crossfitters feel about multi-vitamins? Can one get an appropriate level of vitamins from food alone by eating fruits and veggies of different colors? Even when that person is working out crossfit style?

Who else just loves the single arm walking lunge!!

I liked yesterdays wod video w the cute girls better than this one.

I'm starting to really like the kipping pull-ups. I watched a video on here showing how many more kipping pull-ups you could than static pull-ups, but does it produce better results? are you really increasing more power or is your momentum helping you get over the bar?

to the video - that was a super filthy eminem song. i think a better choice could've been made for the people who watch it.

if you want music, use the greats--Otis Redding, Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, etc. This modern doggerel doesn't do it.

Regarding the bench: Mr. Rippetoe speaks highly of its value in his book, Starting Strength.

Hey everyone,

I'm new to crossfit and I've spent all morning reading the website and learning about the program. But I have one question...what do most people do to warm-up (these don't seem like workouts you want to jump into cold)? Thanks, and any other advice would be appreciated.

Peace

Damon,

In the FAQ there is the official Crossfit warmup.

M/33/84kg

"Mary"

5 Handstand Push-ups (assisted)
10 One legged squats, alternating (unassisted, for the first time)
15 Pull-ups

7 rounds, on the millisecond!

Huffing and puffing like a mad boar!! Those one legged squats almost broke my spirit. The handstand push-ups, though, are getting there!

#40:

I usually take a MV everyday. Just a precautionary measure I guess. Although if your diet is varied with lots of fruits and veggies, foods with lots of vitamins injected into them, you probably could pass on the MV.

Regarding the music...great choice! I really hope the people who bitch about the "disrespectful" music aren't the ones that, for example, tell CF liberals, doves, etc. to "leave the site or just ignore the articles" when those CF'ers complain about/are offended by some of the more conservative content posted on the site. Someone is always going to be offended; that's what the back/mute buttons are for.

Shew tuff Rest day I did
5 Hit the Snoozes on the alarm
15 Grumbling I don’t want to wake ups
21 Change the Channel this station sucks
And 3 min walk to the mail box

All for time

As far as the music goes, I really liked the beat/tune, which is what I cue in on for exercising. I didn't even notice the lyrics. I think upbeat, fast paced music is the way to go for exercising. Someone posted "use the greats -- Otis Redding, Roy Orbison" ... I can just imagine trying to do a WOD to "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay!" It would be my slowest Linda ever!

Bottom Line - I thought the tune was great, but I would be just as cool with the edited (radio) version, just so nobody has a reason to say bad things about CrossFit.

R.I.P. Mr. Heinlein.

And a quote that all CFers have experienced in one form or another:

"Being right too soon is socially unacceptable."
-Robert A. Heinlein

Thanks for being "right too soon" Coach.

Song lyrics: Wow some people are uptight. Maybe we should stick to show-tunes and gospel (classical worked alright for the "Try this at home DVD", but I like the edgier stuff we have been hearing).

Eminem! Finally! That is my favorite running song (on my ipod so the kids don't hear it)!

#49 Carni

I hear ya! I spent my usual CF time at the pool today, doing nothing. God bless the rest day!

Thankyou CF!

oops, Carni was post #50.

I'm also surprised that comments are so filtered (a good thing in my opinion since I've seen what comments lists can become) but the music isn't edited. If someone's putting together a video and needs an edited version of a song, I DJ a lot of teen dances... I don't play Eminem for them, but I have an edited version of Shake That and most recent pop-tart sludge.
It doesn't bother me to hear "m*th*rf*cker" in a WOD demo soundtrack, but it's not something I'd want my son to hear when I share CrossFit with him.

Tony, the music and video are rad. Keep making those excellent donuts.

#45 Damon - Check out the Crossfit warm up from the FAQ.

Start with that and add anything you are particularly weak on so that you build some familiarity with it.

For example, burgener warm up, kipping practice, knees to elbows, double unders, HSPUs are all things that I've added into a WU either daily or as substitutes - substitutes meaning if the WOD calls for HSPU, or pull ups, I won't do as many of those in the warm up but I may substitute double under practice.

#43/Brandon, Kipping produces better results. Coach reports that athletes who train with kipping PU can out perform other athletes in either kippping pu or dead hang pu.

To do a dead hang it requires that you not engage part of your body in a work effort. This is rarely a virtue when using your body in the world. Kipping is only 'cheating' if one is thinking in terms of the body building method of isolating body parts.

It took a while to learn them, but I do only kipping pull ups now (except the occasional dead hang because it's fun to see how easy they are now). The results validate the effort to learn the movement.

Lastly, distance x mass/time is power, and an experienced kipper can demonstrate a greater power output than can be generated by 'dead hangs'.

Fireman Tom - "2)Don't rotate your palm fully forward"

If I'm reading you right, do you mean that the palm should be turned 'in' towards the face, 45 degrees, vice palms away from face as when pressing a bar overhead?

Thanks.

Ben M,

Off Topic.

Classy performance last rest day. You took the best ad-hominems that the Board Bullies could throw at you - about your education, maturity, use of logic, inexperience, etc - and produced mature responses. Good for you. Especially funny since the Bullies like to claim that ad-hominems are the sole preserve of the 'leftists'.

Having read all your posts carefully your positions seem quite intelligible and clear, to me at any rate. I'm not sure why some found them so unclear - perhaps not enough care taken, or perhaps they did not approach positions they did not agree with with an open mind; maybe something else, who knows.

For the record, I don't agree with you on Govt efficiency. One good way to get some numbers on Govt vs private efficiency, if you have the time, would be to look at the performance of various industries after they have moved from Govt to Private ownership - the US is not a great area as the US has not been a great privatiser historically, but there are ample data from the UK electricity, rail, water, air and other industries; also good data in Australia & some European countries.

I believe the data show a significant uptick in efficiency following privatisation as well as a significant increase in profitability. (I looked at a lot of this stuff once in another life; note that the documents usually show a pro-forma performance under government control prior to privatisation, although it is generally manipulated to make the companies attractive for sale.)

Meanwhile, keep up the good work and don't let anyone scare you off!

Borat

Crossfit-
Awesome job putting explicit lyrics warning on the video title. I was one who complained in the past because I don't like music with that type of language. I was at work when I watched that video and the title gave me the cue to turn the volume down. Thanks for listening to your community.
Jeff Vale

#40 Mark

My wife says the same thing. One time I disagreed with her and she shot back "I bet if it was posted on Crossfit you would believe it."

Speaking of football coaches. John Curtis highschool in River Ridge Louisiana is coming out with a book later this month. It covers the school's winning football season after the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. If you like football stories I heard it is pretty good. The name of the book is "Hurricane Season: A Coach, A Team and their Triumph in the Time of Katrina."

Anyway I read Starship Troopers when I was 12, and it blew my mind. The movie did not do it justice. Just like the Dune movies, they left out the polical commentary, and satire that was the heart of the books.

Just started reading "The Family" by Ed Sanders.
Details how Manson was heavily influenced by Heinlein, scientology, mysticism, satanism, and LSD. Very interesting how all can be linked.

I don't see Dan Silver anywhere in that picture.

Cool workout. Have to try that one soon. Go ahead and call an old fogey, but that was rather vulgar music.

Borat,

It doesn't surprise me you found his posts reasonable. Look at what you just wrote. You just called me and other bullies, without context, implied that our sole intent was mockery and not argument, and implied he was right without actually expending the effort to show where, or how.

What I do is say: you are wrong, and here is why. Sometimes I add, you are stupid, and here is why. Either way, I contextualize it, and take great pains to explain my logic.

What I accuse leftists of doing is calling Bush and anyone who supports him latent autocrats, then yelling neener, neener, neener, while holding their ears when an intelligent, factual, and logical response is offered.

You have offered a variation on the theme by calling me and others bullies instead of the F word, but the dynamic is the same.

How about you post something original and engaging on the topic of the day?

I will get around to it soon enough, but need to think it over a bit, and then get time to put my thoughts together.

Is there a Barry Coopera and a Barry Cooberb? Super duper!
You crack me up, man! You step up to defend yourself from Borat because he called you a bully by calling him "stupid" and then don't even bother to put your thoughts down. I guess I'll finish laughing at the bully bullying to keep from being called a bully later when I put my thoughts together.

Tabata WOD from ystd. As Rx'd: 55

Note to self: you make your living with your hands. Do NOT handle sharp instruments like kitchen knives after a tabata work-out...

Heinlan, libertarian hero, renaissance man, great read. One could conclude, knowing only the little in that write up, that his was a life well lived.

It never fails to fascinate me how folks divorce economic and individual liberty, as if they were different or had a different basis for justification. Milton Friedman said, more or less, "I used to think I would trade a bit of personal liberty for more economic liberty but was delighted to find I needn't." The point being, of the two, a person can create a better outcome with high economic liberty (Hong Kong and Singapore being two examples) and less personal liberty.

Most of us think of personal liberty when we speak of freedom - how did it come to pass that a government, taking money by force and redistributing it, is not widely perceived as being a degradation of freedom. It reminds me of the 'frog boiling' analogy. We no longer seek to leave the boiling water of socialist/statist solutions because we see them as the normal temperature - sad, because there are better, non-state solutions out there, and for those who insist non-state solutions are 'too risky' there are smarter statist solutions that better align programs with incentives and would produce better outcomes (Charles Murray's "In Our Hands" for example: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/interrogatory/qa200603270732.asp ).

Which would keep the US from getting to this: http://www.reason.com/news/show/33915.html

Borat,
thanks for the support, and for a tip on where to look for privatization stuff. I know that government control of industry has the capacity to undermine the market mechanism, which makes the state a target for groups, organizations, social classes, etc. In capitalism, you usually don't have a direct target to blame. In 1970's Iran, the people did.
So, I'm all for privatization, but I think my "bottom line" is social justice, maybe more so than efficiency. Does "justice" have an economic upswing in the end? Kind of a grey area to be sure.

As for the ad hominems, yeah they are going on, but I try to avoid or ignore them as much as possible. I never did debate or anything like that, but I bet that would be helpful. Someone posted a link to a website like truthtree.com, that was pretty useful information.

Heinlein sure seems like an interesting guy. The individualism he promotes fits well with CF. Some very cool stuff, but I don't agree with flat out libertarian philosophy. I don't mean to implicate socialism or anything like that, but I think America needs to get away from a "me" centered society to a "we" centered society.

apswab:
haven't read through the whole articles yet, but the first one seems to advocate for "community-run welfare" rather than the state. Like, get your family/friends/neighbors to be responsible. Those earning more bear more responsibility on their own accord.
interesting.

Buretto,

Read my post. I didn't call him stupid. I will call you sloppy though.

Ben,

I missed that: where were we supposed to look?

Borat,

Help? Links? Evidence?

I swear, my brain is melting.

Borat, Barrycooperb, buretto, ben Moskowitz - What is this? The battle of the B's?

Ben,

What would it mean if "America got away from a "me" centered society"? Can you characterize that in some way?

A data point - there is no other nation in which individual charity exceeds that in the US. How would you reconcile that data point with your assertion that the US is a 'me' society?

"We" spent 9 trillion dollars on the welfare state as of 05 or so - and look what it bought.

I will ask again - you argue for state solutions which are in effect coercive uses of state power against free persons. Disregarding for the moment the question of whether state solutions work, what is the moral justification for the use of state power against individual liberty, and what justification for it do you find in the constitution?

In contrast with Borat, I found the board's comments from two RDs ago to be quite moderate and restrained with very few exceptions. Persons who advocate slavery as a justifiable means should expect some aggressive posts in defense of liberty.

Paul

Ben,

I can't resist another question. You mention not supporting the libertarian approach - what is your understanding of the libertarian approach? Would you be interested in learning more about it?

The "In Our Hands Plan" is to pay individuals and allow them to procure what they need vice maintaining the monstrous bureacracy of the present entitlement system which is collapsing under its own weight. Of the many, many advantages, one is the connection of the consumer to the costs, which helps to regulate demand for entitlement services.

Paul

Barry,

You need "Help? Links? Evidence?"?

Start with Apollo's post #65. Read it carefully. Read the linked articles.

Then read Ben's comment #67. It should by now be self explanatory.

Ben is doing some reading, trying to expand his views and learn something. Than is what rest days are for, no? Or are they a soapbox?

Take a towel, run cold water over it, and wrap it around your head. This should help with the brain melt. Take care not to drip too much on your keyboard.

Borat

What is the terrible thing about a song with swears in it? Are we all children that are scandalized by someone saying f_ck? (I only refrain from typing the actual word because I know it will be censored).

Borat,

When I read what Paul writes, I think about it. Like good Scotch, I believe it should be appreciated. I find it interesting that your own response to my request for clarification was to point at two other peoples posts.

I understand fully what Ben is saying, but I don't see him as saying it. I see incompetent teachers, indifferent or leftist parents, and a left-wing blogosphere. I don't think he understands what he is saying, and I have conducted a number of experiments over the last few rest days, along the lines of testing for color blindness, and he has flunked them all.

For example, it is one thing to call for "social justice"--as if that were a new phrase--and another to have some sense of what the implications of that are economically and politically. We address his points, but he then just spouts out another half-baked leftist meme, having failed entirely to understand the substantive philosophical context within which the fundamental objections are couched.

I'm still waiting for your own carefully considered, erudite, and imaginative response to the topic of the day. I have written many, many dozens of pages worth of original content on this site, so I don't feel I have anything to prove. If you want to make comments like that, though, you do, in my view.

You guys (well, barry in particular) are hilarious with your 'LEFTIST' boogeyman comments. What did Phil Mickelson ever do to you?

How does this make you guys feel about our current administration (are they rightists)?

http://www.yahoo.com/s/623551

Makes me feel sad and ashamed.

Great video/workout, but the choice of music was 2ND CLASS.

Ryan

#76

I Read the article. Politics is a dirty, dirty game.

I have completely reworked the Wikipedia article Mark 2 on CrossFit. Take a look, but if you wish to make changes please try and understand what the Wiki is: an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which should contain facts only as opposed to opinion pro or against CF.

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

First of all, I just wish those people that like to argue with each other about anything and everything would choose another venue than the Comments area to do it. I thought this was for athletes to talk to each other and possibly help each other with their workouts, fitness and maybe to share tips with each other.

As for the explicit lyrics of some songs on some WOD videos, I think some people take this a little bit too extreme. Tell me of anybody that goes "oh gosh" or "golly geez" when they bump their big toe or elbow instead of "F@$%"...

The reality is that abusive language is everywhere and no matter how much you try, there's always someone who will use it. So just live with it and move on. By the way, that was a nice touch to indicate it at the beggining of the vid.

Bret,

You mean a political appointee was expected to conform to the policy ideas of the person who appointed him? The horror. That is surely a first in this nations history.

Or not. It amazes me what the Dem's can "discover" when they want to. Things that Clinton and all his predecessors did, and which have only now been found somehow reprehensible.

With respect to this whole stem cell thing, there appears to be no medical or scientific need to use embryonic (ground up baby) stem cells, when adult stem cells actually appear to show more promise.

This is yet another issue where the debate has been controlled by people with an agenda. I find it hard to believe that liberals like the idea of killing babies for no good reason, so I will assume this is mainly intended as a wedge issue, since they know that religious conservatives would never go along with it, even if it did make scientific sense, which it doesn't.

Here is a link: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/winter01/stem_cell.html

Barry,

You are so easy! Like a colour blind test! Is this some kind of arm-wrestling thing?

I pointed to two other people's posts because you asked for clarification and that is where the clarificatin lay. I think it is your nephew or some other relative of yours who says 'Duh' in those circumstances. (It's documented in the archives somewhere, months back.)

However, I am neither erudite enough nor imaginative enough to see how today you can say, "I understand fully what Ben is saying", while last rest day (during the experimental phase, I assume) you said in post #212 to Ben "Please translate that into a complete thought. I don't understand what you are saying."

My response to the topic of the day is that I have not read enough Heinlen - not very exciting, sorry.

Borat

PS Apollo, the posts I am referring to were not "aggressive posts in defense of liberty" - but pretty mean-spirited attacks on Ben & his capacities personally (admittedley in my view, and we can differ there)- see posts 175, 205, 212, 213 and 216 last rest day for examples.

And thank you for the linked article - I had not come across 'The Plan' before, but it is an intriguing approach.

You are right Harry abusive language is everywhere and I use it myself from time to time. It's not extreme to not want to hear it on a workout video. The beat of the music was good for working out I don't need to hear about how to get my d--- s----d or listen to the "f" word to get me pumped up.

Not my web site just my opinion. By the way I did this workout in 5:14 using a 60lb bumdbell and three hours sleep.

Ryan

awesome video, and great music!

I need to work on my pull-ups so they look like the guy on the right. those are beautiful!

(1) The Surgeon General, while he may be appointed, is not a political position. Period. Its about science, not politics or religion.

(2) He was not told to conform to anything. He was told to be quiet. This is the top doctor in our country. Being told by politicians (not scientists) what he is allowed to say. That does not make sense, but is a great snapshot of the Bush administration and its blind disciples.

(3) Read the article...sure sounds like he wanted to say some things, based on his understanding of SCIENCE. But he was told not to. So, you're in favor of stifling scientific dialogue because some religious right-wingers want it that way? Pretty scary, Barry.

(4) Not surprised that one of your first reactions is to use the word Clinton. Predictable rightist deflection.

(5) Stem cells are not dead babies. They are cells.

Poor response, Barry, not up to your usual quality, but then again, you are taking an untenable position because your first reaction is always to defend the rightists. Think about exactly what you are defending, and read what the former Surgeon General himself said about it all.

And then try to blame the politicization (sp?) on the leftists somehow.

You really think its OK to stifle honest and scientifically based dialogue? I thought you were an academic of sorts, Barry, and did not expect such a blind and careless defense of a fairly indefensible policy.

The Surgeon General himself said that he wasn't even allowed to speak to the science of stem cell research. Why? What was the administration trying to hide? If everything is as cut and dry as it is in your mind, and on whatever websites you use for information, why not proudly shout that knowledge to the world?

My guess: it ain't so cut and dry...

My wife and I temporary died yesterday during the tabata marathon. I have never slept so hard in my life afterwards. Great workout.

I love CrossFit, but why must you guys use music that is degrading to women and that encourages sexual immorality?

More and more, we are becoming a postmodern and a neo-pagan society.

We are created in God's image - with dignity and value. Many of us are also married - which is a God-ordained institution. Many people who end up divorced get divorced because of sexual infidelity. We shouldn't be doing anything to encourage sexual immorality. We shouldn't be playing music that would cause people to be tempted. The ladies shouldn't be wearing clothes that causes the guys to be tempted.

Please clean up the music. And ladies, please help your brothers out by dressing modestly.

Great video, hopefully macho enough for some. I'll try the WOD tomorrow.

#80 - Harry,

I agree. The comments section should be reserved for athletes sharing results and tips on the days when there's a WOD.

On Rest Days, however, I like to read the views held by CrossFitters (being a unique brand of individuals) about the thought-provoking bit of lit posted that day with

"Post thoughts to comments."

underneath.

I especially appreciate that it gives me some insight into the minds of enlisted men and women and their feelings about important issues in our nation.

The article about Heinlein, to me, seemed to represent a fusion of the 2 main streams of thought you'll see arguing in America (and on this site) today. One of those battling against evil at any cost and one of humanity, peace and love for all people of the earth.

And, hopefully, the discussion here will help to invite others to think, and not to believe.

Tony at CFHQ: excellent choice to add a notice about explicit lyrics. Responsible without giving in to the thought police, a good solution.

Everyone who dislikes the music: quit trying to force your sensibilities on everyone else, just turn down the volume. The videos are captioned.

Otis Redding is one of the greats, for example, but he rarely gets me fired up for the full-body lifts we use at BadAssFit ( eg. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2004/10/10/2003206373 ). Oh drat, looks like I posted the WOD a day early. It's Max Effort Day, gentlemen...

The obfuscation by the left, trying to imply that the President has stopped embryonic stem cell research, when in fact he has stopped Federal spending on such research, should be grounds for any self respecting leftist to stand up and cry foul.

There should be no Federal spending on these projects.

Of course, the right has committed the same or similar fouls at some point - my favorite is their debate on 'school prayer.' As the old saying goes, I prayed before every test! Stupid abuse of the gullible masses, in both cases, using a volatile theme in a directly manipulative and dishonest way.

#83 RTC: good to see you posting again. Solid time on that WOD, I will have to try and match it tomorrow.

Test post. Curious whether the filter is simply set on Incinerate today.

Barry are you defending the idea of politicians silencing the Surgeon General? If so that is frankly scary.

The majority of scientist agree that embryonic stem cells are the more promising approach. One of the cornerstone papers that support your argument for adult stem cells has come under serious doubt[1], and no one other labs have been able to re-produce the results of that paper.

As for the controversy of "ground up babies" for stem cells, there are over a million abortions in the US every year[2], which could be used for embryonic stem cell sources. Would you prefer these embryos go to waste, and only adult cells are used instead?

Think for a moment, as to how your views might change if you were a parapelegic, whose only hope of walking lay in stem cell research.

Sources:
[1] http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17303776/
[2] http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/11/abortion.decline/

I hear you Appollo, but I was talking about the stifling of valid medical opinions from our top doctor for purely political/religious reasons.

That is disingenuous, horribly short-sighted, and, taken to its logical conclusion, extremely dangerous.

Money isn't the issue (for once)...

Apollo,
Really enjoyed your interview the other day. Very cool!
It's funny. I've always seen the obfuscation of the facts and using volatile themes to directly manipulate a voting population as the methods of the conservatives. We must watch/listen to/surf some very different sources.
I get most of my news from NPR. Do you consider that news source a liberal, leftist, pinko one?

Hey, that music was really great for that video. I was wondering if someone could post the song title and artist so I can pick it up and listen to it while I workout. Thanks.

Lyrics, expletives, and lude references. I like the beat, but I don't like the lyrics. I do appreciate the warning at the beginning of the video.

Harry (#80) not everybody uses foul language when they stub their toe. I don't and a lot of my freinds don't. Just because the majority of people might do something, doesn't mean the rest of us have to quietly follow along.

What frustrates me is for 3 days, all CFers are friends helping and encouraging each other, but on the 4th day, there are personal attacks against people for their opinions and preferences. There is such a thing as "respectfully disagreeing." There is no need to insult someone's intelligence, call names, or belittle people.

I am not saying we have to agree on every topic or like each other. Instead, show respect and think about someone other than ourselves all of the time. We can be polite AND have different views.

Surgeon General is a political appointee, period. Why was Jocelyn Elders fired? If you want to argue it was because Clinton lacked the political loyalty that Bush shows, I would agree with you. Clinton would have fired Gonzalez because it was politically expedient without a seconds' thought.

According to the report, pressure was placed on this guy not to talk about the science behind an issue with patent and obvious ethical issues, none of which the liberal establishment appears to want to address.

Nor do they want to focus on the avenues of research which in fact are currently open to them, which avoid ethical issues, and which appear to be better science for the reasons argued for in the link I posted.

I see there is more stuff. Don't have time for it now.

13 rounds

"There should be no Federal spending on these projects."

Could you explain why not?

Between 1997 and 2003, the US Defence Department purchased and never used $100 million of commercial airline tickets. All of these tickets were refundable. You don't think some of this money could be justified being spent of researching stem cell cures?

Sources: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/bg1840.cfm

Dudes, the "bullying" debate happening on this thread is not really going anywhere.

Is it not the point that anybody, regardless of race, sex, religion, political beliefs, culture or creed can participate in this program?

At the end of the day it is just you against yourself, how far you are willing to take yourself, being able to look inside oneself and not be found wanting.

We should be saluting those who give 100% with their training, those who leave it all on the mat, who walk away knowing they gave everything they had and more, those who discovered they could push themselves further than they thought possible.

Criticising each other for beliefs is not the ethos here in my opinion. If you disagree with someone, fine, diversity deeply enrichens us. Life is too short.

Work harder and leave it all at your training sesh.

Good Luck for tomorrows WOD to all.

"Pain is temporary"

Surgeon General is a doctor. A doctor.

Again, blame for the "liberal establishment." Thats awesome. Tell me more about the Clintons...

Your position has led you to argue in favor of base and trifling politics -- and against common sense and truth. Ouch.

Here is the song from the WOD (Not Work or Family safe):
http://www.eminem-lyrics.biz/eminem-shake-that.html

For the next video I suggest this song (Not Work or Family safe):
http://www.lyricsmania.com/lyrics/cannibal_corpse_lyrics_2088/live_cannibalism_lyrics_5459/meat_hook_sodomy_lyrics_64714.html

I hear neurons firing on the other end of computers.

I actually enjoy the debate going on.

Paul,

Libertarianism as I understand it is "leave me alone in all respects." If you did a plot of social freedom vs. economic freedom, you would have the current Democratic position towards the lower right, Republican towards the upper left, and Authoritarianism and Libertarianism in opposite corners. I have a feeling it's more in depth than that though.

While I am all for social/personal freedom, I disagree with it because I think that not all things can be solved by the private sector. For example, there's the US military and Blackwater and the interests of Iraqis and Americans. On the topic of government-funded research, I am no expert, but I think there are some merits to getting an NIH grant vs. an NGO. If you assume for a moment that global warming will make the human race extinct in 200 years, there will never be enough drive in the private sector to do something until it's too late. Electric cars, alternative energy and so on just isn't profitable enough yet.
I'm sure there's the argument that the government can't even plan well year to year, much less decades into the future, but the argument of "bad government" does not undermine its necessity. Rather, the mechanisms and structures of government should be improved to better reflect the will and needs of the people.

To continue with the research bit, it does seem like the Bush administration has been skewing things (w/f/s):
http://oversight.house.gov/features/politics_and_science/index.htm
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/02/62339
I think there's been a drop in government research funding too, which I don't see as good. The Cato Institute argues that R&D of commercially viable things largely comes from, no surprise, the private sector. They also correlate wealth with research, and so the remedy is to drop taxes and let the free market roll.
On wikipedia, genome sequencing gives a good example of private ingenuity trumping a government funded project.
The counterargument is for "pure" science, unforseen advances, and against the profit motive. An example is quantum physics later resulting in high speed computer processors.

I would say both private and public funds are good, but for different reasons. If you want a better designed engine, in-house R&D duh. If you want technology to replace that engine, maybe get gov't funding, or go the venture capital/private route depending on factors I am not totally clear on.

I guess back to the main questions:
The U.S. has ventured away from "we" for the past 40 years. A big highlight is Reagan-era deregulation and government dismantlement, and the culture bred by that. It seems that a growing sentiment is that each individual worries about his/her own problems while disregarding those of other people. A completely individualistic society doesn't cut it for me because that's not sociological or economic reality. The poor get poorer and the rich get richer not because of individual merit alone, but through institutionalized and informal mechanisms. Which can include the state, and usually does.

Charity is good, no doubt. A previously argued example of "me-centered" is health care. The richest country, but with 40 million uninsured.

I would say that coercion against individual liberty is justified if it improves "overall liberty." A very undeveloped argument, oh well. The reality though is that some are more free than others. Another value to consider is equality.
Constitution, I dunno.

The American economic ideology seems founded on equal opportunity, not equal status. The more coercive, equal-status-based European governments have problems of their own. I would not advocate government control just for its own sake, that's dumb. I know this much: equal opportunity is a fallacy.

The "government" can have a pretty broad range of "coercion" too: totalitarian to democracy. What about direct democracy? The people sure can be scary, but they are composed of individuals too.
I recognize the need for individual protection against majority rule and 'factions.' Still, responsive democracy and local governance seems like a good contrast to the bureaucratic machine and the welfare state. Throw in some land reform/redistribution policies, and you're good to go, haha.

and yeah Paul, I am for hearing about things if you want to tell it or link to it.

Borat,

I finally had time to actually read carefully. You state "One good way to get some numbers on Govt vs private efficiency, if you have the time, would be to look at the performance of various industries after they have moved from Govt to Private ownership . . ." Etc.

In what way does Apolloswabbies link cover that? One had to do with a proposed program essentially to plant seed money among the "have-nots". The other had to do with the systemic unsustainability of our current level of entitlements.

Ben responded as if you had answered a question, and then you pointed to Paul as having provided evidence. If you want me to consider your input as roughly congruent with Ben's, I can do that.

BTW, the seeming contradiction between my pointing out that Ben was incoherent, and then claiming I understood him, was not. He is in fact incoherent, but since he is parrotting known variables, I have a very good idea what it is he is attempting to articulate. I could say them much better.

Maximus,

That looks fair, but I believe you misspelled all three energy pathways.

I am going to take a page from Jeff, and break this response into multiple posts.

to the mod:
I REALLY hope that my last post I just wrote will be reviewed and posted, because it filtered AND deleted from my computer's memory.

Medwig,

5 minutes investigation, which included reading the original link, yielded this link: http://chronicle.com/news/article/2490/journal-says-flaws-in-controversial-stem-cell-paper-didnt-affect-results

The errors she made were unintentional, and unimportant to the overall conclusion. Your evidence, and hence argument, is faulty.

Surely you can see a potentially large ethical issue associated with not just utilizing existing abortions--which is bad enough--but creating a demand for them, in a context which doesn't itself call for that? The link I posted noted some serious, scientific issues with embryonic stem cell research, which you have not addressed at all.

With respect to the Surgeon General, of course a concern with ethics is appropriate, and I see no reason why someone who works for you can't be expected to cooperate with your ethical stance. Jocelyn Elders, while performing her job, made a comment that was likely scientifically correct and justifiable, but was fired for what amounted to a defect in judgement and a corresponding misunderstanding of the ethical domain of her job, which was not intended to include further overt sexualization of adolescents, by a member of the government.

Bret,

I don't care that he was a doctor. The issue was ethical, not medical. Again, if you want to argue that science and ethics should not be correllated, and that scientists should just do what they want, with nary a hint of deference to the moral order which governs a sizable percentage of our country, then, again, you have a lot of company.

But don't pretend science is all that was involved.

Neil(49)

Rower warmup + Burgener WP

Power snatch & snatch practice.

Pinched this workout from the Santa Cruz site

Row 250 mtrs.
DB push press 35lbs X 10.
Knees to elbows.
Laps in 20 mins

8 complete + row

Enjoyed this one.

I wanted to add one more thing.

I often see on the part of one "segment of our political spectrum" this implicit sentiment that all opinions should be treated as equal--as the sincere expression of the individuality of the person in question--with the corresponding sentiment that treating someone as wrong, versus just different, is intolerant.

Since intolerance is about the only sin that remains for leftists--other than, of course, deviation from orthodoxy--this makes one eligible for about the severest rebuke possible.

And I have to admit it. I am in fact guilty of "Idea-ism". I do in fact discriminate on the basis of ideas. I don't consider them all equal and do in fact consider some better than others.

There, guilty confession complete. I hope you all will forgive me.

Barry,

Of course, it is not wrong to recognize that some ideas are better than other ideas. Nothing to be ashamed of, my friend - unless you have bad ideas.

I often wonder when ignorance, stupidity, foolishness, envy, covetousness, and greed became legitimate points of view that are supposedly worthy of respect. The truth is that it never happened.

An open mind is useful the way an open mouth is useful - it is meant to close in on something - hopefully something good.

Good luck Tim T

Enjoyed every Heinlein story I ever read, although there is a lot more of his I could read.

For some reason Mary the other day really hit me hard, legs still sore today so I did a 10 min half Cindy to get the blood flowing got 12 rounds HR=198 @ finish, 144 @ 1min, 126 @ 2min, 120 @ 3min. Squats slowed me down due to stiff legs, but they felt a lot better an hour later.

M/44/6ft/185

Burreto,

Thanks for the vid comment. I used to listen to NPR quite a lot, at a couple of different times in my life. It sounds like "left" to me - not so much the easily identifiable "we hate Bush" and "conservative religious fanatics are sceming for armaggeddon" leftists that are easy to ID. NPR reveals that it is speaking to a more leftist base by the frame of reference it uses for asking questions and framing debates.

Bret -

For what it's worth - I don't think the Surgeon General can be imagined to be an apolitical job. For that matter, if I spent any time looking into it, I'd probably decide there's no reason to have one in the first place, another foolish bit of statist pap for which there's no redeeming quality, but I'll leave that fight alone for now.

Doctors are not scientists per se, and most medicine is not practiced as science. It's practiced as an art and there's enormous variation in treatments and outcomes (none of which is intended to demean doctors, my father and brother's examples of caring and professionalism stand out clearly to me). The point being, they are as suceptible to political agendas as anyone.

The absolute mendacity of those who are trying with all their might to equate the prevention of federal funding from going to more than the (then) existing 60 embryonic stem cell lines with "stopping embryonic stem cell" research is beyond disgusting. It's a lying liars game to inpugn the President (as I said, not unlike the 'school prayer' BS). The whole situation is crying out for one serious democratic leader to say "knock it off, this is wrong and dishonest."

Paul

Barry

The minor flaw in Doctor Verfaillie's paper was not what concerned me greatest, but that her results have yet to be reproduced. In five years hence, other laboratories have not been able to achieve the same results, some have even had assistance from Verfaillie herself. There are other concerns with adult stem cells, including that they are rare, hard to work with, and not as efficient as embryonic cells. [1]

I think adult stem cells have a place, certainly, in stem cell research. If all stem cell therapy could be done with adult cells then by all means do it. But right, scientists soundly agree that the most promise lies in embryonic research.

Personally no, I do not see the ethical issue of using existing embryos from abortions for stem cell research. They will be discarded anyway. Your point that it could create a market for such a thing, is a good one, and one I had not considered.

And lastly, the Surgeon General serves the people, not the government, and should be required to answer to the people themselves, and not Bush's own misguided and hypocritical beliefs.

Sources:
[1] Scientific American -
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa025&articleID=20989EDD-E7F2-99DF-3238A9B01D86E583&pageNumber=4&catID=4

Barry,

You need to read even more carefully. You have missed the ambiguity in my post and yours, which is where our confusion occurs.

My initial post 60 was aimed at Ben's comment at the end of last rest day about Government efficiency. I thought your post 65 refered to that.

Your post 72 appeared to refer to Ben's post 70 today (commenting on Apollo's post 68), and I read your comment aimed at me in that post as a jibe at me to help you understand Ben's post 70, not my own. I considered that it might refer to my post 60, but, wrongly decided it didn't since it was so proximate to Ben's post & it was in line with what I took to be your views on Private ownership vs Government ownership. My mistake. That was your ambiguity, although I doubt you will see it on current form.

That said, I am surprised that you need "Help? Links? Evidence?" with regard to my assertion that the Private sector runs businesses better than the Government can (Ben argues they are similar, that is what I disagree with him in my post), which it is now clear your post refered to. Any number of your posts make the same point that I make to Ben, although few actually have evidence ("I am told; It is generally agreed" seems to be about it) or even a suggestion for where evidence could be found, which is what I suggested to Ben.

Hope this helps,

Borat

#83,

Your logic is basically saying that since violent crime is everywhere, we should just deal with it and move on.

That said, some people do need slightly thicker skins, as in this case; but that fact alone should not permit an unconciousness of others on the larger scale, saying, "just deal with it: it's everywhere."

Ben, my problem with how you are engaging the group is your tone. Though today is better than the last two.

You state things that are facts, but with the tone that they are bad. You couple that with that you FEEL they should not be that way.

Example... 40 million people don't have health insurance. Yup. And?

Then you get lazy and ask what I consider a silly question on a Socratic wayas to "rope" someone in.

"Well, wouldn't be better if everyone had insurance?"

Now on a board of less developed persons like the Daily Kos or HuffPo this might play well. But you are out gunned simply because you haven't shown the first statement to necessarily to be a bad thing and something that should even be cared about.

Examples of such statements one could make.

40 million miles of road go unimproved in America each year.

400,000 NCOs in the United States Military make less than $50,000 a year.

4 million embryonic stem-cells go unused everyday.

The earth could warm 4 degrees F in the next 100 years.

Oh My God,the horror (sarcasm)

I don't mind one bit.

My point is that we don't disagree with you because we don't have the facts or even agree with the facts, which is how you phrase your comments.

We disagree with you because of the underlying arguement that your claim is "bad" and should be changed at the deteriment of other "good" things.

This is why many of your retorical questions don't get answered. The premis is false or you have failed to define terms.

I can speak for myself that you need to step it up. I know Barry and Apolloswabbie as well and you need to do your home work.

I don't think you are a leftist, I just think you don't know much about what you are taking about. Then using talking points from popular culture to make your arguement. Perhaps, the most you understand about them talks with friends around the drum circle.

So do more than make the claim. This is where Borat gets his idea that some of us are bullies. We demand you explain why we should give a cra#$%^. Show us how that is bad. When you do that, you will find the discussion you are looking for. Believe it or not I could argue that all of the above are good things including 40 million uninsured.

Ironic because I would bet that I am a more genereous person in my private life than most all who would like the 'problems' to be fixed.

28/F/110#

short on time today, only had 20 min to workout. wanted to do 4x8 weight workout and cardio, so just mixed it together.

quick mix of CF and Burgener WUx2

4 rounds for time of:

65# clean and jerk, 8 reps
400m run

15:35

Man! I can't wait for tomorrow's WOD, that way the only comments on here will be posted times!... because CFers will be too tired and battered and bruised to have any energy to elaborate an opinion on anything else!...

Isn't that what this site is all about, pursuit of self improvement, and to witness that of other CFers as well and to use that as inspiration towards your own?...Call me crazy, but somebody give me some pain...

Cheers to all CFers!

I found this on the Surgeon General: http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-07-97.html

It's not spectacular, but I would like to see someone argue that the Surgeon General has roughly the same relation to the nation as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. I don't see it now. I see a lot of hyperventilating, for what appears to me no genuinely good reason.

With respect to stem cells, I found this: http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=20989EDD-E7F2-99DF-3238A9B01D86E583

It is ambivalent, but there are two points I wanted to pull out.

One, the embryos were referred to as "designated cell colonies [that] have been compromised or corrupted." This ignores entirely the unambiguous fact that in most cases they were at some point viable human lives.

Second, the rationale Bush gave for his veto of federal funding for embryonic stem cell research was that "it would be "a grave mistake" for "American taxpayers [to] be compelled to support the deliberate destruction of human embryos."

In point of fact, embryonic stem cell research appears to be legal in 44 states: http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=218416

but researchers are whining because federal tax money is not being given to labs working on for-profit treatments.

Surely the philosophical objections to this, on a political basis, are obvious enough, even discounting the ethical issue? I fully support Bush's de facto decision to let the issue be resolved on a state by state basis. It is my belief that the abortion issue should be handled the same way.

I did want to finally make a comment on today's topic as well.

This juxtaposition of free love and military discipline is interesting, especially since he was apparently working on both books at the same time. Obviously, they both reflect parts of him, which connect in some way.

I thought about it, and the common theme is a freely chosen sacrificial committment to a larger community. In Starship Troopers, it consists in sacrificing your freedom for a worthwhile mission, and it is essential in this case, that the individual volunteered.

In Stranger in a Strange Land, it is offering yourself in love to others. An aspect of this was "free love", but what seems to me to have been missing in what was heard in the 60's, versus what he may well have meant, is that the pleasures of that free love need to be balanced by committment, by a sense of responsibility to others, sanctified by a willingness to sacrifice, as Smith did.

It seems to me the true libertarian does not eschew community. He just wants everyone who is there, to want to be there, and to have some sense of fellowship outside of ego and the utility of the relationship.

Now how could we duplicate that now? Hmmmm.

Great video and I liked the song too.

Barry, scandalous. Have you no shame ...

Medwig/#104, thanks for the question, the primary answer is: it is wrong to use the coercive power of government to deprive the property of free citizens, who have legitimate ethical concerns about this unproven science, to advance the political agenda of a few.

Correct me if I'm wrong - there's a lot of hope that one day this research will lead some where but to date, no one has been helped by embryonic stem cells and it is possible they will never help anyone.

Why is it necessary to use the coercive force of govt for this research? If it was so compelling, you should be able to raise mountains of voluntarily donations from the the US, the most generous nation on earth.

The subject of embryonic stem cell research is a great example one small group of citizens using the coercive power of govt to get their way, force their will on others. I believe this is wrong, and even if results were perhaps five years away, it would still be wrong, but there's no evidence that I've seen the results are even that close.

#127 is referring to post #114

Ben,

I appreciate the effort that went into post 108.

In my view, you missed the meat of the libertarian perspective. I'm not sure your own frame of reference is clear enough for you to articulate it. I've at least twice invited you to deliver a conceptual frame of reference for your beliefs but your typical response is a sort of wandering recital of opinions and stray facts which do not - insofar as I can see - present a compelling justification for your advocacy of state power.

It is clear that you want good outcomes for people and you believe that use of coercive state power (vice things like freedom of choice, individual responsibility, free exchange, and private charity) is the means to achieve better outcomes. However, in your answers you seem to acknowledge that the present system of govt interventions is not solving the problems you think should be solved. That apparently justifies in your mind greater imposition of the coercive power of govt. I think CCT Joey said it well above, it's about as frank a response as one could provide without resulting to insults.

Half way through a libertarian essay - but have extracted all the good I can from this day.

Bottom line - 'leave me alone' is better understood as 'leave all of us free to choose, we will choose a better good through freedom than you can force through govt coercion.'

"We culture" v. "Me culture" sounds like a platitude unless you can characterize what a "me" culture would look like compared to a "we" culture - the concept is nonsensical to me in the context of what is or is not a legitimate use of coercive govt power.

Either you can justify forcing people to do what they wouldn't by free choice, or you can't; we v. me isn't part of that. Unless you can paint the picture that shows me otherwise.

My cheesy but heartfelt advice - hold on to the passion you have - it'll get you where you need to go if you continue to temper it with experience, knowledge, desire for truth.

Apolloswabbie,
I agree with you that stem cell research is in a pretty infantile stage right now. Nonetheless, it seems like a worthwhile venture.

"coercive power of govt to get their way, force their will on others."
I agree. any time the government does anything, arguably it does just that. There is no opt-out program for taxes. But "it's not my war!" is laughable in some circles. That's the cost of not having a completely free society. Hopefully the benefit is that society as a whole, and maybe even each individual, is better served/protected/free/well-off/whatever. I don't know if I would call stem-cell research a "political agenda of a few," same with climate research, same with the characterization of composite materials. Although a couple of those are certainly more politicized than the other, I don't think that makes them agendas.

The ethical argument [1] for stem cells seems to center on when human life starts. Some say fertilization. One guy said 14 days, because before that the cell cluster can still become twins, meaning that no individual identity is formed. And it ranges up to birth I guess. When do we start killing babies?
Here's probably a really flawed idea, but we sure don't care about testing and modification of plants and animals and their cells in comparison. "When does life begin for a plant" is a question I haven't heard of. And humans aren't that far off from other forms of life on the genetic level [2]. We are 99% genetically similar to primates because the building blocks of life aren't magically different, but their expression and arrangement has big effects. Check the article. Heck, we are 94% similar to a banana. If that seems absurd, then doesn't comparing a cell cluster to baby also seem so?
I am not pro-baby-killing, but man is it tough to reconcile the minutiae of what constitutes the universe and our bodies with religious and ethical conceptions about "life" and humanity. Anyway, the first site has some interesting links.

Joey, 40 mil uninsured means that if a kid comes down with the flu, then there goes the car. Or the house. Or that kid's life because he/she can't access sufficient care. couple links on the bottom [3, 4]

(all is w/f/safe)
[1] http://www.stemcells.ca/ethics.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26devo.html?ex=1184299200&en=2103d60b497934da&ei=5070]
[3] http://www.urban.org/publications/310414.html
[4] http://www.kff.org/uninsured/7662.cfm

P.S. I had watched the Apolloswabbie interview a while ago, and then read your posts and stuff recently, and then last week sometime it clicked that it was the same guy (I payed a little closer attention to the name on the comments). Man, really cool. Especially because you're not just a faceless collection of paragraphs.

Paul (ASwab), you and Joey have hit it on the head (as usual). I attempted last time to convey the same thought.

Ben M., I apologize if I was less clear or patient, but I'm cranky right now as I'm in the middle of a very hotly contested trial. I will note, after reading your stuff, it seemed to me that you have an active and curious intellect, but that your ideas were "immature", and I do not mean that as a perjorative - I mean that in the sense of "not yet matured" - think of it like a young wine. So, on a hunch I checked your profile. Age about 19?

I mean this as a deep compliment - you have many, many years ahead of you. Keep reading and engaging and asking - but be willing to question "everything", not just the "conservative" view. Treat all of the things you read to the same searching analysis. Plus, having a few kids changes one's views on things. Trust me on this one.

Borat, as Joey said, demanding of someone something more than platitudes is not bullying. In fact, it could be argued that merely asking rhetorical questions (a la Socrates) is a specie of intellectual bullying. If you haven't attended law school, ask any first year law student how much fun the Socratic method is. Here, people demand something more than rhetorical questions as proof of a position. Attempting to clear up the mis-reading of posts on your part is appreciated. The internet takes away 60% of our communications skills (non-verbal cues) and thus demands more precision in our writing. Which is a hassle, really.

Cheers.

"justify forcing people to do what they wouldn't by free choice"

well there's the class conflict argument. Landlords vs. peasants as it were.

Sam Walton vs. Wal-mart employee with not even a dream of unionization and having an effect on his employment. Plus many other examples. Who benefits from free exchange? Do people really have free exchange when it comes to selling their labor?

You might call democracy the empowerment of the people through means of the state. The problem that you point out is that the state is the only one to control coercive, forceful action (military when it comes down to it).
The unequal division of resources, and money and power being joined at the hip, doesn't help out supposed equal rights.
So, maybe the empowerment of the middle and lower classes is democracy. Plus ensuring no stable group constantly controls power.

Me - free exchange, neo-liberalism, nativism, against economic reforms, communal programs, or redistribution, "it's not my problem"

We - my usual leftist drabble.

Social individualism could sort of fit in both I guess. Although community, diversity, respect, empathy, and other similar b/s words I would associate with 'we.'

I guess my idea is that if we just let stuff go "free" it wouldn't really be free for everyone. But alas, I haven't read any of that Libertarian stuff yet, maybe there's solutions.

Thanks for the appreciation and right back at you.

(1) The Surgeon General, while he may be appointed, is not a political position. Period. Its about science, not politics or religion.

(2) He was not told to conform to anything. He was told to be quiet. This is the top doctor in our country. Being told by politicians (not scientists) what he is allowed to say. That does not make sense, but is a great snapshot of the Bush administration and its blind disciples.

(3) Read the article...sure sounds like he wanted to say some things, based on his understanding of SCIENCE. But he was told not to. So, you're in favor of stifling scientific dialogue because some religious right-wingers want it that way? Pretty scary, Barry.

Comment #88 - Posted by bret kleefuss at July 10, 2007 12:42 PM

Then again, irony can be so ironic (Shatner, Airplane II). http://www.actupny.org/reports/elders.html

'Joey, 40 mil uninsured means that if a kid comes down with the flu, then there goes the car. Or the house. Or that kid's life because he/she can't access sufficient care. couple links'

Ben, perhaps, they should think about buying health insurance or saving for emergencies before buying a car

'Sam Walton vs. Wal-mart employee with not even a dream of unionization and having an effect on his employment. Plus many other examples. Who benefits from free exchange? Do people really have free exchange when it comes to selling their labor?'

Yes, they do. They can work at Target. Unions do not provide anymore Freedom than not having Unions. They are entities as well and in my opinion entities that produce nothing. They are coercive in nature.

Your above is an example of what I am talking about with you. You assume that unions are good therefore make the leap that without them, people have no free choice. Step back a second. I disagree that unions are necessarily a good thing. Further, I disagree that unions equal free will. I would further argue that a case can be made that unions harm free will. I would also like to point out that unions hurt the free will of the owners of a business when they are not legally allowed to fire all people involved in a union or prevent unionizing at their business.

follow?

BRET, The Surgeon general is not a political position? Really? Since when? Ever hear of Joscline Elders? That broad wouldn't know science if it knocked on her front door and introduced itself.

People by nature are political. Just like lawyers, scienists carry their biases with them into the public arena and we all get to live with those results until we ELECT people who see the world differently.

Dale, Joey,

By all means demand more than platitudes, but how you demand it makes a difference. When I read post 132 I don't see bullying or anything unpleasent, but you could easily have made the same points in a bullying way, just as you could have inserted some choice ad-hominems; either it's not your style or you chose not to, and good for you.

Borat

Ben M.,

In post #131, you said "I agree with you that stem cell research is in a pretty infantile stage right now. Nonetheless, it seems like a worthwhile venture."

I find it strangely ironic that you chose the word "infantile" when discussing stem cell research.

Borat,

Feel free to join the conversation at any time. You have demonstrated an ability to sift through posts and compare them, by number, one with another. You have me convinced of that.

Beyond that, I'm not sure we need a hall monitor. It is precisely the process of choking back on the full truth to avoid hurting feelings that has enfeebled our national dialogue, and gotten us to the point where a sizable number of people--majority or not, no way to know--do not feel they can actually speak what's on their mind, despite our much vaunted, and theoretically still available freedom of speech.

BTW: I saw an Ali G. episode, and I didn't think it funny or appropriate. If you are going to call people out on their manners, you could pick a better moniker than that of someone whose intentional mockery of others led to a number of lawsuits, quite justifiably in the case of the Rumanians.

Okay, I tried reading this all and instead of defending or attacking anyone I am going to just throw in my two cents on a few topics.

1) The Song. Yes there are curse words, yes there was an Explicit Lyrics mark on it. If you don't like excplicit lyrics in a CD, you don't buy it from the store. Same thing applies here, mute it or don't watch it. I personally enjoyed it and did not feel in anyway, shape, or form compelled to cheat on my wonderful girlfriend, to go to a strip club, or to act in any manner other than I normally do. I guess I just have the strength of will to view music as what it is, auditory entertainment and not a command.

2) Libertarianism. I have been a Libertarian since I found out there was a word for my beliefs. I would like to point out one thing about it (then others can do their own research and make up their own minds). Libertarian principles can be summed up basically as "You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you are not infringing upon anyone elses rights." Also, Libertarianism acknowledges that one of the few roles a government should have is defense of the country/state/those governed. Defense as a whole would not be privatized, it would be one of the governments primary functions.

3) Science in Government. Science has been stifled in Government as long as I can remember. Hell, in the 70s there were government funded research projects to discover the benefits of medical marijuana. When the studies showed vast medical potential, it disagreed with the administration's values, and were thus swept under the carpet. It happens quite often, regardless of the party in power. The only thing to do is learn about it, try and get the information out anyways, and vote for those you feel speak and foster truth. And if you can't find someone like that to vote for, run yourself.

"You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you are not infringing upon anyone elses rights."

The problem is that people do have positive moral and ethical obligations to the community. By "positive" I mean that people are obligated to take action. It is not enough to refrain from denying people their essential rights. We also need to do things to contribute to the community.

Having said that, I'm no socialist or communist. If I was talking to a socialist or communist, I would be pointing out all the flaws of socialism/communism and pointing out the strengths of the libertarian philosophy. But when talking to a libertarian, I am compelled to remind him of the necessity that we have to commit ourselves to the welfare of our communities. I guess I see it as my place in the world to help everyone come to a balanced view.

Understand that my objection to they lyrics in the song is not only that I don't like it. I know that I'm not the center of the universe. My objection to the lyrics of the song is that it is immoral and it dishonors God. I'm not saying that I'm perfect or holier than anyone else. In fact, I'm weak and I am easily tempted. But the reason why this music shouldn't be played is because the one true holy God has commanded all to be holy. These lyrics are not holy. I have nothing to do with it.

We should be more concerned about honoring God than keeping a pretense of shallow peace in our communities.

Dale, nicely put, best of luck in your case, and on a side note, awesome effort in the Games.

Fryer, "what you said."

Joey,
this is some good news for unions, and it's from the World Bank of all people.
http://www.telusplanet.net/public/afl/LabourNews/march11-03.html

The free exchange of labor is questionable in the U.S., but it more or less exists, meaning one could probably go work at Target. It's highly questionable or nonexistent in developing countries.
You're right, I have the impression that unionization is good in most all situations. I know that's been contested for a while though.

As for health care, I don't know if you can place the blame wholly on the family/individual. It's true that we are not a country of savers right now, although there has been periods of that in the past. That might hurt us in the economic fallout following Iraq (Robert Hormats on Charlie Rose).
Anyway, Michael Moore talked about one upper-class family with good health insurance. They had a daughter with some disease she couldn't get coverage for, and the family went bankrupt. It can happen to anyone. If high-income households with accumulated wealth are it risk, how do low-income ones stand a chance? Saving up might not cut it.
Plus, I can imagine there's some macroeconomic slowdown due to medical bills and copays. Not just 'your' problem but 'our' problem.

Anways, thank you Dale and Paul for your opinions and input. It's good to keep it in perspective, and thanks for encouraging me to learn and expand my viewpoint rather than saying 'you be dumb.'

#139, JFryer

On two seperate occasions I have talked to two strong libertarians about their beliefs. It matched your beliefs in post #139, except on the subject of national defense. Their belief was that the government should not be responsible for our defense (no full time or part time soldiers)but each community (neighborhood) should train themselves be soldiers. In other words, each adult, man or women, would purchase a weapon or weapons and have drills with other members of the same community. The government would not pay for your services, or purchase your weapons. It is your duty to protect the country. On both occasions I thought these people were joking, but they were dead serious. JFryer, or anyone else for that matter, do you know any libertarians with this belief concerning our national defense?

Andy, There are a great variety of beliefs about what the legitimat use of govt force is within the libertarians. I've spoken to one, whom I respect greatly, who can defend for example, individual ownership of nuclear weapons. Libertarians view govt power as the primary obstacle good outcomes, and as so corrosive that any possible option is on the table in order to reduce it as much as possible.

For me, I'm new to the ideas, but the ones that ring true to me are primarily regarding domestic policy - starts with "A woman/man owns themselves" and goes from there. WRT national defense, police/fire, etc, I support our present system as a means of defending our nation, its constitution and we the citizenry.

In my last comment, I discussed how the libertarian philosophy is insufficient - since we do have positive obligations to our communities.

Also, in reference to the song, I stated that my reasons for being opposed to the lyrics had nothing to do with me and everything to do with the holiness of God.

That comment was not posted.

I'm wondering if this is a technical problem, or if it has been deemed not allowed or inappropriate to bring up the holiness of God.

Perhaps it is neither?

Ben, from a couple of your posts:

B: I agree with you that stem cell research is in a pretty infantile stage right now. Nonetheless, it seems like a worthwhile venture.
--"Worthwhile" for free citizens who believe it is not just a good way to spend research dollars to help people, but the best way. There are many avenues to pursue medical improvement – government is typically rotten at determining which are the best in terms of cost/benefit. By definition, politicians spend money for political reasons. Individuals often make the same poor choices, but a significant difference is – they are spending their own money. If it’s a bad bet, they can take it without hurting anyone else. Not so for govt.
B: "coercive power of govt to get their way, force their will on others."
I agree. any time the government does anything, arguably it does just that. There is no opt-out program for taxes. But "it's not my war!" is laughable in some circles. That's the cost of not having a completely free society.
--You are on to a huge point. Govt uses force to do everything it does. That’s the only tool in govt’s tool box. So a question worth digging into is, what are legitimate uses of govt force? For me, there are at least two examples of legitimate use of govt force that are simple and clear. The common defense of the citizenry and our constitution, and the defense of individual rights (in other words, if I were to try and steal your property or person, the govt would legitimately use force to help you defend your property or person).
B: The ethical argument [1] for stem cells seems to center on when human life starts. Some say fertilization. One guy said 14 days, because before that the cell cluster can still become twins, meaning that no individual identity is formed. And it ranges up to birth I guess. When do we start killing babies?
--Keep in mind that there is no restriction on privately funded research on stem cells. If you can talk Bill Gates into spending his money on it, he could spend it all and there’s no restrictions to limit him. You might speculate on why he’s not choosing to do that – does he know there are better ways for limited amounts of money to be spent? Also, going on right now, is govt funded research on stem cell based treatments on the ~60 lines of stem cells that were available when the President established the present limits on Federal funding of this research. So what is all the fuss about? Whether or not Federal funding can be applied to more lines of stem cells – that’s all. The more I think of it the more I resent the lefties who are twisting reality into a pretzel for no apparent reason except to impugn the president by fooling a gullible public. And most certainly I’m ignoring for the moment some equally perfidious behavior by the right. The point being, don’t trust either side, in their grab for power they all lie to us. Which is how it has always been, which is why the Founders wanted the weakest possible Federal govt consistent with the ability to maintain a national defense and some degree of coordination between the states. Don’t forget their fear of the Fed was so great, they tried the Articles of Confederation first, and only after that was proven a failure did they step up the power of the Fed through the Constitution. Every part of that document was written to allow just enough federal power to allow for a common defense, but with clearly delineated limits on Federal power, and still to get the folks to ratify it, they had to include the split in the legislative body (house/senate) and the first 10 Amendments which restricted even more clearly the power of the Federal govt to interfere in the lives of free men/women. That document was an amazing creation, and it nearly worked, but the combination of the Great Depression, Wilson and FDR’s mishandling of that event, and WWII, led to over empowerment of the Executive and the Legislative branches which successfully over-rode constitutional limits and I think it was to the great detriment of our nation since then. AND STILL it’s far better than any alternative I know.
B: Joey, 40 mil uninsured means that if a kid comes down with the flu, then there goes the car. Or the house. Or that kid's life because he/she can't access sufficient care. couple links on the bottom [3, 4]
--Ben, health care is a huge topic but there’s a significant amount of info that supports trying free market solutions before we default to additional govt coercion when trying to solve the existing shortcomings in the US system, which by the way, already is 40% federally funded, and which already includes Medicaid, which covers health care for the poor.
B: P.S. I had watched the Apolloswabbie interview a while ago …
--Thanks Ben, I know what you mean about the ‘faceless’ thing, had the same experience just now when I saw a picture of Dale Saran. It was humbling that they put the Aswab video on the site and I appreciate the positive feedback about that interview.
B: "justify forcing people to do what they wouldn't by free choice" …. well there's the class conflict argument. Landlords vs. peasants as it were.
--In this country, class conflict is not a supportable complaint. The door is open for people to work hard to improve their lot. I would argue there’s no place in the world where you’d be better able to start poor and finish rich. Examples abound. One stat worth considering is to look at the number of people in the lowest quintile of wealth (bottom end, most poor people in our country) and over 50% of them will move out of that quintile over a relatively short time (but they won’t for example, in France, which is why their underclass is so violently frustrated with the state). Folks are not stuck when they get to the bottom, they can dig out and they do. Arguably, the only people stuck in that quintile are people who just don’t function very well as humans, and 40 years of govt intervention has not only proven to be ineffective in helping them, I believe it has punished the very people that were to be assisted by the govt programs. In his book “Losing Ground” Murray brilliantly documented the damage done to the poor by govt programs that were implemented to help the poor; his book was so widely acknowledged that the Clinton welfare reform effort appeared to be based on that book’s conclusions.
B: Sam Walton vs. Wal-mart employee with not even a dream of unionization and having an effect on his employment. Plus many other examples.
--There are many assumptions in this sentence as Joey has said – the first being that unions would help Wal Mart employees. I don’t believe a union would help Wal Mart employees, I think a union would hurt them in many ways and on many levels. The effect of unions is to give those already employed a government enforced monopoly on labor with an employer, which allows them to price out low skilled workers who would compete for jobs by accepting less pay. This is one of many efforts which was originally ruled unconstitutional, until FDR stuffed the Supreme Court to get his socialist way. It has been punishing workers ever since. The most unhappy, most miserable, most resentful workers I’ve ever known are union folks. I wish that was the worst of what unions did to their members, but unions also create a conflict based work environment that poisons competitiveness of the company – and when the company fails, it takes the workers’ future with it. One of my best friends is going through this with Delta – it’s a sorry tale. Aside from the negative outcomes that unions produce for their members, and their long history of being a tool of the mafia, unions are wrong because they are a means by which govt enables a select few to restrict the rights of free people.

A Walmart employee presumably only works there because Wal Mart is the best available option. If Wal Mart becomes less preferable than another available option, the employee can leave and take the better option. In this way, businesses are forced to compete for good employees, which are a rare commodity and valuable. The situation begs the question - if Wal Mart employment is such a horrible thing, why do people choose it? If Wal Mart employment is the best option a person has, by what basis is the govt entitled to intevene on behalf of either party in this freely chosen relationship?
B: Who benefits from free exchange?
--Both parties benefit from free exchange; otherwise, they would not exchange. That’s the magic of it – by our choice, we agree that you have what I want, I have what you want, and we agree to terms of exchange. Both sides get more of what they want than before the trade. It’s called ‘gains through trade.’ If there’s any magic in the world, free trade is it.
B: Do people really have free exchange when it comes to selling their labor?
--In this country, there are relatively few restrictions on free exchange of labor, but there are still many. There are zoning laws that prevent some folks from working in their homes. There are Federally backed labor unions that prevent workers with low skills from competing by being willing to work for less money, there are licensing requirements that give govt monopoly status to certain groups (for example, doctors). There are minimum wage laws that don’t allow people with low/no skills to work for less money in order to compensate for their low productivity (one of the most significant obstacles to the current ‘underclass’). In short, there are many govt restrictions on free exchange of labor which I would eliminate if I could. Nonetheless,
You might call democracy the empowerment of the people through means of the state. The problem that you point out is that the state is the only one to control coercive, forceful action (military when it comes down to it).
--You might call it that, but look around – is that what the state does? I don’t see the state empowering people, but if it does so, it does so by infringing on the rights of others in the process. I don’t view that as being a “good.”
The unequal division of resources, and money and power being joined at the hip, doesn't help out supposed equal rights.
--Unequal division of resources is a result of unequal amounts of talent, drive, intelligence, creativity, and personal discipline/wisdom/responsibility. Most of the rich folks in our nation got that way in the same way I would like to do it – hard work, discipline, careful planning. Every state effort to correct the natural state of affairs (inequality in ability between humans) has reduced the amount of wealth for all, hurting primarily the poor. The rich, the elites, they do OK no matter how badly the economy is managed by a coercive state. Utopia is not an option – there are and always will be inequalities in ability, wealth, etc. State efforts to correct that usually amount an outcome which is far worse than can be achieved through freedom.
B: Me - free exchange, neo-liberalism, nativism, against economic reforms, communal programs, or redistribution, "it's not my problem" We - my usual leftist drabble. I guess my idea is that if we just let stuff go "free" it wouldn't really be free for everyone. But alas, I haven't read any of that Libertarian stuff yet, maybe there's solutions.
--If the ‘we’ ‘me’ issues you see are real and compelling, then people should be allowed to choose them and you should do your best to encourage and recruit people to make ‘we’ choices vice ‘me’ choices. If you view a ‘we culture’ as such a great virtue that you wish to use the coercive power of the state to require people to live according to your “we” values, you are joining a long line of tyrants who felt they could impose their will on others and thereby make things better. You won’t be surprised to find that I’m not going to support that, but I will give you all the moral support in the world to make your case for a ‘we’ culture and convince me, and everyone else, what a ‘we’ culture is and how ‘we’ can make one. If this sounds like I’m being sarcastic – not intended.

Paul

Ben, the world is not a nice place. Bad things happen.

My point is, we should not be scared of it. Micheal Moore is doing just that. Promoting fear of something that is not something to be afraid of.

Personally, I would rather go bankrupt trying to pay my medical bills, then depend on the government to cue me a spot for free.

I still fail to see outside of your feeling something should be done, you offering evidence that another way is better. However when you do I know several of us will be ready.

'The free exchange of labor is questionable in the U.S., but it more or less exists, meaning one could probably go work at Target. It's highly questionable or nonexistent in developing countries.'

Can you explain this, because I don't follow. I have never had a problem selling my labor or buy someone else's.

Long post held by filter - hopefully will find its way to the board before too long.

#137/Ksquared, keen observation, thanks.

Joey brings up a great point - since utopia is not an option, arguing that free market solution won't create a perfect result is not a serious approach. The question is which approach will result in a better outcome. Further, in my view, to justify govt action via coercive force, the outcome must be significantly better than the free market alternative in order to even begin to justify the necessary cost in freedom inherent in a govt solution.

That said, I see some justification for govt intervention as an adjunct to free market approaches, largely because I am not willing to let the good be the enemy of the perfect. For example, I think the best solution would be free markets for health care with private charity as a back up; I think this would create the best outcomes for all. But given that most Americans as yet do not trust a full free market/private charity back up, I would support limited govt intervention as a back to increased free market health care solutions. The "In Our Hands Plan" is a similar compromise - the author confesses he see any govt solution as likely a worse outcome than none, but is willing to accept a govt solution that is better than the current one vice holding out for the more perfect but unlikely rejection by the public of all govt intervention.

According to www.lpo.org (w/f/s) the only thing I could find at quick glance about National Defense was a staunch opposition to the draft and registration:

The Issue: Any form of coerced national service program is a type of involuntary servitude. Examples include conscription into the military and compulsory youth labor programs.

The Principle: Coerced national service programs presume the government can claim ownership of the lives of individuals. Such programs are a form of involuntary servitude and are a clear violation of the US Constitution 13th Amendment.

Solutions: All forms of national service will be staffed by willing participants without the need for conscription or other means of mandating such service. When people perceive a just cause, history has shown that they willingly volunteer to serve.

Transitional Action: All schemes for automatic registration through government invasions of the privacy of school, motor vehicle or other records should be immediately eliminated. The still-functioning elements of the Selective Service System should be abolished and all associated records should be destroyed. The President should immediately pardon, providing unconditional exoneration, for all who have been accused or convicted of draft evasion, desertion from the military in cases of conscription or fraud and other acts of civil resistance.

Andy,

This goes back to "Should we trust the government?" Are you more comfortable with a strong centralized government with a massive military and beauracracy, or would you be more comfortable with clans, families, and small communities each of which assumes responsibility for themselves in all ways - education, counseling, productivity, trade, faith, military, justice, courts, etc.

Frankly, both ideas are very scary to me. But on the whole, most Americans really do trust the government. I mean think about. Our military is one of the most - if not the most - powerful militaries in the world. Our government has nuclear weapons, and the government has the power to command our troops into battle. If the government is corrupt, there is nothing to stop them from doing virtually whatever they want. And if we don't like it, we walk around with signs in Washington, D.C., and we can elect new leaders. But ultimately, if you favor a strong centralized government, you are trusting the mob with the arguably the most powerful military in the world.

Since the U.S. military is arguably the most powerful military in the world, what choice have we but to trust them and hope that they don't become incredibly corrupt and turn that military against us in an unjust manner?

Of course, God is more powerful than the US government and military. Therefore, we need not worry about the might of the US military and government. If they oppose God, they will lose. God is Sovereign, and that is a very comforting thought.

The ideas of smaller sovereign clans each governing themselves and providing for their own military defense is not a bad idea - if the clan you are a part of is filled with people who are smart, competent, good, wise, just, strong, trustworthy, and ethical. But if a neighboring clan was smarter, tougher, and stronger than you, then you have to be concerned about remaining in their good graces - whether or not they are moral, ethical, good, wise, or just.

As it is, the mob when unified is stronger and tougher than us. So, it behooves me to pray that the mob would be wise and good and ethical. If and when the mob is not wise, good, and ethical, then we ought to be quick to call them to change.

Thus, without shame, I appeal to all citizens of this nation to obey God. If we don't, then one: we have to deal with the wrath of God directly. And two: we have to deal with the wrath of God indirectly as he delivers us into the hands of those who are strong, but not good.

I noticed some discussion about Health Care/Health Insurance and wanted to throw in my two cents here also.

I don't agree with massive socialized healthcare for a few reasons. One, I think a private market could handle it better if some things were straightened out. Two, I hate to use it in a debate but the government runs Walter Reed hospital and I really don't want other hospitals to have the same issues. Three, I don't want to have a broken leg and have to wait behind the smoker complaining of a cough because "what the heck, this visit is free". I don't feel the American Society as whole is responsible enough to use medical services only when needed because we are all sharing.

With regards to insurance, I find the biggest problem is that most insurance companies operate as for-profit. If more or all insurance companies were Mutual Companies (Amica is one I think of off the top of my head) there wouldn't be so many costs associated with health care. The mutual policy basically means the company is owned by policy holders, not stock owners. They do not operate with profit as their number one goal but service of the policy holders. My father uses Amica and almost every year their claims are less than the premiums they take in. They then take that excess and either re-distribute it to policy holders or lower their premiums for the next year.

If every medical insurance company were a mutual company and operated to serve their owners, not their bank accounts, then maybe hospitals wouldn't need to charge 5 dollars for a cotton swab because the insurance companies wouldn't be reaming them for all they could.

Joey,

He's trying to use big words, but the fact is he obviously hasn't worked at Target or, in all likelihood, anywhere else. He is manipulating concepts, the meaning of which he hasn't experienced. Basically he is just thinking out loud, and we are witnessing his process of maturation, which will not and cannot be complete until he enters the real world, which will be at least four years from now, and there is no telling what sort of indoctrination will happen in the meantime. He already has at least one teacher working on him.

Maybe I'm shooting the puppy, but if he's big enough to post on here, he's big enough to be held to a minimal level of intellectual accountability. Do we need to dumb down the whole board to accomodate him? I'm tired of it. I'm tired of pulling punches, and watching this endemic idiocy spread like oil on the the tide.

With respect to the issue of bankrupcy, we have the most liberal policies, in my understanding, in the industrialized world. The reason for this is we encourage people to try things and fail. Banks make their assessments as to risk, balance it with prospective reward, and then do what makes sense to them.

I know many entrepreneurs who have filed bankrupcy after taking gambles that didn't pay off, and I know a number of Fortune 500 companies which are currently in bankrupcy. On balance, this system leads to economic growth. You talk about "macroeconomic slowdown", and implictly propose the solution of heading it off at the pass by taking that money out in taxes first. Do you not understand how that is contradictory?

If someone gets behind the 8 ball because of medical bills or whatever else, filing bankrupcy means you ran up a stack of bills and the courts either made them go away, or gave you interest free financing, making the use of bankrupcy in the service of selling the cause of socialized medicine spurious.

Oh, and flu is not something insurance helps with. It is a virus, which we currently can't cure. You were looking for something along the lines of cancer.

Oi.

Ran alittle over 10K in 50:03
RAn slow. Very humid. Walk ran the last 1-2 miles.
Legs cashed.

JFry,

If Amica can beat other providers, what's stopping people from using them?

Often, for profit companies operate with so much greater efficiency they can beat organizations like Amica in pricing and service.

But we needed worry about that, as long as both options can freely compete in the market place. You and I can then shop and choose the best option.

Barry, #150, I feel your pain.

He's a big boy, can take care of himself, he's taken the shots and come back for more. Good on him. Proves he's not a puppy.

"Do we need to dumb down the whole board to accomodate him? I'm tired of it."
--'Accomodation' of Ben will run its course. Good faith efforts merit a certain amount of investment.

Dan, #145, your post came through as #140 - many posts hit the filters for one reason or another. Unless they violate the published board restrictions, they eventually post after a review.

Dan/#140 - if you were living in a state designed by libertarians, you would be free to take positive action within your community, and you would be free to try and convince all others of the same religious convictions you hold dearly. You would have to trust that the rightness of your cause the goodness of the people around you would lead to the outcomes that you believe to be right.

The libertarians would celebrate your successful exercise of free will.

If you view the community obligations as such a great virtue that you wish to use the coercive power of the state to require people to live according to your values, or your perception of your god's commandments, you are joining a long line of tyrants who felt they could impose their will on others and thereby make things better.

You won’t be surprised to find that I’m not going to support that, but I will give you all the moral support in the world to make your case that I or anyone should freely choose the good actions that you advocate.

A person taking an action due to state coersion is not an expression of virtue, by any measure.

w/f/s
http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/taskforcereport.pdf

Here's a pretty good unbiased review of the state of America, as it pertains to equality and the reality of free exchange and labor. It's longer than a newspaper article but I think there's a good summary in the beginning.

From what I understand, the Friedmanite belief of "I give you corn, you give me sheep" free exchange does not work. I agree with the claim that the money system, enterprise, and division of labor only makes free exchange more complex but doesn't undermine the basic principles. What does is the socio-economic realities that exist.

Paul: Most of the rich folks in our nation got that way in the same way I would like to do it – hard work, discipline, careful planning.
-- I am going to disagree. Most got it through familial accumulation of wealth, inheretence. The rich tend to stay rich. There is no level playing field where people compete solely on their individual merits. For many, it's an uphill battle.
I have no qualms with the idea of a merit-competition for the spoils, like ya know, capitalism. But that idea seems like a cover-up for maintaining the status-quo. One solution is a 100% death tax to "level the playing field." The problem is that kills the motivation for accumulation of capital. You want to give your kids a better life of course, but it's a flawed system.

When I get back home I will post up the difference between labor earning and capital earning. Their nature, and the way the law is set up, it helps to maintain inequality.

P: There are minimum wage laws that don’t allow people with low/no skills to work for less money in order to compensate for their low productivity (one of the most significant obstacles to the current ‘underclass’).
-- I don't understand this part. How does a minimum wage hurt the underclass? Wouldn't this only justify paying certain people way less, while the "normal" poor get the current minimum wage?

P: give those already employed a government enforced monopoly on labor with an employer, which allows them to price out low skilled workers who would compete for jobs by accepting less pay.
-- Exactly, like paying less to those who are willing to accept no 401k, medical benefits, and stuff like that. At the extreme end, child labor and authoritarian sweat shops. I wonder if there is economic argument for worker's rights, because otherwise let's get with the slave labor.
There wouldn't need to be a union if there weren't grievances. Hopefully the process of collective bargaining balances out the desires of greedy employers with those of greedy employees for economic efficiency. yay!

on 'we' culture:
maybe improve the democratic processes, or give more power to the people, so that we have a say in government and policy. With due protection for individuals. But then, the only will we would be imposing would be our own.

Ben,

Where in the doctrine of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do you see a responsibility of the government to "level the playing field"? From where do you derive the right to any tangible thing, other than life and liberty, within our govenment? Everything else comes from the choice of the people. Anything else is necessarily a curtailment of freedom.

The doctrine you are looking for is liberte, egalite, and fraternite, the values of the French Revolution. The values that led ultimately, as an almost inevitable consequence of the notion of egalitarianism, to the deaths of many thousands of French innocent of everything except owning things, and--in the 20th century--to the deaths of millions in the Soviet Gulags, Cambodian killing fields, and elsewhere.

Why, other than an appeal to compassion, do we owe the poor anything other than a fair shot? Are you capable of grasping that the fundamental "logic" you are employing has been tried over and over and over, and failed every time? That you are free to speak because of the triumph of American capitalism, which would have failed entirely if a fraction of what you suggest had been tried?

I think the profit motive runs counter to medical care. A strategy of preventative care, to keep people out of hospitals, is something that insurance companies, HMOs, and hospital CEOs will not get behind. If someone would latch onto this, they might make a killing, but for some reason the capitalist/profit system isn't promoting this kind venture. They must be running the extortion game just fine, thank you.

Here's something sorta related. From a moral standpoint, I believe in staying alive as long as possible. I completely support and am in awe of the devotion and sacrifice of the armed forces, but ya know, premature death is not my game. Anyway, the deal is that ridiculous sums of money are spent in the last few months of life. Doctors just wail away on patients that are going to inevitably die. Letting them go is clearly morally questionable, my own views included, but I think at some point an understanding needs to be reached doctor to patient, and the line should be drawn. The priority should be preventative rather than end-stage care.
The controversial case of Terry Schiavo comes to mind, although it's not directly related.

Dan,

My comment of "You should be allowed to do whatever you want as long as you are not infringing upon anyone elses rights." was not meant as the be all, end all of Libertarianism. I was merely trying to sum it up as quickly as possible to help those unfamiliar with it. I know we all have a vested interest in our communities. We as a country have always been defended by those who feel they owe it to their country/community to protect it, often with their lives, the ultimate sacrifice.

As far as the lyrics being unholy, I would agree that those with your religious beliefs should not listen to or endorse them and you have every right, much as Jesus excercised his, to try and teach those about your beliefs and what you feel is right.

Much as Apollo said though, after all of your efforts, we are all still free to make or own decisions, and that should be honored as well. Forcing those to accept your beliefs, religious or not, is tyrannical and should be opposed.

Apollo, I agree with your comments about Profit vs. Mutual insurance companies. I chose Amica because of their efforts to enhance the communities that they are a part of and to help enrich the lives of their policy holders. I have confidence that eventually the efforts and benefits of Mutual Insurance Companies will pay off and the market will scew drastically in their direction. All a free market needs is time to work :-)

Apolloswabbie,

One thing I appreciate about most liberterians... they are some of the most clear thinking people in the world. And you seem to be very clear thinking as well.

Let me ask you, do you believe that there should be no funding for public schools? Because the state uses the public schools to aggressively coerce children to adopt a particular set of values - some of which are noble values - others of which are hostile to Biblical values.

Examples: The state indoctrinates children to embrace democracy, to celebrate "diversity" and "multiculturalism" with an "open mind." The state sometimes subtly, other times directly, teaches children to label anyone who disagrees with their core doctrines as bigots. In some public schools, the goal is to help children become skilled and ready for "global citizenship." Also, children are often taught sometimes subtly - and other times directly - to embrace socialism - or at least to keep an open mind to socialism and marxism. Finally, little children are taught - with my tax dollars - to be open-minded to abortion as a woman's right and homosexuality as an acceptable "alternative lifestyle." Children are taught to see the Founding Fathers as heros (but sometimes it is not really the Founding Fathers, but new, biased, and inaccurate histories about the Founding Fathers).

So, you might be accurate to call me a tyrant when I assert that children ought to be taught biblical values as they are being educated, but let's not pretend that the ungodly, secular state is not tyrannical about indoctrinating children with their secular, anti-Biblical values. And let's not be duped by the myth of neutrality in the classroom. Moral, ethical, religious, and political neutrality in the classroom is neither possible - nor desirable.

Do you believe that all rights imply negative obligations in all circumstances, or are there certain rights that we have that demand positive action? Do you believe in the right to trial by jury? Because that requires the state to use coercive power to have court rooms built and taxpayers to pay judges, clerks, etc.

It seems to me that most people actually trust the government more than they trust God and more than they trust themselves. The reason for this is that the government has often proven itself to be more reliable than many individuals - which is a major reason why so many GS employees keep working for the government - rather than start small businesses. This is merely an observation.

I'm not really arguing for one form of government over another. I am arguing that individually, we all need to joyfully submit to God's authority. All the problems of government - particularly in this Constitutional Democratic Republic - are the sum total of our individual and social problems.

In theory, the best form of government is a good and wise benevolent despot. The problem, in reality, of course, is that most despots have neither been good, nor wise.

"A person taking an action due to state coersion is not an expression of virtue, by any measure."

People pay taxes all the time do to the coersion of the state. Whether or not this is virtuous depends on their attitudes. Many people have been drafted into the military and virtuously fought in wars. Many of these would never have done so if there was no draft. I'm not supporting the draft, nor am I speaking out against it. The whole purpose of government is to govern those who won't govern themselves - that is to coerce right behavior out of those who otherwise would not behave rightly.

The bottom line is that we all need Jesus.

Sorry for the long post.

Ben,

You know nothing about our history, you don't understand economics, you don't understand philosophy, you don't understand business, you don't understand the healthcare system, you've apparently never worked, you don't have kids, and yet you froth on in perfectly good conscience because in our Wikipedia, post modern feel good age, you just want to, then you tell people that are fighting and dying for our nation that that just isn't for you, but you have no objections if they want to.

Go sit on a pole and rotate, you little punk.

JFryer, / On #162...

"Forcing those to accept your beliefs, religious or not, is tyrannical and should be opposed."

Not trying to be annoying here, but by "opposed" do you mean with force if necessary? Because if so, then you've defeated yourself. If so, then you are suggesting that it would be appropriate to force me to accept your belief that forcing others to accept certain beliefs should be opposed. This would be a tyrannical stand against tyranny. And that would be tyrannical.

But have no fear. I am not about to write a letter to my Congressman urging him to inflict punishment on those who listen to unholy music while watching CrossFit workouts. However, I do urge you to consider the grace, mercy, love, and purity of Jesus Christ, and to make a conscious decision to obey Him in all areas of your life. God is holy; therefore, we ought to be holy. For we ought to be imitators of God.

Peace.

Yup, death is an unfortunate consequence. I would really rather avoid it, but some sholars like Barrington Moore think that violent revolution is necessary for true democracy. For him, the US revolution wasn't against the British, that was just a power transfer from one set of landlords to another. The real revolution came with the civil war.
He felt that the French revolution was bloodier and longer than necessary because of the high degree of peasant unrest (communist tendencies) plus a weak bourgeoisie, plus other stuff. I wouldn't blame it so much on the values as arbitrary and unchecked rule as a result of stuff like 'pre-conditions for democracy' or civil society or 'capacity for monbilization of people/groups' or class stuff. Or political game stuff, elite actions, whatever, different ideas. Either way, more to do with on-the-ground realities than 'egalitarianism = bad.'

whew hah. some interesting debates going on. wish I had a laptop so I could browse this at work.

Did the video workout, 13:13. longer than expected, but I'm getting there, and loving it.

liked the song too, great beats.

JFryer,
yeah the profit vs. non-profit debate is interesting. There was an article in the NY Times magazine a few months back about microlending to spur economic growth in developing countries. There's argument over whether for- or non- profits are more sustainable or efficient or whatnot.
I don't think that all profit is bad, or all capitalism is bad. There's ups and downs to be sure.

Barry,
" just isn't for you, but you have no objections if they want to."
uh, free will? I don't have even the frame of reference to properly praise or advise or comment on anyone serving their country, ya know, up to a point. I also think it shouldn't be made out to be a higher-than-thou, pinnacle of existence. I respect but do not worship it.

and also, that last post seemed pretty much pure ad-hominem. If you are 'testing' me or something like that, it seems kind of unwarranted and dumb.

Ben:
I don't understand this part. How does a minimum wage hurt the underclass? Wouldn't this only justify paying certain people way less, while the "normal" poor get the current minimum wage?

I don't have to 'justify' what I pay. If they don't want it, they can pound sand. If I don't want to pay what they ask, then I can pound sand.

What makes you think the 'poor' get the minimum wage?

BEN: 'I am going to disagree. Most got it through familial accumulation of wealth, inheretence. The rich tend to stay rich. There is no level playing field where people compete solely on their individual merits. For many, it's an uphill battle.
I have no qualms with the idea of a merit-competition for the spoils, like ya know, capitalism. But that idea seems like a cover-up for maintaining the status-quo. One solution is a 100% death tax to "level the playing field." The problem is that kills the motivation for accumulation of capital. You want to give your kids a better life of course, but it's a flawed system.'

Where do you get off claiming there is no level playing field? The playing field is the way law is to be applied, not ensuring everyone is equally miserable. What would a death tax do? Things do not temporarily belong to you on loan from the government. What is yours and yours alone. The government has no right to it, particularly if you die. This isn't Cuba.

B:' think the profit motive runs counter to medical care. A strategy of preventative care, to keep people out of hospitals, is something that insurance companies, HMOs, and hospital CEOs will not get behind. If someone would latch onto this, they might make a killing, but for some reason the capitalist/profit system isn't promoting this kind venture. They must be running the extortion game just fine, thank you."

Who is going to monitor preventive care?

B:' I completely support and am in awe of the devotion and sacrifice of the armed forces, but ya know, premature death is not my game. '

obviously

B:'I don't have even the frame of reference to properly praise or advise or comment on anyone serving their country, ya know, up to a point. I also think it shouldn't be made out to be a higher-than-thou, pinnacle of existence. I respect but do not worship it.'

of course not, that might mean seeing honor in sacrifice.

You got some issues. Time to get a job and have to be responsible.

Ben
We all die. Nobody I know, (18+ years active duty) wants to die for their country, I believe that I am a free citizen of the greatest, most generous nation ever on earth and I am willing to do my part to maintain it. How does that make you somehow better than me? That's a bit pompous don't you think? Military service wasn't even mentioned until you took a free shot at my intelligence. Many of the people on this board are committed public servants. Even the ones who argue so eloquently for reduced government are making sacrifices for your freedom and safety. What are you doing for it? Freedom isn't free, don't talk about free will to people who are willing to sacrifice that so you can mainain your innocent little fantasy world.

Ben, I am wondering why you think taxes (100% death tax) are a justifiable method of 'leveling' the playing field. Where have you seen this sucessful?

Taxes are for raising revenue for the government. You seem to be advocating that the government's role should be in making things fair by taking from one to give to another. Where is this found in the Constitution?

Sounds like theft to me.

OK i really didn't want to take shots at any people in service. I didn't mean to play some sort of status game the wrong way. Honor in service is obviously a high virtue. I guess my only connection to the military is an uncle who served 21 years in the Air Force. I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the sacrifice and service of others.
I just don't like it when sacrifice gets in the way of freedom, liberty, equality, even if freedom isn't free. Serving shouldn't justify... um, stuff. I'm not quite sure, it just seems there's a weird dynamic when it comes to approaching it or anything related. I don't mean to push any buttons, though.

Joey,
A death tax would start everyone born from scratch. All else being equal, those with the best abilities, wits, whatever would rise to the top. Those without would dully not get their piece of the pie. Instead, we've got hundreds of years of slanted development and gain, with each generation making another go around the vicious cycle.
Equal protection, equal opportunity, and material equality are all different things. I think only the first is in the constitution though. Does that make the second (and the third for socialists) less desirable? The constitution is kick@$$, man it's good, but it's not the holy word of God.

Preventative care might be monitored by say, doctors. For example, looking at genes for predispositions to disease, and then taking steps 20 years in advance rather than after getting symptomatic. Private or public, I dunno.

"What makes you think the 'poor' get the minimum wage?"
Well I guess if you got less than that you'd be really poor. I don't think I understand the question.
"pound sand"
A nice elaboration on free exchange. I'm saying it's not free but slanted. There's utopian liberal views and there's utopian conservative views.

While I haven't read the complete exchange between Ben and his adversaries, from what I've read, I agree much more with his adversaries. That said, why don't you guys ease up on the guy a little bit? There is a deeper right than being right. You can be right and win him to the truth. He is a human being. He might have some ideas that are wack, and that wrong thinking does need to be confronted, but how about confronting him with compassion?

Not that I'm an expert on compassion. But I'm learning - or maybe I'm learning that I need to be learning.

We all like being treated with compassion, but very few of us really like being compassionate. To be compassionate for someone means to enter into their suffering with them. Or, sometimes it means to suffer on behalf of those who aren't even suffering, so that they might benefit. I don't sense that anyone on these boards is willing to suffer on Ben's behalf.

Ben,

If I were your father, I would be profoundly ashamed of myself right now. I would look myself in the mirror and force myself to admit I F$$^ed up.

You lack even a hint of the restraint, decency, and respect that should be accorded this group, who in almost all respects are vastly your superiors in intellect, courage, and experience.

I would tell you that you now get the opportunity to put yourself through college, after a stint in the military. Prior to that, I would force you to read some actual history and economics.

As of this moment, as far as I am concerned, you are your posts--your self-indulgent little regurgitations of things you don't even begin to grasp the implications of--don't exist. There will be no more ad hominem, because I hold you in sufficient contempt that you are not worthy of the attention of a man working hard to earn his place in a society built on the backs of generations of heroes whose shoes you aren't worthy to polish.

Have a nice day.

Ben, so you are saying a parent's wealth will not influence the children while they (the parents) are alive?? Or perhaps young should be taken by the government at a young age and all treated the same in an indoctrination environment like in CUBA.

You don't inherit when you are born, normally. So you assumption is flawed. So no one would be born and have to start from scratch.

The 'vicious' cycle would be for a family lineage denied the use of the wealth created by the last generation. That is just mean to make all that work for nothing.

Seriously, you are not thinking through your statements to second and third order effects.

B:'The constitution is kick@$$, man it's good, but it's not the holy word of God.'

The word of God says, 'thou shalt not steal'. Taking away someone's reward for work sounds like stealing to me.

Do you have a better example of a governing document that would be more suitable?

B: 'Equal protection, equal opportunity, and material equality are all different things. I think only the first is in the constitution though.'

This is a gracious and informative admission. Perhaps you might find a working knowledge helpful before you recommend changes.

B:'Well I guess if you got less than that you'd be really poor. I don't think I understand the question.'

Why don't you look up who actually does minimum wage jobs. You might be suprised.

B: 'I don't want to sound like I don't appreciate the sacrifice and service of others.
I just don't like it when sacrifice gets in the way of freedom, liberty, equality, even if freedom isn't free. Serving shouldn't justify... um, stuff. I'm not quite sure, it just seems there's a weird dynamic when it comes to approaching it or anything related. I don't mean to push any buttons, though.'

Do you mean that service held in a such high regard and not looked down on as it used to?

Since the towers fell, many people on the left have felt this way. Those who serve have never really been appreatiated by them and now it is kinda bad to speak out about how uncool those military types are, like they are untouchable.

It is not like they are special by any means just regular people, many of who really did not have opportunities outside the military do to the vicious cycle of poverty. The military is pretty much a last ditch effort by a bunch of robo-jocks to find away to make themselves feel big and bad again like in high school or a place for the losers of life's lottery in the talent department to get hot meals and regular pay.
They are kinda like cops with the whole authority thing.

I think you are on to something.

Guys, guys, guys...UNCLE already. Just say no. Stop. Don't respond. Mindless, unsupported platitudes, hopes and wishes for a better world. I feel like I've been reading the unabridged version of "The Best of Hallmark", or gotten a look at Michael Jackson's diary before he wrote "We are the World". STOP.

You've attempted to educate on essentially EVERY big idea ever floated on Rest Day by Coach (except malaria) these last two Rest Days, and essentially all you've gotten is intellectual cotton candy and an invitation for empty calories served on the platter of yet another new topic. Again and again and again. And all you get for these well-meaning and mostly respectful responses (with the exception of a couple of priceless, classic Barry strikes) is a scolding for being bullies.

This is not Borat discussing health care from a couple of weeks ago, giving reasoned and supported arguments for single-payer health care. This isn't even a "Silent Spring" reader arguing against DDT.

You're at the same table offering beef tenderloin, expecting, hoping for a helping of lamb chops in return, and getting time and time again the same sugar-free jello. After all of your efforts at education and debate all you get is the carpet bombing equivalent of ad hominem attacks: "They must be running the extortion game just fine, thank you." Sheesh.

You made the effort. You were cordial, understanding, patient, and for the most part respectful of what seems to be an inquisitive intellect. But in two days you've made little to no progress. "Most got it (wealth) through familial accumulation of wealth, inheritance..." Hmmm, really? Show me. Prove it. What are your sources for that information and what is the research that supports it? Since when do we accept statements like that without documentation unless they come from an established expert in the field? Bullies? Hardly. Why all of a sudden a poster slides through here?

I've made it clear that I will participate in the health care discussion when and if Coach floats it, and will not enter an ad hoc discussion, but boy, today was as close as I've come. "Anyway, the deal is that ridiculous sums of money are spent in the last few months of life. Doctors just wail away on patients that are eventually going to die. Letting them go is clearly morally questionable..." Um, ok, which is it, then? Bad to spend the money or bad to let them go? Bad to maximize employment or bad to pay a market rate? Bad for government to fund research on controversial areas or bad to leave it to for profit entities? We're stuck in the middle of the Meatloaf song, Paradise by the Dashboard Light: "What's it gonna be , boy, yes...or...no? Well let me sleep on it, I'll give you an answer in the morning." But in the mean time let's talk about something else...

Dale #132 took the role of the designated adult. Got a question ask it. Got an answer or an idea, back it up. FWIW this has been the least enjoyable Rest Day discussion in 18 months. When did you guys go all sensitive and stuff?

Apolloswabbie,

yes, the Hands are turned in at lockout.

Experiment with it, and you should find the angle that works for you (i.e. more reps/time).

Tom

Thanks Tom! Paul

Tom, btw, I don't have the 'bells' yet, moving in about three weeks, hope to get a set after settling in. Thus the uninformed question.

Ben,Sorry dude too late, button pushedSo somehow my service GETS IN THE WAY OF YOUR FREE WILL? Are you kidding me? I thought Barry was being harsh I get it now. Come back when you grow up son. Say no to Mom and Dad and check out the world you live in.

Paul,

try the angle with DBs , both on your shoulders, and across your palms (until you get KBs).

Email me w/KB Qs anytime.

Stay safe,

Tom

I had a post that may or may not--likely not--make it through, but felt the need to add that this whole discussion is very sad. This result is what can be uniformly expected from our educational system, in most states and most schools, absent strong parental intervention. How do we continue as a nation when our young don't hold the sacrifices of those who came before them to be sacred?

Who refuse, mainly just because it "weirds them out", to consider their own possible role in the continuation through military service of the continuance of our system of government, our version of freedom, unique in history?

This battle is one that can be fought and won, but it starts when we understand that there are lines that cannot be crossed, and that tolerance cannot be extended to the point of sharing someone's willed suicide with them.

I get angry, because I have a very evolved system of thought, a very coherent, detailed philosophy, which I have expended enormous effort developing, which tells me when a line has been crossed.

Ben--to whom I will no longer address any responses--does not know just how decent, humane, and socially interested most members of our Armed Services are. He has no clue=--because he lacks the basis of maturity--how hurtful his thoughtless and disrespectful words truly are. And I'm not entirely sure he would care, even if he did.

As difficult as the War on Terror promises to be, the war on moral confusion will be yet harder. But we have the weapon of rational dialogue, and will. That's a start.

"service gets in the way of your free will"
I didn't mean that personally or even that it was true. Bob, I apologize that I offended you. I am thinking more along the lines of military-industrial complex, or unchecked coercion by the government, secrecy, arbitrary arrest, that sort of thing. Obviously government or military people serve to protect free will, for which I am immensely grateful. I am just thinking of the scenario where you are driving a car without looking where you're going.

"Why don't you look up who actually does minimum wage jobs. You might be surprised."
--All I had to do was look in the mirror, thanks.

Plus, I never meant the complete death tax to be an actual solution. Obviously it takes a huge motivator out of the capitalist system. But a rich boarding school kid has more opportunity than a poor kid in an inner city slum. And... they're just born in to that.

Also, one of the arguments for a free exchange economy is that distributed economic power will act as a check on political power. Except, the uneven distribution compromises that check. Those with economic power are given privilege to influence politics. Check out the APSA pdf for data.

"What are your sources for that information and what is the research that supports it?"
--APSA one is pretty good.

"Do you have a better example of a governing document that would be more suitable?"
--I just meant the Constitution was designed as a framework, not an end-all-be-all.

bingo,
OK, from here on, I'll try to give real policy suggestions rather than some of the thought process behind it. The trouble is that to come up with that, all philosophy, politics, economics, etc. must be considered, and then a correct solution created. This will probably cut down on lengthy paragraphs. I make no guarantees, because I am not a Congressman. Heck, they have trouble getting it right.

Why take the time to hone your body if you are going to polute your mind with that junk! I used to recommend your site to others but I have stopped due to your choice of lyrics. Heres a hint, if your kids shouldn't here it you shouldn't either. Grow up and be professional. If I came to a seminar and had to listen to that I would demand my money back. I love crossfit and I love the videos. I shouldn't have to look around to see who is in the room before I play one.

B: From what I understand, the Friedmanite belief of "I give you corn, you give me sheep" free exchange does not work. I agree with the claim that the money system, enterprise, and division of labor only makes free exchange more complex but doesn't undermine the basic principles. What does is the socio-economic realities that exist.
--There’s nothing else that comes close to “Friedmanite” free exchange for creating positive eventualities and you don’t have to take my word for it. The degree to which you find economic liberty in the world, you find a higher standard of living. Look it up. That article you posted in #159 – if you think that’s non-partisan, that says it all.

Equality is a buzzword that means "I'm looking for a reason to take your money and give it to someone else." If I have twice as much as you, and you have more than enough, that's not equal. It's also totally irrelevant; unless one is a socialist desperately looking for justification for their world view.

B: For many, it's an uphill battle. I have no qualms with the idea of a merit-competition for the spoils, like ya know, capitalism. But that idea seems like a cover-up for maintaining the status-quo.
--Yes, well, an uphill battle. Ahem. We can’t have that can we? Capitalism IS a ‘cover up’ for maintaining the status quo – wherein, in the case of the US, 99% of the citizenry is in the top 1% of wealth world wide. Yes, I’m definitely running an advocacy for a cover up for maintaining the status quo. Actually – I’m not. I want less govt regulation and more liberty to see if we can get Americans into the top .05%.
B: When I get back home I will post up the difference between labor earning and capital earning. Their nature, and the way the law is set up, it helps to maintain inequality.
--Naturally occurring phenomenon like the sun rising or “inequality” needs no further explanation; I think I got that on my own.
B: P: There are minimum wage laws that don’t allow people with low/no skills to work for less money in order to compensate for their low productivity (one of the most significant obstacles to the current ‘underclass’).
-- I don't understand this part. How does a minimum wage hurt the underclass? Wouldn't this only justify paying certain people way less, while the "normal" poor get the current minimum wage?
--Here’s a way to understand it, but I recommend econ 101, or “Understanding Economics” by Arnold Kling, or Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy by Thomas Sowell in order to beef up your rebuttals.

As a business owner, if I think I can hire someone who’s labor will produce approximately $8/hour of labor (for the sake of argument), and taking into account I have to pay his wage plus social security and medicare (~10% in addition to ‘wage’), I can only hire a guy/gal if I can find someone who will work for something that amounts to less than $8/hour. Obviously, this is a pay range where people with no skills might find employment. If you price them above the threshold at which they can be employed for a profit, these folk cannot be hired.
Another way to think about it – what if the minimum wage were $100/hour – do you think McDonalds would be able to hire anyone or stay open and profit? Do you think anyone could hire low skilled workers? So the question is how low does the minimum wage have to go in order to not preclude the hiring of the least productive, lowest skilled people? There’s no disagreement among economists that minimum wage laws hurt low skill workers – the only conflict is on the degree to which it hurts them by making them unemployable.

In europe, the minimum wage laws and socialist programs price workers so high, there's enormous pressure to automate; they can't afford to hire people so they buy robots. That's one of the reasons why they have 25% unemployment for those under age 25.

BTW, any guesses when black unemployment in this country began to be an issue? Right after the first minimum wage laws. Did you know that one of the primary reasons the first federal min wage law was passed in the first place was to protect northern workers from low priced southern black competition? There’s a quote from Senator JF Kennedy that says so, it’s in the Congressional Record.
Betcha can’t guess why I think the Dems still pushed a higher min wage law despite their professed concern for the ‘disenfranchised.’
B: P: give those already employed a government enforced monopoly on labor with an employer, which allows them to price out low skilled workers who would compete for jobs by accepting less pay.
-- Exactly, like paying less to those who are willing to accept no 401k, medical benefits, and stuff like that. At the extreme end, child labor and authoritarian sweat shops. I wonder if there is economic argument for worker's rights, because otherwise let's get with the slave labor.
--I see, you want utopia, where everyone is employed for an amount that satisfies your sense of justice, no matter how unproductive, and all children have enough so they don’t have to work to feed themselves and their families, and everyone all around the world has the same benefits we have here so they can compete on quality and productivity vice low cost of labor. Hey, I want those things too, and I know how to get them, and it’s not by socialist government interventions which have proven and prove every day to make things worse vice better.
B: There wouldn't need to be a union if there weren't grievances.
--Yes, well, that’s a deep, deep insight and it raises the point that I have no problem with unions per se, what I object to is the Federal law that allows unions to prevent people from freely negotiating their compensation packages with an employer, and in so doing, gives them a federal monopoly on employment with that employer. That is a moral outrage and fortunately, most workers are smart enough not to join unions. If a worker has a grievance, he or she has the absolute right to work somewhere else. That’s in the constitution.
B: Hopefully the process of collective bargaining balances out the desires of greedy employers with those of greedy employees for economic efficiency. yay!
--I’ll let this gem stand on its own merits.
B: on 'we' culture:
maybe improve the democratic processes, or give more power to the people, so that we have a say in government and policy. With due protection for individuals. But then, the only will we would be imposing would be our own.
--Here’s a better idea; just let people make the choice that they think is best vice dreaming up elaborate ways to describe the imposition of one person’s or a group of persons’ will on others by means of coercive state power.

Best of luck in your training. I’m done with this.

Tom, many thanks, Paul

Bingo, my brother. I tried. But you are right. I see the same tripe floating today that I offered Ben some advice on the last time. I even anticipated he would talk about "leveling the playing field" and offered that he should take a trusts and estates course or read about his Comrades attempts to abolish the "will". I even provided some fodder for research on the origins of the will and the transfer of property.

That has all gone completely unresponded to or even acknowledged. So, I give up. Your food analogy is nice, by the way. To continue, if I may:
Ben M., your posts are not "Zone-friendly" for my mind. They are simply empty calories being regurgitated over and over and over. In fact, Paul asked when you first showed up if you were simply baiting, and I must confess, I now suspect the same. Strongly.

So, nice job keeping it up this long. But, no thanks, for me, any more. I've had enough.

Okay all, a few parting words and I too am done.

Dan, thank you for your encouragement to live in the ways of Jesus. I have done much spiritual questing in my life and am happy with my current place. I try to live by "treat others as you would be treated" which fits almost all true teachings of Christ.

As far as Ben goes, I remember being young and having a misplaced concept of equality and the ways of the world. There was a time I would have argued for many of the same things he is. Everyone just try and remember how you thought when you were young, and how your thoughts have evolved and hope Ben can make the same growth we all did (and don't try and force him there.) Give informations and opinion, do not force it, no matter how hard it is.

Lastly, Dan you said "I don't sense that anyone on these boards is willing to suffer on Ben's behalf." I'm pretty sure every member of these boards who is in the military, police, EMT, FF, or many other lines of public service has made sacrifices and had to suffer not just for Ben, but for all of us. And for that, I thank them.

JFryer,
You're right. Many people have sacrificed for the benefit of us all. I didn't mean to make it sound like those sacrifices are minimal or thaty they don't matter. I am merely trying to suggest that the manner in which people address Ben could be done with more compassion.

Bingo, I hear you.

However, my goal is not just to discuss. I have a particular knack at getting people to show their 'pink' side. It is almost always a hide and seek with these people. Everytime though, it comes down to self interest, which is truely sad. Almost everytime someone wants greater 'social justice'. They can't figure out how to make enough money to make ends meet.

To all: If you can't do the following things and think that somehow the government should help then
you are a parasite. If you are in these positions but accept your lot as a circumstance of your own actions (voluntary or involuntary) you qualify as a responsible citizen:
(most of these should start with the phrase 'If you can't'

-Make more than minimum wage, then you are not even remotely trying.

-Pay for your health insurance, then you have delegated other things to be more important.

-If you have outstanding college loans, you went to a school out of your league.

-pay your bills, you need to reavaluate priorities.

-make enough money at your current job, you need to step up to the plate and get another besides or instead of.

Ben, you are already giving policy suggestions. I don't mind. What is queer is that you seem to lack the ability to honestly look at second and third order effects of the policies you ascribe.

I believe, that you are not sure what you believe outside of what you would like the world to look like. It appears you lack some fundamental knowledge of why things are the way they are. Further, you seem to think that those of us who disagree with you are just stubborn or short sighted. Perhaps you should stand back and wonder why the following people are not trying to tell you necessarilly what to think , but that your process is wrong to even begin a discussion.

A Marine Officer (Major)
A Former Marine Aviator
A Current high profile lawyer
A Former Army Officer
A current Special Operator
A trained, but not practicing, Sociologist
A Current Navy Pilot (Commander)
A UC Berkely and University of Chicago Graduate in (Humanities and Econimics)
A Rocket Scientist

Now some of these people are the same, some I did not mention at all. However, in the presence of all this I would hope that you have the ability to stand back and consider that what they are telling you is worth the time to ponder. Perhaps, you might even ask why they think that way.

I realize this may seem cocky or even bully-ish. No one is saying you need to subscribe to the arguements made. Howevere, YOU are not doing your part to make this discussion better because you are floating dribble that sounds great while stoned with friends, but has literally lead to the deaths of millions around the globe. The worst of it is, the tone in which you imply that the rest of us don't get it.

It reads of arrogance and a shelter indocrination.

Just a thought.

Bingo, thanks for your post. As the poet Warren Zevon said, "I will take this medicine as prescribed" or in this case, your advice as if it were an Rx.

I went to bed laughing and smiling and still am - sugarless jello! - really, thanks.

I also went to bed last night thinking what Dale articulated above, #185.

Paul

D: Let me ask you, do you believe that there should be no funding for public schools? Because the state uses the public schools to aggressively coerce children to adopt a particular set of values - some of which are noble values - others of which are hostile to Biblical values.
No, I do not think we should accept the unsatisfactory performance of the current public school system. It is not flexible enough to serve the populace and the costs are outrageous ($10,000 per child per year, an amount that has doubled in real dollars since 1970, and yet battle cry is “It wouldn’t be so bad if there were enough spending on schools.”). We, the citizenry, have ceded to the power to educate our children to the state, and with that monopoly, the state is performing as state monopolies always do – higher costs than non-monopoly enterprises with less customer satisfaction. That said, for those committed teachers striving in a system that presents significant obstacles to your success in the classroom, I offer a humble tip of the hat.
___________________________________________
D: Do you believe that all rights imply negative obligations in all circumstances, or are there certain rights that we have that demand positive action? Do you believe in the right to trial by jury? Because that requires the state to use coercive power to have court rooms built and taxpayers to pay judges, clerks, etc.
-- The function of the courts, ideally to provide a basis for rule of law and defense of individual rights, is a compelling function of the state. But when you brought it up, it makes me wonder if there’s a better way. What if, after the LR (libertarian revolution) and we’re paying a fraction of what we pay now in taxes, we set up an endowment to pay jurors so much for jury duty that we’d have competent, educated people competing for seats on juries? Could that idea be worked to provide better juries and less infringement on personal liberty and still meet the founders intent for constitutional limits on state power that are exemplified by our legal system? Just a stray ‘what if’.
______________________________________________________________
D: "A person taking an action due to state coercion is not an expression of virtue, by any measure."
People pay taxes all the time do to the coercion of the state. Whether or not this is virtuous depends on their attitudes. Many people have been drafted into the military and virtuously fought in wars. Many of these would never have done so if there was no draft. I'm not supporting the draft, nor am I speaking out against it. The whole purpose of government is to govern those who won't govern themselves - that is to coerce right behavior out of those who otherwise would not behave rightly.
--Your catch of imprecision in my language is astute. There’s a virtue associated with ‘complying with God’s will’ and in my view, complying with God’s will because the agents of the state will get you if you don’t is not virtuous.
There’s another sense of virtue associated with complying with the laws of the land – and if the Libertarian Revolution comes, there will be a whole lot fewer laws, and the ones that remain will serve primarily to defend the rights of free persons, and therefore, it would be even more virtuous to comply with those laws, in my perception of virtue.
One of the challenges in advocating a libertarian philosophy is the balancing act of fighting for less regulation, trying to be persuasive on the potential upsides of less govt power, while not going off the deep end about how things are now – because things now are very, very good. It reminds me of the feeling I have when the stock market is climbing – “what if it stops?” I have that same sense about liberty and our nation, as Barry articulates so well; there’s no letting your guard down.
_____________________________________________________________________
D: “"Forcing those to accept your beliefs, religious or not, is tyrannical and should be opposed."
Not trying to be annoying here, but by "opposed" do you mean with force if necessary? Because if so, then you've defeated yourself. If so, then you are suggesting that it would be appropriate to force me to accept your belief that forcing others to accept certain beliefs should be opposed. This would be a tyrannical stand against tyranny. And that would be tyrannical.”
--This one is an interesting logic circle. Bottom line: what he and I would oppose is your effort, or anyone’s effort, to use coercive state power to make us believe anything according to your values vice what we find to be true.

I wrote a response but I simply do not have it in me to retype it.

These filters are killing the discussions at times on rest days.

Ben,

You have made me regret sticking my neck out for you. "I told you so's" accepted.

Joey and Bingo reacted to the following points: "Most got it through familial accumulation of wealth, inheretence. The rich tend to stay rich... One solution is a 100% death tax to "level the playing field.""

The facts are as follows:

84% of affluent Americans ($5m+ in net assets) report that they are self-made, accumulating assets over long periods starting from scratch (although 24% report that they originally came from affluent backgrounds - so some may have inherited after they were already affluent). [1] The most important generators of wealth were private businesses, corporate employment and professional practice, in that order. [1]

Of the 50 richest Americans in the Forbes list in 2006, 37 (74%) were self made and the inheritors included 4 Waltons an 3 Mars in the top 25 - the number of inheritors drops as you get beyond the top 25. [2]

According to data from the IRS, more than 2,200 taxpayers made the Forbes 400 at some point between 1995 and 2003. 75% only lasted one year on the list and only 1% made the list in each year.

With respect to general wealth mobility, about 50% of families ranked in the top 10% of wealth holders can expect to move down at least a decile over a 10 year period, 10% move down at least 3 deciles, some fall to the bottom decile. [3]

Conversely, about 66% of families in the bottom decile of wealth can expect to move out of that decile over a 10 year period; about 25% of that group (of 66%) jumped 4 or more deciles in 10 years and about 1.4% jumped into the top decile. [3]

From the data I don't think you can say the rich got rich mainly "through familial accumulation of wealth, inheretence" or that "The rich tend to stay rich", or even that the poor stay poor, in general. Sorry.

Finally, as far as I know there is currently already an estate tax in place in the US - 46% in 2006 (the third highest in the world after Japan and South Korea), being phased out by 2009, and coming back at a higher level in 2010 (there's a nice bit of Government logic). It falls disproportionately on the merely wealthy rather than the 'super' wealthy, who are able to pay for advice to avoid it. A natural filter exists, in that most fortunes do not survive much past the 2rd generation in any event.

Borat

[1] US Trust survey of Affluent Americans, April 2007
[2] The Forbes 400, 2006
[3] Erik Hurst, Ming Ching Luoh and Frank Stafford, “The Wealth Dynamics of American Families, 1984-1994,” Brookings Institution, Papers on Economic Activity No. 1, 1998, pages 267-337.

Borat, There is always a method to my madness, and a purpose to my method.

Thanks for the research.

All governments are theocracies of one kind or another. All governments have certain fundamental doctrines, creeds, beliefs, and/or ideas that they enshrine above all else. No government in history has ever allowed its people to rail against their most fundamental doctrines. The final authority is the "god" of the state. In our case, this authority is split between the demos (latin for people), the courts, the President, and the Congress. There are a pantheon of gods, philosophies, and values being shoved down our throats. We are taught that pluralism is a good thing. But pluralism is really polytheistic idolatry. That the government takes tax dollars to promote the lie that pluralism is a good thing is an abuse of power. But the problem isn't that they have taken tax dollars to do this. The problem is that pluralism itself is evil.

To pretend or believe that the government (or any human organization) is morally, ethically, or religiously neutral is to be deceived (not suggesting yet that anyone here has fallen into that trap). Either the organizations with which we are affiliated more or less obey God or they more or less disobey God. Either these organizations value, appreciate, and respect human life, or they devalue, depreciate, disrespect, and dehumanize human life. There is no middle ground. When people become apathetic to their fellow man, then they have begun to dehumanize human life.

That said, as long as the governing authorities are not demanding that we do anything immoral, then we need to submit to the governing authorities. Rebellion against the governing authorities is always wrong. However, putting down rebellion is right in certain circumstances - depending on the nature of the rebellion. So... if a governing authority abuses power, then they are in rebellion against God and against the free and moral people of the society (freedom and morality go hand in hand - an immoral person is not free - but that is a tangential topic). Depending on the severity of this rebellion, and depending on dozens if not hundreds of other factors, putting down such a rebellion could be justified. But such a "revolution" shouldn't really be called a rebellion or a revolution, because the unjust power was the one who was in rebellion against justice. The people who overthrew this power were not in rebellion. They were putting down the rebellion.

That said, while I am extremely dissatisfied with our current government, I am not advocating taking up arms against the government. One... to do so would be stupid, because whoever would do so would lose. Two... if this government was toppled and a new government was put into place, it would probably be just as bad - if not worse - than the one we got. Three... and perhaps most importantly, there are wiser, more tactful, more Christ-like, and more effective ways to transform society without shedding blood. Christ already has shed his blood for sinners, so that even the most vile of offenders might be forgiven.

I advocate loving God and loving one another in word and in deed - both in the public and private spheres - with faith, integrity, persistence, and perseverance. By doing so, we will be blessed. By failing to do so, we will be cursed. We will reap what we sow.

How about a "revolution" of classical Christian education? (Using the word revolution in a very lose sense right now.) www.credenda.org

God bless.

Apolloswabbie,

You said, "We, the citizenry, have ceded the power to educate our children to the state, and with that monopoly, the state is performing as state monopolies always do – higher costs than non-monopoly enterprises with less customer satisfaction."

Very true. The best way to get results is to reward good performance and punish bad performance. Modern liberals and socialists seem to get this backwards. If you succeed, they want to take your money and throw it at those who are failing. Failure should never be rewarded.

So then, why isn't there a mass exodus from the public schools? Answer: Many people trust the government more than they trust God and more than they trust themselves. Also, many people just don't care about education. I mean, we all prefer that children would be educated well, but how many of us are willing to make the sacrifices necessary in order to make it happen?

Here is a great essay about education written by Dorothy Sayers in the 1940's:

http://www.gbt.org/text/sayers.html

God bless.

Dan,

You mention two interesting points: 1) "I am not advocating taking up arms against the government. One... to do so would be stupid, because whoever would do so would lose. Two... if this government was toppled and a new government was put into place, it would probably be just as bad - if not worse - than the one we got. Three... and perhaps most importantly, there are wiser, more tactful, more Christ-like, and more effective ways to transform society without shedding blood. Christ already has shed his blood for sinners, so that even the most vile of offenders might be forgiven."

You mention also that "However, putting down rebellion is right in certain circumstances - depending on the nature of the rebellion. So... if a governing authority abuses power, then they are in rebellion against God and against the free and moral people of the society."

Do you then advocate then, that if a government is in revellion against your God that putting down this government revellion is no longer stupid because it would be victorious and a better government would be put in place?

I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line between abuse of government power, and abuse of government power that goes against your God, as your non-advocacy of rebellion against the current government had some apathetic overtones (e.g. - "One... to do so would be stupid, because whoever would do so would lose. Two... if this government was toppled and a new government was put into place, it would probably be just as bad - if not worse - than the one we got.").

I would like to stress I am not trying to be critical, just trying to understand your viewpoint.

Dan,

I'm enjoying the discourse.

Only other point I would add at this point is that 8 million Americans are choosing to foot the bill and educate their children outside of the public schools - including me, which next year will tap as much of my income as my house payment (5 and 7 year old kids).

All those who have faced this choice know how gut wrenching it is to considering paying out that much money (enough to easily secure one's retirement and still save enough for a college education) when you could get a 'free' state school education.

I hope my kids won't have to face the same madness for their kids. Then again, there are other thing they may have to face that could be much worse.

I think you are on to something in the almost faith like confidence some seem to have in govt solutions. It's troubling.

Borat - thanks for that post. That one goes in my archives for reference.

Paul

JFryer,

The chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. The Scriptures assert that the just shall live by faith. What matters above all else is that God's kingdom will come and that God's will would be done on earth - in the hearts and lives of men - as it is in heaven. God cares about justice, and Scripture asserts in Hebrews 11 that there have been great men who "through faith, conquered kingdoms."

While government and politics matters, I am more concerned about reformation of lives through personal relationships. But before I can make more headway in that area (and I am making some), I need to work on reforming my own life! God save me from myself!

I think the Civil War was a great tragedy. It was also a theological crisis. It was completely unnecessary, but given the nature of man, instead of both sides humbling themselves and obeying God, over 600,000 soldiers died in battle or as a result of wounds, while about 3 times as many died from disease. Man reaps what he sows.

I am not saying that everyone who fought in that war were dishonorable heathens. There were - on both sides - great men of God who fought bravely and with integrity.

But the war could have been avoided if cooler heads had prevailed.

How do we determine whether or not any given law or policy is just? If God is irrelevant, then it becomes arbitrary. But God is relevant. Many people know this innately and subconsciously. For example, people know that murder is wrong. Many people haven't realized that murder is wrong because we are created in God's image, but since we are created in God's image, even unbelievers have an innate sense that murder is wrong. They can't jump out of their own skin, and they are created in God's image.

Thus, we have just laws against murder.

Now, the current situation, while not ideal, is fairly good - but not good enough. However, having been active in the church for about 13 years now, I will say that Christians on the whole (myself included) are not mature enough or wise enough to govern themselves. It is rather pathetic that we need those who treat God as if He is irrelevant to govern us, but that is currently where too many of us are at. Thus, while I have some grand schemes in my head, the church currently does not have the maturity or wisdom to rule in a humble and just manner. And history is not lacking for examples of hot headed "Christians" (using the word very loosely) causing all kinds of trouble and injustice in the Name of God when they had authority.

But secular evil is no more and no less evil.

I embrace Christ's goals and strategy. Christ came to save sinners. He was all about personal relationships. Governing authorities should rule justly, and in order to do so, they need to integrate faith in Christ into every aspect of their lives - public and private. The words integrate and integrity have a similar etymology. So, to ask Christians to leave their faith out of the public sphere is to ask them not to walk in integrity.

But in order for society to be reformed, then I need to be reformed. By fostering relationships, I am mentoring, teaching, and discipling people to walk with Jesus - even as I am being mentored and discipled. I need to do this more and more. As the church is faithful in this task, governments will be affected - how could they not be?

So, right now, I engage in spiritual and intellectual warfare against my government by doing the following:

1. Praying.
2. Thinking.
3. Submitting to the government as long as doing so does not conflict with submission to God.
4. Developing relationships with people and challenging them to follow Jesus.
5. Casting the vision for classical Christian education.

The goal here is not to be an iconoclast or a contrarian. I have been a reactionist in the past, but I am putting that nonsense behind me. I am choosing now to zealously respond to my gracious and holy God of love, and with positive Biblical fervor, I commend the government for what they do right, and I correct and rebuke the government for what they do wrong. And I adjudicate justly by comparing the government's laws, policies, and actions with the ethics of the Bible.

I think I came into the fray overventalating from the rightist lean. I perceived stated opinions and beliefs as arrogant declarations, and tried to counter that. And I did so without fully forming my arguments with research, thought, and articulation.
I am not 'backing down,' but I'll try to be committed to these things in the future. First on the list is to look through the linked stuff on this page. Although I feel like the discussion has really ramped up in quality recently, I would characterize certain earlier stuff as sugarless-jello which I was reacting to.

Borat,
fair enough. I'll have to remember where I got the stuff that provoked me otherwise. Although it's good that the U.S. isn't locked into the caste system of India. I think it's more subtle. I mean, debating about the problems of the U.S. is significant. But compared to other countries and how generally great we've got it, it's like: huh???

quick knee-jerk reaction:
how are bad public schools supposed to get better if you don't bring in better teachers (mainly) or better resources? From anecdotal reading and experience, it doesn't seem to work. I'm pretty sure you could characterize No Child Left Behind as an unfunded federal mandate, and those are wildly successful.

Dan,
I take it you are a hyperpluralist. I forget what some of the hyperpluralist solutions are to offer you, though, or what I think of them.

Paul,
so raising the minimum wage raises unemployment. That makes sense. What about overall poverty? Is it possible for someone to transition from unsustainable employment to sustainable? I mean, start at $1/hr, and go to $10/hr, for example. Would it be a likely scenario large scale? I am rambling, I'm not sure. Probably should cut with that.

p.s. I wonder what discussions were like in the past 18 mo. I hope it's the involved thought processes that have been coming out in the last few posts. That would be cool.

Not sure what happened to my last post, but I suspect it will show up soon.

But I just wanted to say that I am a big fan of praying and singing the Psalms - including the imprecatory Psalms.

The Bible is not silent about how we should deal with enemies. But judging from what you see and hear in church, you might not know it.

Of course, the number one enemy to conquer is the enemy called SELF.

One of the strangest drunks I ever had was a combination of espresso and Sambuca, called Sambuca con Mosca, which literally means "Sambuca with flies". The flies were 3 little espresso beans, symbolizing health, happiness and prosperity.

What was interesting about it, is that by alternating coffee and alcohol, I lost my capacity for rational thought, and was wired at the same time. I vowed never to do that again, as there is a time for drinking coffee, and a time for drinking liquor, and they shouldn't be mixed. Intoxicants make you dizzy, and if you consume too many, you go to sleep. If you then add the energy generated by coffee, you have aggressive irrationality, altogether a bad thing.

We were discussing something earlier, weren't we? I'm curious: how many of the soldiers on here read and enjoyed both Starship Troopers, and Stranger in a Strange Land?

lol, yeah this was basically one giant "off-topic." I am not a soldier nor have I read the books. But if anyone feels like talking, I will be quiet and listen to what you thought about the books.

Barry, I am not a Soldier, but a Sailor. I read Starship Troopers while a SWCC operator off the coast of Montenegro in 1999. I thought it was far better than the movie, although it did lack Denise Richards. I thought the concept of earning your citizenship was interesting. Kind of Spartan, but not in a Mark Twight sort of way. I'm not sure I believe it is in keeping with the American ideal although the WWII draft was in some ways similar with greatly increased Federal and State benefits to veterans. I believe people have a right to opt out of military service but lose the right to have their opinions about it validated. I also believe service comes in many forms which are legitimate ways of earning your citizenship. Robert Heinlein was my favorite " adult Sci-Fi author" followed by William Gibson, who coined the term Meat Puppet that I thought I was going to have to use in a comment here, somewhat incorrectly.

I've read both, many, many years ago. I was a sci-fi addict as a kid and Roger Zelazny remains one of my favorite authors of all time (the short stories "A Rose for Ecclesiastes" and "The Doors of his Face, the Lamps of his Mouth" are simply incredible first person writing). I believe I found a tattered copy of "Stranger in a Strange Land" at some relative's house - it seemed odd, because I knew (uncle, aunt, whatever) wasn't much of a sci-fi fan. I was about 12 or so and didn't really "grok" the significance of Heinlein's influence at the time. I read Starship Troopers after I became a Marine - I concur with Bob. Book much better, but lacking in Denise Richards in the shower.

A great writer is how I view him, more than anything else. Nothing more, nothing less. I think sometimes we get caught up in making the author into something more because of the power of what they write. Writers like Heinlein move us and we cannot help but feel a deep affinity for what they have given us personally, yet I feel certain that Heinlein himself would have thought the article a "bit much". But still, pretty good.

Thanks, Coach.

Just remember that Heinlein stated in Starship Troopers that military service was only one of many forms of public service that could help you earn your citizenship (basically those willing to involve themselves in the social wellbeing of society, then get to shape society).

JFryer:'Just remember that Heinlein stated in Starship Troopers that military service was only one of many forms of public service that could help you earn your citizenship (basically those willing to involve themselves in the social wellbeing of society, then get to shape society).'

Agreed, many people should not be in the military. It just does not suit them.

Perhaps an example of what Bob was saying above was when Sen Harry Reid declared Petraus "incompetent" to a contegent of bloggers. I found that rather ironic from a guy with a 19% approval rating.

I've been listening to this lecture series: http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=480&id=480&pc=Philosophy%20and%20Intellectual%20History

and it has raised some very interesting questions, some of which are directly relevant in more than one respect.

For example, if democracy is that system by which people live according to rules they have enacted for themselves, would that not lead to the conclusion that the quality of the rules would be a reflection of the quality of the people? This then leads to the question: what responsibilites accord the status of being a free citizen of a republic? If the quality of our laws and governance are an expression of the quality of our people, how do we ensure and define the quality of our people?

In Starship Troopers, the quality of the prospective citizen is apparently (I only read that book once, many, many, many years ago) defined by their willingness to sacrifice their live in battle for the Republic. I believe a sentiment along that line was present in ancient Athens, and of course Sparta. The playwright Aeschaelus (?) apparently fought in the Battle of Marathon, as did many prominent citizens.

Thus, the fitness for inclusion is a voluntary selflessness with respect to the polity as a whole. It is a formation of character, of courage and committment. It seems to me these are necessary, but not sufficient. To this base must be added, in my view, a desire to understand, to grow, to approach perfection.

Phrased another way: the quality of our decisions will relate to the quality of our use of freedom, in the form of open debate, which in turn revolves around our collective efforts to understand our world, with history being, historically, probably the single most important area of study.

The current lack of quality of our debates on a number of topics relate directly to the currently widespread historical ignorance out there. The House would not be able to get away with their nonsense, nor the Senate theirs, if Americans understood well their own traditions and precedants. And they would not be able to derive political advantage from doing so if more of us better understood world history, and the causes and consequences both of success and failure.

Barry,

An interesting line of thought, as usual. I too am disgusted by the status quo of the present political discussion which seems to be based on a universal allergy to the truth.

However, it seems to me that any effort to establish a body that will make these parameters and judge them will become as corrupted as any equivalent govt entity. Power corrupts, this body would have the remarkably high power to judge citizenship. It would be corrupted.

I share your fears that freedom and relatively high societal wealth will lead to human lazyness induced indifference, poor judgement, etc. But I think that's the human condition - half us are of below average intelligence, and half are of below average moral character, and half of us are of below average desire to make things better (I realize that's something of a word game, I hope it makes the point anyway).

My observation is that our dis-trust of the 50% of the population that is below average leads us to think we have to 'get control' of things, but one lesson of history is the good intentions behind our efforts to get control of things through govt are perverted - more or less, sooner or later.

I think the alternative is to continue the risky experiment in freedom, wherein those like you who are so inclined are free to spend your life energy to try and influence the factors you list above. It may not work. The house of cards could fall. But from my perspective, it's a better bet to bet on the right outcome through freedom.

Forgive all the assumptions inherent in my 3 minute analysis - for example, you've likely thought through all of this; what are your thoughts about how one could theoretically establish this 'citizenship criteria and adjudication body' in a way that would insulate it from the forces that corrupt.

Paul

In that same CD set, he mentions that in the Age of Pericles--which is to say the beginning of one of the most productive, creative periods in human history--the skill of Rhetoric was uniformly taught as a basic skill of a free man--and frankly still was as recently as the first half of the 20th Century--as the power to persuade others of a course of action was held to be a fundamental necessity, as was the power of Reason.

The necessity of hashing things out is ineluctable among any group of persons desiring to govern themselves, and I'm by no means supporting any sort of committee to determine ideological or intellectual purity.

What I am attempting to do, is point to failings in our current system. All of you reading this can then perhaps embark on a slightly different path of thought and action, which in turn affects others.

There is no way to improve things other than to convince people that things need to be improved. This is both the virtue and the unfortunate necessity of our system.

Autocracy in it's nature is a form of arrogance: that one man or woman--or small, insular group--can invariably perceive their world accurately, without the distorting lense of their personal vanity, or sense of absolute entitlement.

The value of multiple perspectives is that by evaluting all options--or as many as can be conceived--the weight of evidence will tend to fall in approximately the right direction. This facet becomes more and more important as time passes, because democracies regularly reassess almost all aspects of our policies. This is their nature, which is both infuriating, and unavoidable. It is also often highly valuable.

I agree with Edward de Bono's assessment that arrogance is a "mistake in the future", making both autocracies and democracies equal in many respects at any given snapshot moment in history. But over time, we tend to more frequently make the relatively better decision, because we do a better job of avoiding large errors. If, of course, our citizens take the trouble to educate themselves about history, and the facets to a reasonable degree of detail, of their current issues. Perikles believe that no man deserved freedom who was unwilling to endure the agonistic element of the political process, which included the desire to increase the range of one's knowledge.

In America, our strong Executive function enables us to avoid the full malleability of Parliamentary systems, but his regular reelection and the varying Congressional cycles balance that.

I will add, though, that he is constitutionally the Commander in Chief for a reason. There is a reason, a carefully considered reason, that control of our armed forces--other than the declaration of war--was given to the Executive.

Local posting working?

Remote posting test.