Speal is an animal.

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

Great Video.

The worse part about only being able to access CF via cell phone is I can't watch the videos & reading the articles is almost imopssible. I can't wait to get to a place I can access it on a CPU again.

Get some, Go again!

How did the lunges go ANYC?

22 / M / 5'9" / 125lb

Glad to have a rest day. My elbow's been acting up since the Tabata push-ups. I might practice shoulder rolls and forward rolls so I can work up to doing handstands. I love all the gymnastic stuff, but I'm not strong enough yet.

So I have been doing crossfit for about a year and a half and in January I am starting the San Jose Police Academy. I learned that they switched their entire PT over to crossfit. I am so stoked and will let people know how they crossfit down there.

Anyone know if Speal has a workout log anywhere?

Not sure if I agree with the site in posting that article. A little too one-sided for my taste. I'm all about freedom of speech, but let's make sure that all are getting their word in. Also, the anti-Bush writing is getting old, let's not forget that the there is a checks and balances system in for a reason, and the Legislative branch is majority Dem, and has been for I believe all of W's term. Correct me if I'm wrong. It's my humble opinion that the problems we see now come from the Clinton era. Not that W is without fault, it's obvious that he is. As for the workouts, I've been doing them for two weeks, and it's been since I was playing ball in college that I've felt this sore. Love this site, and I can't wait to get my troops into it.

I haven't even read the article, but I like it already. I voted Libertarian... and left thinking that I did not throw away my vote. A part of me wants Obama to succeed for the benefit of our country; however, the larger part wants him to fail so that the Rep and Dem parties get brushed aside for a Libertarian who will bring the freedom our forefathers intended us to have. (Heck, if I want to pay a woman to have sex with me, I will!) And, our citizenry will have more guns to defend our country! How awesome is that? Let our SOF and clandestine brothers fight extremist Muslims abroad and let us defend ourselves here. Now, let me read the article.

#2 hell yeah! but make sure you watch addendum, the other movie was made just for fun and alot of sources aren't very good

VB L1 cert
Got back to South Carolina today. That was the most informative weekend of my life. Got weird looks walking into the gas stations and resteraunts on the trip home. Probably because my legs are a train-wreck. I did get a freakin muscle up though--after about 15 attempts. Thanks to everyone for your support at that last station of the day for group 2. Thanks to all the coaches for all the knowledge. Didn't meet one single A-hole the entire weekend. This program just attracts good people and daddy like.

JD comment #9

I think Libertarians believe (and I think this because I am one)that the proper entity to blame is government, not necessaruly reps or dems. Government can't do anything as well as the private sector so the more government is involved (in anything), the worse thibgs are. That's a real broad way to state it but basically that's our deal.

I love Reason magazine.

Glad to read all the Post on the L1 cert....Everyone seems to have a great time meeting awesome people.......I will be attending L1 cert this weekend in San Diego.....anyone going?

I'm all caught up on the WODs but still have a day left in my 3/1 split...anyone have any favorite homemade WODs they want to recommend?

I think the one problem with libertarianism is the fact that ideology usually overrides utility. That is, they don't care about what works the best, they are more worried about conforming the world to their vision for it.

One idea cannot be the best solution for every possible problem, no matter how good it makes the ideologues feel.

#9 you are wrong, Republicans held control of the Legislative branch the first 6 years of Bush's Presidency...but your point is righ.. it gets old with the constant bashing.

Also, modern Libertarians are anything but. They are all about less government in THEIR lives, ie ..less taxes, less government control in business, the government staying out of their right to firearms, etc...
And I agree with all of that, having a background in economics (which is not about money)

BUT.. many modern "liberatarians" don't seem to think that applies to keeping government out of people's marriages/sex lives.

And take it a little far, assuming that government should not be involved in anything. We need government to protect us from our rights being infringed on by others...thats it. That includes protecting our freedom of religion, but also some peoples' freedom from religion dictating what they can do.

So, basically my problem is that modern day "liberatarians" pick and choose the issues that they believe should be legislated.

#12 Andy: I think your statement is somewhat overly broad. While I agree that the market of course runs many things more efficiently than government could, there are certain areas that the market would have either no incentive to enter, or would enter in such a way as to decrease the overall amount of freedom and stability.
A few of the classic examples are military (Blackwater isn't what I'd call a shining example of America), roads, and environmental protection (the Lorax was never very good at investing); see also Snow Crash for a rough idea of what could happen when excessive libertarianism blends suddenly into corporatism.
Again, I agree that a perfectly operating free market could deliver almost everything more efficiently than the government - the problem is the tendency toward market failures such as monopolies, rent-seeking, and the tragedy of the commons.

I think that we sometimes fail as simple individuals to get a good look at the big picture of social.economic.political development. We do so because we look at it from our own subjective lense, regardless how objective we believe ourselves to be.

We need to look at various systems and how they grow in order to better understand our country. I think we are a mature, or very close to, economic.social.political system. We need to think about how to better manage ourselves as we mature and our growth naturally slows (like trees, humans, solar systems etc). We need to address internal issues that pervade all societies while also handling ourselves on a global scale with character and integrity that garners respect.

Freedom? I have always felt free as long as I have kept my mind my own and not given our necessary government conrol over my daily routines, nor long term vision.

Although I did vote in the recent election, historically my thought process has been "You guys go elect your president, and I'll keep doing my thing, focusing on controlling what I can".

If pushed to align myself I would say Libertarian, but I fear the fact that there is a large percentage of the population who simply wants to be sold everything (political ideology, trends, diets, religion etc). Who would keep greed(not that its inately bad)/capitalism from exploiting the masses? Who would keep those unable to fend for themselves from being used? Just something I wonder about.

My thoughts after reading the post...Looking forward to the ATL cert.

Authority, power, and control are antithetical to responsibility.

The question should never be what is most utilitarian, but what is most free without infringing on others' freedom. Cheaper prices, economic stability, and job security should never trump freedom. Relinquishing liberty to authority is entering into slavery whether for personal gain or not; or whether the authority comes from the state or private sector. As well, once authority and power are reduced; responsibility is manufactured.

Best quote from the article- “‘false-nostalgia-for-shitty-jobs phenomenon’.

A Canadian Cobra slap to the face!

kstar

Comment #16 - Posted by: Nick 24/M/210

Nick, saying rent seeking is a market failure makes me think you don't know what it is. That's a perfect example of what market failure isn't, since rent seekers obtain govt's coercive power to prevent competition. Tragedy of the commons - much more closely associated w govt intervention than with freedom, given that freedom implies private property vice 'govt property' and the whole point of the 'tragedy of the commons' examples is that owners protect their assets and 'tend' to manage those assets to provide sustainable returns - as compared to the many things on the planet that are not owned and typically are over-used. Monopoly also does not exist in the world without govt - or perhaps you can name one? Govt on the hand IS monopoly - on the use of coercive force by the govt class against those that are not in govt.

It appears from your post that you do not know what libertarianism is, and by extension what freedom is. Would you be willing to state your understanding of what "libertarian" means?

Military is one of the more complex issue to analyze wrt to how it could be done without govt, but there are those who have done so. Not relevant to this discussion, though.

Govt exists (should exist) to defend the rights of the individual. A 'right' is easy to define - my rights end where your nose and property begins. The things a govt can and should be 'used' for are to sustain the rule of law and property rights - to the degree that a population has these two things is the degree to which that population has liberty and the health, wealth and growth liberty delivers.

Paul

Chopper Reid wants to tell you all who need to be told, to Haaaarden the $%#! up!!!

Enjoy! :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y

Link courtesy of Joe Shininger!

Comment #17 - Posted by: Brad
Brad, what evidence do you see that humans, with or without the coercive power of govt, can do what you describe in paragraph 2?

Your individual outlook is commendable (to the degree that I'm qualified to commend it) but the point of the article/discussion is to seek to define the ideal, the target, the potential for moving to 'better than now.'

"Who would keep greed(not that its inately bad)/capitalism from exploiting the masses? Who would keep those unable to fend for themselves from being used? Just something I wonder about."
--These are good things to wonder about, but in most of history, the state is more likely to exploit the masses than individuals. Indeed, who now defends individuals from being used by the currently over-powerful federal state in the US? What keeps greedy politicians from exploiting the masses? For example - politicians said they would take a portion of our wages, hold it for us, and then give it back to us if we live long enough to be old at a 'reasonable' real rate of return - later politicians spent the money they were 'holding for us' in order to get re-elected - and the current politicians argue about how to sustain the absurdly corrupt system that previous politicians left them with ... exploitation? Check. Greed? Check. Abuse of those unable to defend themselves? Check. All courtesy of the social security system brought to you by the coercive power of the federal govt. Paul

-Habeas corpus must be reinstated.
-Government and its actions should be translucent. If you think it is a secret, chances are the public deserves to know.
-The federal income tax must be abolished (bye bye IRS)
-The Air Force should be merged with the Army
-Federal Service Academies should be closed
-Homeland security and military (militias) should pivot at the state level (funding, training, and management) and coordinated at the federal
-Civilian service in the military should NEVER have authority or supervision of military personnel
-A modern Bill of Rights for the Information Age (privacy information) must be enacted.
-Something to break the vicious pharmaceutical-health care complex.
-NO to the military industrial complex
-Nuclear disarmament.
-An informed electorate depends on a competing education system: support vouchers or other interim solutions to a primary private school system for K-12.
-FEMA: again, no more federal abuses of power. The state's right and responsibility to govern have been trampled. States balance budgets and dictate the local repercussions of building near a sea wall
-Support public and private mass transit systems in the form of VAT on automobiles to fund. (at the state level)
-No to the Federal Reserve

I am fairly new to the Crossfit family, doing it for 1 month now. I like the forums because they give me information. I like the comments because it helps me gauge my work.

I do not come on here to sift thru political agendas or financial debate. I stopped watching CNN and the like to concentrate on more important things my body. There are plenty of sites these things can be debated on, I just hope Crossfit doesn't become one of them.

Not wanting to piss in anyones Wheaties just want to master things like puulups, push jerks, squats, and burpees. There are enough jerks in Washington and we have no control of them at all.

#12 JD

2000-2006 Republicans controlled Congress and passed just about every piece of legislation that Bush presented to them.

Bush didn't start the financial mess but he didn't do anything to stop it.

Paul, rent-seeking can be described as cutting a bigger slice of the cake, without increasing its size for others. Yes, it happens in government; that should be stopped, and stopped harshly. It also happens in the free market. You state that "rent seekers obtain govt's coercive power to prevent competition"; that's hardly the only way to go about rent-seeking. Think of C.R. Bard and needleguns.
The tragedy of the commons came out of a thought experiment where a group of herders grazed their cattle on the same land; each farmer had an incentive to graze as many cattle as he could, without any sort of restraint, and so the land was depleted to the loss of all. Where does the government come in in that scenario? In fact, you state that "the whole point of the 'tragedy of the commons' examples is that owners protect their assets and 'tend' to manage those assets to provide sustainable returns" No. That's the opposite of what it's about. Try again.
"Monopoly also does not exist in the world without govt - or perhaps you can name one?"
Microsoft? Standard Oil? Alcoa? Do you actually think that companies don't seek the highest price possible, government or not? Also, consider the idea of cartels and oligopolies, which function best when the government is unaware of what's going on. Maybe you're thinking of the fact that the US government grants patents to help incentivize creativity?
"Govt on the hand IS monopoly - on the use of coercive force by the govt class against those that are not in govt."
So you're against the Sherman Act, I see. What's your opinion on intellectual property rights? The protection of consumers?
"It appears from your post that you do not know what libertarianism is, and by extension what freedom is. Would you be willing to state your understanding of what 'libertarian' means?"
Minimal government intrusion on my politics. Usually coupled with greater local control. Individual liberty. All things I stand behind.
"The things a govt can and should be 'used' for are to sustain the rule of law and property rights - to the degree that a population has these two things is the degree to which that population has liberty and the health, wealth and growth liberty delivers."
So you're directly equating property rights with liberty. Liberty = property rights. Is that correct?

Comment #23 - Posted by: brad

Welcome to rest day discussion. This is where we "Post thoughts to comments".

"...Govt exists (should exist) to defend the rights of the individual..."

Paul

Comment #19 - Posted by: Apolloswabbie 6'2" 205 44 yoa

Paul, based on your 2 comments, I like your stance on things. Good stuff.

Brad #23

If you are just here for the fitness, best to skip every 4th rest day as politics and an ensuing discussion is usually the topic.

So either participate or ignore, but dont waste your energy trying to stop it. Its just the way it is on crossfit.com

#23 brad:

"There are enough jerks in Washington and we have no control of them at all."

WRONG. You vote. You protest. You run for office. You write. You organize. You educate yourself. You educate others. Martin Luther King used non-violent assembly and non-compliance to drive society (and in turn government) to a brink.

If your thinking, you're winning.

Who is John Galt?

#27

Too bad.

Also, great video; I haven't watched enough of these in the past, but will definitely start doing so.

22 / M / 5'9" / 125lb

I just watched the CrossFit Trinity Fight Gone Bad video. Did anyone else notice their little messages on the back of the van?

No iPods! - No mirrors!

That's delightful.

As a libertarian socialist (I know, start howling, but it is possible), it's usually so weird reading purely libertarian articles. My thoughts tend to go: YES!! NOOO! YES! NO!

:)

I think what saddens me the most is apothy. When I tell others that I am Libertarian, the first thing they say is "Oh, so you want to legalize pot?" As if that is all the party stands for. When I tell them my beliefs and ideals, they say "Oh, that makes sense; I believe in that stuff too." Then they proceed to tell me that they don't want to "waste" their vote by not voting Rep or Dem. They are too oblivious to realize that is exactly what they are doing!! I believe that most people are not left or right, they fall somewhere in the middle. Yet, politicians force you to vote for them based on a narrow and focused set of ideals. Do you believe in abortion? Do you believe in Gay Rights? How about believing in individualism?

Most americans want change. Look at Obama's "Change you can believe in!" campaign. The problem is, that change was from the right back to the left. Its not the change we really want. We will all be complaining about our Democratically controlled governement in two years and elect a bunch of republicans back into congress.

Let's start using our votes for some real change and create a third party system. Let's have a Boston Tea Party, but we'll throw in Fords, GMs, and mortgage brokers instead!!!

Lets start this debate with defining some terms:

What, in as exact language is possible, is a free market?

Now I have a new reason to love Crossfit!!! Not only has it reformed my body and super-charged my metabolism over the course of the past 4 weeks, but I am now learning that it is a community of free-thinking Libertarians with above-average intellectual capacities. (I realize that all folks on this site are not Libertarians.) This definitely serves to abolish any stereotypes that may exist with respect to Physical-Training junkies as synonymous with "dumb jocks," although I'm sure there is a fair share of every breed on this site. I'm stoked and want to get involved further. I guess I'll plan to push for certification #1.

Tabata Something Else: 16-minute workout = 32-intervals of 20-seconds of work followed by ten-seconds of rest where the first 8-intervals are pull-ups, the second 8 are push-ups, the third 8 are sit-ups, and finally, the last 8 are squats = 16-minutes.

Pull-ups: 15 + 18 + 12 + 10 + 08 + 07 + 07 + 07 = 84
Push-ups: 20 + 20 + 15 + 12 + 11 + 11 + 10 + 11 = 110
Sit-ups: 12 + 11 + 10 + 10 + 10 + 12 + 11 + 12 = 88
Squats: 17 + 21 + 21 + 21 + 18 + 16 + 16 + 17 = 147

TODAY’S Tabata Something Else TOTAL = 439
(PREVIOUS) Tabata Something Else PR = 567

Male 35yrs / 70” / 167lbs: as an example of what not to do, the above numbers are an illustration of what happens to overall performance when you only CrossFit 1x to 2x per week for an extended period (e.g. 5-weeks), among other things, not getting proper rest... no more excuses.

...cool nights in Kuwait ~

The piece was still too left leaning for my liking. Anarcho-capitalism, baby!

What saddens me the most about "apothy" is when people do not care enough to use spellchecker: which may appear (a)pathetic to those who strive to reinforce words with real actions in attention-to-detail... not just in spelling, but in crossfit... in life.

my legs are wasted....

#16 Nick,

You sound like an addict trying to justify hanging on to a bad habit.

I hope some one can help me, i have a rather vague question that is puzzling me despite trying to search the forum for the answer.

A while back (several months) there was a lot of clamour here and on the A-blog about a small handheld video camera. I believe some one described it as the camera equivelent to the iphone. Any idea's?

Thanks in advance.

m/35/208ish/5'11

Sat.
Deadlift 3x5
225-275-295-315-335(f)

Mon.
Shoulder Press 1x7
135-145-145-155(f)-145-150-155

Did both workouts today. Trying to play catchup.

On the article: Is it just me? I couldn't even finish the article. Are there a lot of extra words in there? What is he saying? Could someone else say it with a lot less blather? Wow.

Bill

#41 Chris Hill,

Probably the Flip. http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_mino.shtml

Tony Budding has a discussion about cameras here: http://journal.crossfit.com/2008/08/media-tips-6-video-equipment-b.tpl

Enjoyed the article and really like the thought provoking publication, Thanks ! I liked their use of historical analogies and frames of reference to illustrate their points, just my style ;).

To me, the article had a leftward flavor, especially regarding cultural issues, mixed with a take no prisoners conservative approach to government. It will be interesting to see the creative friction at work charting the azimuth and direction of this (Libertarian) movement.

The struggle for this is necessary and will be fascinating political theatre.

anybody interested in Libertarianism should check out www.lewrockwell.com on a daily basis

Talk about verbosity and prolix. Cut to the chase editors. I did like the slip and slide reference....but they don't make 'em like they used to, you know, because of all the market regulation and all.
I also do the 'yes! No Yes No!' thing like carrick #32 whenever I read Libertarian stuff but that makes it fun, kind of like some crossfit wod's....yes! deadlifts! No! Burpees.....etc.

Brad, what evidence do you see that humans, with or without the coercive power of govt, can do what you describe in paragraph 2?

Paul...
I see no evidence demonstrating our ability to do this as everything I have seen that has grown (whether a state or an organism) dies due to its inability to support itself at a certain point. States have always failed, perhaps we are destined to do so. Maybe, the state can look to find methods to exist at a certain size successfully, instead of aiming toward continual growth. That's what I was thinking. Just because we have not been able to address this in the past does not mean we cannot going forward.

Defining the better than now? I understand where the article was aimed at going, just sent my mind in a different direction. I am by no means qualified enough to get into commentary on where our political system needs to be headed or where the target should be set in order to please a nation of individuals. Not a cop out, I just don't assume to know what is best for anyone else but myself.

"These are good things to wonder about, but in most of history, the state is more likely to exploit the masses than individuals."

True, but only because every system in recorded history has trended towards "state-run" societies.

Thanks for the commentary Paul...

Comment #38 - Posted by: Billy Wiland at December 2, 2008 1:07 AM

Billy...You are committed to Virtuosity in the highest degree sir!

Got my new rings (2nd set)

Played w/ 30 sec L-sits, ring-dips, weighted ring dips, elevated ring pushups & a weighted pullup WOD

Weighted pull-up (1RM): 40, 50, 60, 65, 70, 75 (PR)

Paul, you're in good form today! I found the article overly-optomistic. More into the stock market at the moment.

Carrick #32,

No. No it most certainly is not possible.

I haven't had a chance to read all the comments. I have seen Zeitgeist and done my own research on the subjects within. It is true that some of the research is shaky.
I have not seen addendum and can't at the moment see what has changed. From the movie and from my own research, I agree with each part and the major concept of the movie. I don't like to take a single point of view. I always research from different points of view no matter what my bias is when it comes to subjects that interest me. I recently became part of the movement.

Ron Paul for 2009!

Brad 26 yoa #47

"I just don't assume to know what is best for anyone else but myself."

Spoken like a true libertarian. This is the essence of the movement. No human being (including an elected official) can know what is best for another, and attempts to prescribe what is best for another are misguided at least, more likely plain evil. As far as we are concerned, you can do whatever you want to and for yourself up to, but not including, the point where it infringes on another person's same rights. Live free or die.

#12

Bottom line, Humans are corrupt at every level when it comes to the control of markets and power, ie money. So, whether the gov't controls it or the damn CEO's, they all are in it for themselves. Go ahead defend your manmade system of beliefs, whether Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, it really doesn't matter, people are the problem not the ideology! I think the balance of power between the three is likely ideal, that way, nobody gets to exercise their corruption without a fight!

Are we approaching Zen? If we are all corrupt and evil lets assume that is the norm. If that is the norm that it should be completely ethically ok to say that we shouldn't look at things as good or bad but just accept them for what they are. If we can accept things for what they are then we can just bust our own asses and have a good time without worrying about the small minded things. Everyman to himself. I need to pull out my copy of Atlas Shrugged!

B well.

Thinking of changing my CrossFit alias to "Dagney Taggart". Lately and frequently, I've been asking myself who is John Gault?

"So you think that money is the root of all evil? Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it."

"You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live."

Read Atlas Shrugged. Twice.

Hardcore libertarianism is probably on the down swing. While I think softer libertarianism is rapidly gaining momentum.

When I first started grad school in economics during the mid late 90s I might say the majority of American born grad students in econ and the other math oriented disciplines had some libertarian leanings.

There was a difference in degree but Hayek, Nozick and to a far less extent Rand were probably the baseline. You were different if you were coming from somewhere else philosophically.

This has completely changed. I rarely hear that anymore. The chorus of true intellectual libertarians I run into has been reduced to mostly ultra hardcore Randians. I think even Nozick was backing off of some of his ideas before he died.

However, in terms of people who describe themselves as fiscally conservative but socially liberal, this is pretty taking offer the professional world where I live. Now, most of those people are fiscally conservative in a much more limited sense than hardcore libertarians. No getting rid of SS or Medicare.

Really its more a pro-free market approach. Moreover, I think this has become the dominate policy view among the intellectual elite in general.

I think this is why, while it seemed obvious to me, people are surprised to see so many free marketers in Obama's cabinet. Where was he going to get the Socialists from? Some Burning Man convention? In the policy world we are all free marketers now.

So, in some sense the policy class has adopted soft libertarianism, but hardcore libertarianism is suffering intellectually.

30 min run, easy with the dog and ipod, out in the woods, reminded me of when working out was fun, then I started crossfit.

#14 BigBen

Try this one: 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 reps
Pullups, KB swings, pushups

It sucks!! Haha! By the time you get to the 7 rep round you want to die, but it's a great workout.

Jenny B

"It is nearly impossible to cross a North American border without showing a passport, revealing biomedical information, and being entered into a database for decades."

I recently experienced this with my wife, Jade, who is Chinese. She became an American citizen before her and I were married this past November 1st, yet when we crossed the border from Canada back into the US, they pulled her aside for a background check. We both had our passports, and the guard explained that it had to do with a guy a few years ago who was on a plane and had SARS. Apparently they're now screening everyone Chinese.

Granted, it took only 15 minutes, but what's to keep them from screwing up and not allowing my wife, with our unborn child, back into the US? Paranoid? Yes, because in my opinion, blindly trusting a system based on false security is a fool's err.

Entering Canada, there are no checks at all except a few questions; "Where are you going? Why? Where are you from? How long do you plan to stay?"

The article talks about how strange it was back in 1971, when I was born, but to be honest, the world is a lot more strange today after reading history. And when you enter the world of politics, where 'conservatives' are the real money borrowers (check your history about deficit spending), and 'liberals' are for the working man (yeah, right) it gets more strange. Then throw in this blind fear and that we need security and are willing to exchange our liberty for sleep, then our world just went a little weird for me.

Man, I have had enough from whiney Liberals moaning and pissin about political discourse on the CF site every three days. How dare they.

Its not like Obama loving Liberals can't download enough CF videos for free (think about that Libs, gettin nothin for free, something you certainly know a thing or two about)- they gotta moan about the "perceived" slant on the boards too.

No Democrat has ever stayed with CF for more than a month - I'm certain. The workouts are too tough, the mental anguish is too hard, and Dems are afraid to sweat - they dont know what work is.

Haha, #59 Sheepdawg007

I'm not even a Democrat and I think you're crazy!

Male/26yrs/6'0"/170lbs

Rest Day WOD

Max rounds in 30 minutes of...

250m Row
25 GHSU
25 KTE

8 rounds even

Remember we're all equals, just some are more equal then others.

Comment #59
Sheepdowg
Democrat here, CrossFitting since 05/07, so definitely longer than you're above statement, competed in the CF Games this year, used CF to get ready for 4 bodybuilding shows, winning my class in 3, definitely not afraid to sweat, owning a gym and working 100+ hours a week (I think I know what work is) - so now what's your point about Democrats not into CF? You're a moron!

#43 Bill,

Here's my summary:

In the 70's there had been freedom loss (price and wage freezes, import tariffs, and losing the gold standard). But there were still plenty of areas where there was plenty of freedom (contraceptives, the libertarian party, free agency in sports, music, and film). So it is today. We have lots of recent government freedom infringements (patriot act, warrantless wiretapping, nationalization of the financial industry, and increased regulation almost across the board). But we also have unprecedented power going to the people as a result of technology advances--epitomized by the staunchly libertarian world of the internet. The established political parties are losing support (polls show more people labeling themselves as independent) and the libertarian movement is gaining ground (as evidenced by Ron Paul in particular).

It concludes with, "The Libertarian Moment is taking these self-evident truths and organizing them into a comprehensive approach toward living. It started where it always does, in business and culture, where innovation is rewarded. Statist politicians—it’s not fully clear that there is any other kind—will ignore that epochal shift at their peril."

From looking at the photo it seems like Speal, who weighs around 135# if my memory is correct, is push jerking about 375#. Is my math right? That's amazing!

I really liked the part about "Expecting Washington to cut back its main instrument of power after a capitalism-bashing political campaign is like expecting Michael Moore to share his Egg McMuffin with a homeless man"...Thanks Crossfit for giving me a place for free information sharing and debate on both fitness and politics.

Check out www.cato.org for more good political articles.

Hey sorry to change the subject.... How on earth can you get the WODs sent to your cell phone? A buddy of mine has it going, but I can not figure it out.

Thanks

thanks jbutt, i'll give it a whack and let you know how it goes.

and sheepdog if you're going to make blanket statements at least don't make them absolute...do what our fine politicians do and use qualifiers like "generally", "mostly", and "it appears". this way if there's an exception (or many exceptions...) you're not wrong.

anyways we're mostly Ameicans who all appear to enjoy a wonderful (and free) workout regimine, so why don't we keep it civil and respect each other? after all if we all believed, thought, and said the same thing life wouldn't be very interesting.

10 km run

I know its an off day but I need to start preparing for a 30km run in March. The temp. was -2 with a -5 wind chill. BEAUTIFUL FOR RUNNING.

M/175/42

#64 - I'm guess it's 230lbs by the filename of the picture.

WOW!! First time back since august (finished soccer season 3 weeks ago). Just did some basic body weight exercises to get my body used to the motions and WTF, I'm actually worn out from it. It's going to be a longggg rebuilding process.

!!!MARATHON RUNNERS!!!

I wanted to wait until the next Rest Day to ask this, so hopefully I can get some feedback.

The San Diego Rock-N-Roll Marathon in May '09 is the first run over a 10k I will ever have done. I am super excited, but super nervous!

Since Crossfit has already changed my life in the just-over 3 months I've been doing it, I want to put that same faith into Crossfit Endurance.

My Question:

HAS ANYONE HERE TRAINED FOR A MARATHON USING THE CROSSFIT ENDURANCE TRAINING SCHEDULE???

As Brian MacKenzie told me, I'm "just scared. Change is scary." I know that, but I'd love to talk to someone who has done it before, to get some pointers, feedback, advice.

This race is very important to me, and I'd like to be as prepared as possible for it.

Can you guys please email me with advice/comments/etc so the Crossfit Community can continue to help guide me in the right direction?

THANKS SO MUCH, folks!

SheepDawg007

easily one of the dumbest statements ever made on this board.

Denver Sheepdog

looks to me like 2 45s 2 25s 2 10s and 2 5s = 215.

or something around there. either way i promise you it's nowhere near 375. still a good push jerk though.

#64
Yeah, the filename is a giveaway. But visually, it looks like he's got

45 X 1
35 X 1
5 X 2
2.5 X 1

on each side
that's 92.5 X 2 = 185
Plus the 45 pound bar gives us 230.

Those weights look heavier than they are. They are solid rubber bumpers.

TSE and Shoulder Press, details in appropriate places.

Alexi, M/5'8"/165/24

Forgot to post for a couple of days:

Tabata Something
Pull ups: 67
Push ups: 77
GHSU: 72
Squats: 147

Shoulder Press
115/145/155/165(fail)/165(fail)/165(fail)/165(fail)

Next time I will get body weight shoulder press up... SO CLOSE.

I have always felt that Libertarians are waisting their time trying to run a 3rd party. Libertarians should join the Republican party and influence the party back to it's roots of small government and personal responsibility.

finally a rest day.
time to train and raise up another crossfitter ! !

everyone enjoi !

Judging from this article by a couple of editors, “reason: Free Minds and Free Markets” might better be called “reason: Free Association”. Gillespie and Welch have listened to too much Dennis Miller with his convolved similes. If I read it at a speaking pace, I would sometimes hear Miller's voice.

I read and re-read the article hoping to learn, at long last, something definitive on the meaning of libertarian, something to distinguish it from isolationism with anarchy. I see it once again as a chameleon. It is an infinitely adaptable tarp, tossed over any selected bits of historical distortions (excuse the redundancy), it fits perfectly to prove whatever is wanted.

Example:

>>The generation raised on the Internet has essentially been raised libertarian, even if they've never even heard of the word. Native netizens now entering college exhibit a kind of broad-based tolerance toward every manner of ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation grouping in a way that would have seemed like science fiction just a generation ago. The products and activities they enjoy and co-opt most, from filesharing to flying discount airlines to facebooking, are excrescences of the free-market ideas of deregulation and decontrol. Generations X, Y, and those even younger swim in markets-that is, in choices among competing alternatives-the way those of us who grew up in the '70s frolicked on Slip 'n Slides.>>

Here the authors conflate libertarian and licentiousness for themselves and their readers. Some good has actually come out of the '60s. Not just the stigma of illegitimacy and miscegenation are gone, but even the concepts.

But the pre-'60 mores against promiscuity and drug use have so weakened that we are producing generations distinguished by their numbers of the sick and wasted. Once the prayer was, “Gonorrhea! Thank God, I was afraid it was syphilis.” Now it's, “Syphilis! Herpes! Thank God, I was afraid it was AIDS.” Not that there's anything wrong with that! (Seinfeld). No, just societal dregs, drones happy for their food stamps and their preferences under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Internet was never regulated nor controlled to be deregulated or decontrolled. The threat to regulate and control it is very real today with the Democrats assuming control. They are the party of centrism, dictatorship, collectivism. They cannot stand free thought. Hence, the Fairness Doctrine, soon to be reinstated with hopes of expanding its domain beyond radio, perhaps to the Internet, if it's not to be taxed into obedience. The threat from the free-thinkers who are the base of the left is the loss of individualism.

The libertarian movement, underway since the '70s, has become a “Libertarian Moment”. A flash in the pan, according to reason. Even that moment cannot be identified from the article, much less the meaning of libertarianism.

Goldwater who championed free enterprise and federalism in the early '60s the authors dismiss as “rabble-rousing”. Instead, they claim to their Moment, first and foremost, the notion of a market based economy, and second, not even republican government but representative democracy. These tenets of libertarianism are shallow idealizations, with as much thought given to their practicality as given to their origins. Like Marxism, libertarianism is at once seductive and impractical.

A free market needs competition, an auction to set prices, and a public infrastructure. Freedom, and all that that entails, requires wars, and the lessons of the 20th Century include the horrible price of prolonging the inevitable against very bad people. Not the least of these is 9/11, precipitated last by Clinton turning real and metaphorical cheeks the wrong way 'round. Our federal government balances on a ledge. It can err by falling off to either side, providing too much or too little. Libertarianism by intent would do too little.

As Sir Thomas More instructed William Roper in "A Man for All Seasons", beware when cutting down the laws.

Laissez-faire is not an answer, and the voice of reason seems to draw no line.

Did tabata something else today, because I didn't do it sunday and I wanted to set a new PR.

old PR 276

Today 339

Sunday- ran about 7 miles

Monday- rest day

Today- so tired. Lots of late nights with the holidays/company, etc. Did not feel like working out but did anyhow at about 80% effort. Shuffle needed re-charging so no music and air was broken at gym so it was cranking out heat. LOL, it was a lovely workout day.

Run 800m
25# 1 arm snatch L x20
25# 1 arm snatch R x20
20 DB Squat cleans, 2-25# DB
100 ab mat style sit ups
20 DB squat cleans
25# 1 arm snatch L x20
25# 1 arm snatch R x20
Run 800 m (may have run 900m)
= 30:14

Looked later and last time used two 20# DB on cleans, and it was actually supposed to be 20 total snatches, not 20 each arm but oh well.

Erin

I got into Libertarianism some 25 years ago, as well as Randism about the same time. I still definitely lean that way still but at some point it not only seemed like futility but there is a liberalism (as could be gleened from the article) that is incorrect. at some point, each of us has to answer a basic question ( and maybe two)for themselves (and only for themselves):Is there absolute truth? If your answer is "no", do you know that absolutely? Careful...don't contradict yourself!

In any event, my personal answer to that question has moved me a tad bit further from the liberalism that the article seems to profess and this of course, in multiple areas of my life.

Anyone else ever wish that they would post the "post rest day workout" along with the rest day... in case you want to work out on rest day too?

That way you know what NOT to do haha.

Even saying... hey dont do shoulders on rest day.

That, I think, would be a nice touch.

While I do find that I'm becoming increasingly amenable to libertarian viewpoints - no thanks in part to the CF boards - I tend to agree with Comment #15 - Jared M Johnson; we need to be careful of following inflexible fundamentalist ideologies too closely. Externalities are a known failure of pure free market systems; and I fail to see how private ownership of all resources would address this issue. Regulation by good government is the only way to prevent costs of from being borne by parties who do not participate in a transaction.

I'm having trouble picturing an effective system that privatizes ownership of the air that I breathe, for example.

#83 joe,

To paraphrase Eva T., working out does not improve your body, recovery does. Rest days are just as important to CrossFit as workout days. Give your body a chance to do the rebuilding it needs.

Just to let you guys know I'm not dead, I'm doing a quick check in ;).
So, I'm off the ship and back to my command now... poopiness. I'd like to go back... but my only upside is now I'm able to search out a CF box! How exciting, right? Of course. I'm going to head over to biloxi today and scope it out. Wish me luck on finding this thing!

So, I'm not dead... in case you guys were wondering. I am in fact off the ship now and back in Mississippi. The upside to this is that I can seek out a real live CF box now! I'm going to make it a mission today to find CF Coastline and check it out. Wish me luck, I'm horrible with directions. I muchly need to get back into it though, ever since I got back I've met back up with beer and it's a bad thing. I'm ready to do my body some good now, and I don't mean drink milk. I'm craving the kool-aid like crazy now!

#79 Jeff Glassman,

I fail to see how painting libertarianism as protection of individual differences in ethnicity, religion, and sexual preference makes it a chameleon and conflates it with licentiousness. Rather, you seem to be conflating morality and legality. Libertarianism is about the the role of the state takes in your life via laws. I fail to see how this is confused with the moral issues you mention...unless you favor legislating morality. Is this what you are advocating?

I would marry Dagny Taggert could I find her in the real world! Knock it out today...

google IOUSA. It isn't exactly relevant to the thread, but is definitely relevant to anyone under 40. Look for the 30 min. video.

F/22/5'6"/140

Rest Day but just HAD to do this...

30 reps Cleans @ 135# for time
17:59
Not too shabby I guess. Was looking to do it in sub-15. Next time.

Then later, a RowFit class for funsies

CFE
TT choice
2K on treadmill, 1% incline, 9.2 MPH

Haven't been able to keep up over Thanksgiving break and with this monster cold, but I had to get in there today.

Shoulder Press
3-3-3-3-3; 95-105-115-125(PR)-130(PR)

Deadlift
3-3-3-3-3; 185-205-225(PR)-245(PR)-275(PR)

Floorswipers
10-10-10; 65-85-95(PR)

TGU's
45-50(PR)-55(PR)-50-50

Skin the Cat
3-3-3-3-3

Maybe there is something to performing better when you're sick?!!!

15-12-9 reps for time of:
OH Squats (115#)
L-Pullups

6:36

Came to the stinging realization that I really suck at L-Pullups. For punishment for sucking so badly I did 100 anchored situps afterwards. The OH Squats went well however, first two sets unbroken, then got the shoulder wobbles really bad on the last one so I had to break it in two.

#80 Dave:

Good job. Great PR improvement.

Day 11 - push-up challenge

Thanks to everyone who answered my question in post 64. I knew he was an animal, but I couldn't belive that. I thought the thickest bumpers are 100#'s, but I could have just been smart enough to look at the file name!

Did Badger today........

37:41

terrible I know... Hands are fried

Deadlift
355 x 3
375 x 3
395 x 3 (pr)
335 x 12 (pr)

AMRAP in 15
10 Power Cleans, 135#
5 Box Jumps, 42"

9 rounds + 1 clean

I think it's important not to conflate libertarianism with libertinism.

Here's a question: would a proper libertarian support p0rnography on the major networks at 9am on Saturday mornings, if that's what the "people" wanted (meaning you had a well organized, well connected, and well funded lobby)?

If not, why not? Is that not a logical extension of freedom?

Harry Reid justified his proposal to impose government oversight on free speech by pointing out that we ban certain things on public TV.

Would the logical response be to legalize those things?

What are the limits of freedom, and by what principles do we determine them?

To the extent I could see, that question was entirely unaddressed in this piece.

Wow. I definitely needed the rest day.

I did Joshua on Sunday, Nate yesterday morning, and tabada something else last night. So far today I have slept for 11 hours today.

I tink the "Rest" day would be a good question & answer day. Alot of days when people are posting results, questions get lost in the mix. You folks could make a politics thread for all of your non CF discussions.

23/m/135/5'4"
BADGER from Crossfit NavySeal WOD

Yea..... took me about 60 minutes

And #98 thought he did bad.....

Had to break it up into 6 sits, 15 reps, 400m.

1 week of Crossfit down.

I've always been somewhat into fitness and consider myself to be in decent shape. Boy was I wrong.

I don't think I've ever been so sore. The intensity is awesome and everyone here seems very supportive of newcomers, I did not expect that.

I'm a believer!

anybody have some advice on how to improve your run time?

lol... i think its funny that crossfitters are naive and think that this style of training is called crossfit... there are a lot of similar styles... there have been for a long time... cf is not special... hahahaha

http://www.balancegym.com/workouts/workoutshome.htm

Performed

Back Squat
5,5,5,5,5

got to 245lb, but went back to 225 due to a cold and sinus infection making me very tired and form being poor.

God Bless and Semper Fidelis

29/f/115

Grindy:

24:34

Second day back after 2 weeks off; made up a workout today:

6 rounds for time of:

300 jump rope skips
20 kettleball swings w/ 55lb DB

21:54

Next time, see how many of those rounds you can do in 30 minutes. This might be a good sub for an endurance workout that involves running.

#100

Yes, a proper libertarian would support a private television company's legal right to broadcast pornography at 9am on a Saturday morning. This would need to be profitable, or else the TV station would not do it. In order for it to be profitable, it would need willing private sponsors (there wouldn't be many) and customer demand. If both exist, then there is only one thing to consider: the cost inflicted upon parents who want to deny their children access to potentially harmful programming. Parents could either tell their children not to view the program or impose parental controls via v-chip, etc. It would be in line with libertarian philosophy to make it illegal for the TV station to evade parental controls / preset private preferences. People only watch what they want to watch. They are welcome to change the channel at anytime.

#105:

It depends on what kind of run you want to improve. 5k speed work can be easily achieved by running intervals (sprint from one streetlight to the next, then jog two, sprint one, jog two.) This will, over time, increase your O2 usage (pardon my lack of technical jargon) and allow you to go harder longer. Do this 2x a week, run 1x a week for time, jog 1x a week at conversational pace.

Internet censorship is a reality; we are simply enjoying the gov't taking their sweet time with a beast that grew far faster than they thought it would.

#106 re: similar programs
If that website was meant to be an CrossFit competitor that has been around for a "long time," I'm willing to bet they were not doing "Wall Ball," "Murph," or terms found only a few blog posts back on their website before CrossFit quanitified / redefined many of these methods.

We all know CrossFit's moves are not new; it seems not all of us appreciate CrossFit wrapping it up nicely for us and taking very little credit (and $) along the way.

Jackie- 13:19

22-m-210#

I have to disagree with the article. California voted for proposition 8, and Florida and one other state voted for similar measures. Ron Paul ran for president and was laughed at. I worked for his campaign in South Carolina, and even those that liked his ideas felt he wasn't ready. When you see videos of Obama supporters excited that they "don't have to worry about their rent, car payments, or insurance," or when my mother, who works for a temporary staffing agency in Memphis, is told after some of the workers were breaking the rules, by these same workers that "we gonna call Obama on you," we have an entitlement culture that wants big government. Obama was elected because people want govt run healthcare, they want expansionist foreign policy, they want carbon taxes and the like. They want this kind of thing. Thats why I think the premise of the article is wrong. People always seem to have their hand out nowadays, whether it be in the workplace or politics.

Did 12/1 WOD Shoulder Press today:
115
135
140
145
150
155 miss
155 miss

#52 David
"As far as we are concerned, you can do whatever you want to and for yourself up to, but not including, the point where it infringes on another person's same rights. Live free or die."

That sums it up exactly. And, the only two things that infringe on others' rights are direct physical harm and property rights violations. Every other law is an infringement and a legislation of taste and style.

Authority, power, and control are antithetical to responsibility. As well, responsibility is manufactured precisely where authority is reduced. Relinquishing liberty to any authority is an admission into slavery even if one stands to gain from the contract or if the authority is thought to be benevolent. This is true whether the authority is from the state or private sector

Policy and legislation should not represent the view of the majority, but instead protect all views of all individuals as long as they do not directly violate the liberty of other individuals.

#115 Holden,

I agree with everything you say, but I think "the only two things that infringe on others' rights are direct physical harm and property rights violations", when worded that way, glosses over some of the more complex issues involved. The tragedy of the commons.

Is it my right to put a factory on my land right next to your land even though you don't like it? You would probably say yes.

Is it my right to have my factory emit exhaust and create smog that blows over to your land? (I used to live near a paper mill. When the wind blew our way it smelled awful.) Some would say no, others yes, still others yes subject to certain restrictions.

Is it my right to have my factory emit sarin gas that makes your land uninhabitable? Most people would probably say no.

Technically your words can be argued to cover this example adequately, but in the real world "property" and "physical harm" become murky issues when involving things we all hold in common such as air, water, etc.

#116 MB,

I anticipated this argument because I often have it with myself, so I in know way fault you for making it. Though, I think everyone can agree it would be easier with an person discourse and discussion.

To simplify, though, my belief is that if there is no authority to regulate then people will do it themselves. By not relinquishing their responsibility to a "power" they will by necessity become more informed, more participating, and more responsible. A more informed public would find your smog emitting factory unacceptable. They would not work there or buy your products. They might even develop a solution for smog altogether. Your smog wouldn't have a chance. Legislation wouldn't be necessary. Do I think this could happen overnight? No. Chaos would ensue, followed by growth. If only we would have started much earlier.

If we're not willing to take the chance then we have an alternative. Local laws.. If the details are left to the local level it allows for more choices. Local citizens decide they're own detailed legislation. If one can't change his legislation to his liking he can go down the road to many other choices.

MB #88,

The editors and not I did the conflating, and it is contained in the paragraph that I quoted. To summarize, it says that being “raised libertarian” means to have attained a “broad based tolerance toward every manner of ethnic, religious, and sexual-orientation”. And more. They include “products and activities [the netizen generation] enjoy” that are “excrescences of … deregulation and decontrol.” These are not just excrescences of law, but of the breakdown of every manner of social mores that at one time defined our culture. To be libertarian apparently means to accept and partake of that cultural disintegration.

#118 Jeff G,

A free-market of ideas, culture, information, and style would allow for the best ideas to become the most widely accepted. The use of other ideas won't interfere with this. If coercion is needed, the idea is lacking.

A question for moralists:

A graphically sexual (Porn) such as "Emanuelle", or a good old fashioned Charles Bronson "Death Wish" film, or a war movie such as "Enemy at the gates" with graphic violence, rape, mayhem and murder broadcasted at 9:00AM (Or any other time).

Which, if any is morally objectionable to you, and why ?

Holden,

I'm partially in agreement with you, but there appears to be a latent naive idealism here that runs counter to every successful civilization.

When you say "Relinquishing liberty to any authority is an admission into slavery" could I not argue that we should all have the right to have conjugal relations with goats in public, and that any use of the police power of the State to prevent this constitutes de facto slavery?

Many utopias have been tried, but all of them needed laws and police. Any system that does not start from the current--but I will agree potentially rectifiable--potential depravity of humans, is destined to fail. My own reading of history shows this clearly.

Admittedly, many if not most "primitive" societies used techniques like shunning and banishment to enforce rules, but all of them had clear moral codes that were much, much more restrictive than the public rules in place today. In fact, one is hard pressed to find any universally condemned actions at all, other than judgment itself. Libertarians may view this as an improvement. I view it as the first (and possibly second) step towards the NECESSITY of autocracy to maintain social order.

People can only govern themselves through moral codes. To the extent morality is not taught, they will not be able to govern themselves. And morality in general has been assaulted as unduly restrictive, precisely by people making arguments like you are making, and valuing the sorts of what I term "quantitative freedom" that is valued in this article.

So, by Holdens logic we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, and I would be seeing my son off to Vietnam..?

I cant think of many great ideas that didnt meet with or require coercion. In fact I would go so far as to say that in many cases the better the idea- the more it will engender coercion either in favor of or in the prevention of it's implementation.
MB hits on the problem with free market private property types- a sort of fetishising of property- and a refusal to seriously deal with the intangibles of human interaction. Libertarians decry "human rights culture" simply (I suspect) because they dont have adequate means in their philosphy to accomodate those questions and resolve the types of problems that dont directly revolve around property. Like die hard socialists on the problem of incentive and merit in - they just tune it out.

Its my understanding that in a liberatarian system we wouldnt have agencies like the FDA, OSHA, and of course public education would be replaced by private schools/charter schools? Would this be accurate? I stand to be corrected- but I think we can do better than that as a society without it being a statist tyranny- there is a middle ground- and in fact some of the examples - the internet being one- seem to me to be a good example of individualism thriving in a highly organized and government sponsored enviroment- ie- the example could easily be presented from another perspective than the author's.

Libertarianism seems to be a remarkable step back in human political evolution- more similar in it's idealism to their dread enemy Marxism than most Ive met want to admit. It's simple, attractive and fairly unworkable in an economy as large and complex as most developed countries have. I think most people intuit this and while we may be in an age where people are tolerant of other peoples choices; this has more to do with the work of liberals than libertarians.

As an idependant contractor who has always lived by the hustle and done whatever I want to earn money -because I wanted to do it- I would love to be Libertarian- it would fit my lifestyle- but I just dont see it being a practica politicall view. Hopefully this thread will enlighten me. I would particularly be interested in the aforementioned difference between libertarian/libertine - because politically I dont see much difference as yet.

I also find #21 Pauls comment that the state and not individuals is more likely to exploit people to be fallacious . I think history reads like a patchwork of both states and individual entities of being equally capable of exploiting people- especially if you broaden your definition of individual to include corporations (which have always sought the same legal rights as individuals) It's really the two types of entities in balance that is the best situation- does libertarian thought acknowledge this? How??

#118 Jeff Glassman,

Unfortunately you are still conflating morality and legality. The aforementioned issues have a moral aspect and a legal aspect. I interpret it as understood that a libertarian (and the article) is concerning oneself with just the legal treatment of these issues. You are the one that keeps insisting that they are inseparable--apparently to construct this straw man. The article's mention of this generation's tolerance refers not to moral tolerance but legal tolerance. It is perfectly possible for one to believe that bestiality (for example) is immoral while believing that the state should not be regulating that activity with laws if it is done in privacy and in a way that doesn't infringe on others' rights.

Don't have time to read the last two posts, but wanted to add a brief note as I'm rolling out the door.

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that where someone wants to generate a concrete freedom--say the right to be openly homosexual--they attack not the specific prejudices with respect to that act/lifestyle. They attack the concept of limits, per se.

If we look at history, many cultures--such as the Greeks--openly supported that lifestyle--but that does not mean they had no governing moral values. On the contrary, the Greeks, as an example, had many strict expectations of any member of the social order, whether Spartan, Athenian, or other.

It is this attack on the principle of limits that is objectionable to me. George Carlin famously had his 7 or whatever number of words you couldn't say. He was playing the part of the philosophically shallow libertarian in asking why he couldn't say those words.

The reason was simple: you have to have limits. Where those limits should be is a matter of discussion.

However, once the discussion turns to the principle of limits itself, that society is decadent.

I would recommend, as a side note, Jacques Barzun's excellent book "Dawn to Decadence". He is a French Texan, that rarest of breeds.

5:58
sub'd 85#
21 straight thrusterrs- 21 straight PU
5-5-5 thrusters, 8-7 PU
5-4 thrusters, 6-3 PU

MB #123,

You point out exactly what's missing from the theory of libertarianism - a definition. The rest day article not only does not say what you claim for it, but clearly contradicts your analysis. The authors measure the progress of libertarianism, the Libertarian Moment as they see it, by what people think (“tolerance”) and do (“activities they enjoy”) on moral issues -- that is, with no mention of any relevant laws. So be it, at least for this rest day article.

Without a definition, everyone is a libertarian. As you have done, read into it whatever is convenient at the moment, a form of relativism. The practical problem is that inherent lack of the rational and practical in libertarianism.

Barry #121,

Where does a libertarian stand on human-goat relations in public? Under libertarianism, can we have a law protecting the goat?

What might be the libertarian position on Michael Vick's conviction for dog fighting?

It seems convenient that you have fallen back to an assertion that's virtually impossible to debate. I can assert that there is a reasonable definition, you can assert that there isn't. Is the standard definition not good enough?

From dictionary.com:

libertarian (n.): 3. advocating liberty
liberty (n.): 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

There is nothing about morals here.

The wikipedia page for libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism) reinforces this general concept. Barry Cooper warned about confusion with libertinism, also fairly well-described by wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertinism). By these definitions, your charges are really directed at libertinism rather than libertarianism.

It seems convenient that you have fallen back to an assertion that's virtually impossible to debate. I can assert that there is a reasonable definition, you can assert that there isn't. Is the standard definition not good enough?

From dictionary.com:

libertarian (n.): 3. advocating liberty
liberty (n.): 1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

There is nothing about morals here. It's about government control, i.e laws.

The wikipedia page for libertarianism reinforces this general concept. Barry Cooper warned about confusion with libertinism, also fairly well-described by wikipedia. By these commonly accepted definitions, your charges are really directed at libertinism rather than libertarianism. I'm not reading into it whatever is convenient. I'm using commonly accepted definitions. Why do you insist on accusing libertarians of libertinism?

Jeff,

Here's an article to read; it quite clearly states the axiom of libertarianism, and how libertarians deal with the moral issues you raise.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_7.pdf

This highlights the important difference between libertarianism and libertinism MB speaks of.

#125 james,

"So, by Holdens logic we would still have slavery, women would not be able to vote, and I would be seeing my son off to Vietnam..?"

Slavery would have never existed without the legal protection of the slave-holders. Women would have never not been able to vote without legislation preventing it. Not sure where you're going with the sending your son off to Vietnam comment, but that war (on the large scale) would have never been started without powerful political hegenomy.

#124 Barry C.

"When you say "Relinquishing liberty to any authority is an admission into slavery" could I not argue that we should all have the right to have conjugal relations with goats in public, and that any use of the police power of the State to prevent this constitutes de facto slavery?"

I completely miswrote this quote. It reads to be an accusation as well, but was never intended to be. The word liberty should be replaced with responsibility. It is meant to express that blind allegiance without being informed leads into an overly subjective state.

I don't think that there shouldn't be police or a judicial system, but a few paragraphs of an idea can easily be attacked by anyone wishing to do so by drawing any conclusions to the details. The real point is that less power is better. We are going in the opposite direction though. The libertarians are the only somewhat organized group attempting to change this direction. Back in the direction of Locke (where we started) instead of Machiavelli. The question becomes want we want in the U.S.-- a very small central government in both fiscal and social issues (Libertarian Party), a pseudo free-market economy coupled with social conservative value legislation ( current Republican Party), or a slightly less free-market economy with slightly less socially conservative legislation ( current Democratic Party). The latter two seem very mediocre to me and both protect the status-quo.

180/M/25

3:47

# 131 Darije, Thanks for the link to a very well written set of definitions.

M/27/185

Ran 1.5 miles

Holden- sorry my examples were lousy- all I meant was that coercion isnt a predicator (predictor?) of how 'good' an idea is.

slavery existed (and exists) irrespective of legal sanction- but the women/vietnam examples are off- my bad.

Jeff G., Barry and other social conservatives,

If the government enforces or sets levels of morality and culture then you are never protected from changes in morality or popular belief. You are at the whim of the power or authority whether it be elected by a majority of the people or not. (think the people of Germany about seven decades ago) In a libertarian society you would never have this fear of legislation. (unless of course your culture is to murder and steal)

The link posted by #132 Darije is an excellent read.

Coach called me to disagree with my views on libertarianism and its definitions. He contended that I was an example of a libertarian. He recommended that I read and rely on the definition in Wikipedia and not on the platform of the Libertarian Party, as someone else may have recommended. So I took the time to read the Wikipedia article. Never wishing actually to rely on Wikipedia, I also read several pages of definitions from the Cato Institute, plus a couple of articles by David Boaz.

I also tried revisiting Hayek, but found that his words had become obsolete in 64 years, e.g., liberals supporting free enterprise!? I also gave a sufficient read of the article recommended by Darije #132 and Holden #139, Walter Block, “Libertarianism and Libertinism”. Holden, by the way, addresses me as a social conservative.

By Wikipedia and Cato, anyone who aligns himself with Western Civilization is a libertarian. In that sense, I am a libertarian.

According to Brock, I am certainly not a libertarian. I do not subscribe to any political philosophy but my own. I certainly do not go along with Brock libertarianism, which by definition is concerned only with laws as they should be written, and which takes no position on laws as they are written.

Contrary to Brock libertarianism, I believe that people who sell cocaine, say, without a license should be incarcerated. Further I disagree with Brock's interpretation that incarceration or the taking of property by due process falls within any accepted meaning for violence, a term he uses profusely without a bewildering implied definition.

Holden thinks I am a social conservative. I am a secular conservative, and I oppose most everything I can think of that social conservatives wish to enact into law. For example, I am opposed to prayers or the equivalent (e.g., moments of silence) in public (tax payer supported) schools. I am in favor of teaching about God, agnosticism and atheism in public schools in a K-12 course on comparative religions. I am in favor of teaching Intelligent Design in K-12 science courses as an example of what is not science. Of course, now I'm opposed to public schools, but that's a distraction - that's because they have proved an utter failure and embarrassment.

I am in favor of the legalization of all drugs currently labeled illicit except marijuana, but that does not mean I favor laissez-faire drug access. I favor making cocaine and methamphetamines, for example, available by prescription for registered addicts at the government subsidized low costs, and with no possible profits back to the prescribing physician. I favor changes in the FDA, not its abolition. I would have the FDA govern the prescribing of now illicit drugs, and I would greatly liberalize experimental or ineffective drugs for the terminally ill.

I am in favor of free market capitalism as a consequence of liberty and as an optimum economic system. A free market to me means that an auction exists to set the prices of products and services. It will not exist for every product, such as a new product. But in general I'd say that individuals or companies should be barred from certain predatory practices designed to disrupt a free market other than by providing a superior, fairly priced product. I am opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and, of course, of government ownership of the means of production.

I would abolish the individual income tax, and limit the IRS to collecting income tax from businesses. That should be libertarian gold.

I am in favor of preemptive wars, however that might be defined. Such a war would not be with permission of the target, and some innocents might be victims. The present federal laws, and not any treaty, are sufficient to decide where, when, and why we take violent action against an enemy state, group, or individual. I would include in that definition of violence kidnapping, killing, and the taking of property. I favor surgical, high tech and special forces actions, and I favor some diplomacy. But I would not be deterred by borders or other sanctuaries of any culture, including our own.

I believe in guilt by some associations.

I think these views are consistent with me being a libertarian in the Cato sense, and not in either the Ron Paul or the Brock senses. And if you claim to be a libertarian, hooray for you. I'm glad you're comfortable with that, but you're not telling me anything more than I might have guessed or decided by a coin toss.

...which is why I tend to interpret the word libertarian in a loose, rather than the strict, way. I call myself a libertarian to communicate that I generally favor individual freedom over government control (authoritarianism). It sounds like I would probably call you a libertarian as well for the same reasons. It seems critical that terms like "libertarian" be rather broad because that's the only way they're useful.

In that sense, maybe it is a tarp as you say, conforming to many belief structures that differ even in significant, but localized, areas. It's just not a tarp the coverage of which implies moral acceptance of behaviors that it tries to keep legal.

On another note, I'm interested in the details and reasoning behind your statement on drug policy...but that can wait until later.

Jeff G.

My mistake for falsely categorizing you. (apologies to Barry as well if the same mistake was made) Perhaps it was a poor assumption on my side with limited information.

Jeff G-- why the legalisation of drugs except for marijuana?

For me, I think the word liberal is fine. I am reading a book by William James, which he dedicated to John Stuart Mill, saying he likes to think he would be the leader of his movement, had he then (1907) been alive. Mill, Hayek, Smith: all of them taught that virtue combined with a pragmatic, well structured system of government, would lead to both wealth and human felicity. And such has been the case.

Except to the extent that a counter narrative has come into play, which is liberal in name, and autocratic in impulse.

With respect to the issue of "libertarianism", my primary issue is what I suppose I could call cultural. Freud, in his book "Civilization and its Discontents", in effect argued that civilization is unnatural. Like Rousseau, he saw "honesty" in uninhibited self expression. As a consequence, happiness--here understood as freedom from unnatural restraints like monogamy or frugality--exists outside of any structured social arrangement of any sort.

Rousseau, for example, would not have been able to live as a member of the "Noble Savage" Yamomami, for the simple reason that they had VERY strict rules, and he was sloppy and lazy.

Thus, you have this strong thread of thinking in which everything that holds us together, which orders and disciplines our thought and behavior, is somehow antithetical to the purpose of life, which is spontaneous "freedom".

And in the pursuit of this freedom we have destroyed the nuclear family, eradicated financial prudence, convinced ourselves we live in a kind and gentle world, and stopped thinking about the future and our responsibility to it.

This trend I cannot support. And what I can support is fully described, ultimately, in the very charter of the U.S. The States were intended to be able to implement laws according to their own moral understandings. The Federal Government was not to do any of the things described in the Bill of Rights, but individual States were intended to have wide latitude.

It occurred to me a couple of weeks ago that one very interesting means by which to fundamentally restructure the balance of power vis a vis Washington would be to abolish whichever Amendment it was that gave the Federal Courts jurisdiction--or a credible case for claiming jurisdiction--over the sundry States. I think it's the 14th. It's in that neighborhood. It was passed after Lincoln's assassination by the Radicals, aka "American Jacobins".

It was intended to abolish slavery, but Roe v. Wade and most other example of unconstitutional "bench" legislation would have been impossible without it.

Libertarians: there's a good battle to be fought.

Dr. Dean Edell, hippy turned physician and one of the most entertaining and informative men on the air, believes that tobacco is a far greater health threat than illicit drugs. An indicator that supports Edell is that the death rate from tobacco runs around 25 times that for illicit drug use (435,000 per year vs. about 17,000 for illicit drug use, both direct and indirect. AMA study, http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/30.)

The tobacco costs to medicare are far greater, however. And that's why the federal government is now so concerned about smoking. The bill is in their court. Drug addicts aren't much of a medical expense - on average, probably a few emergency room visits and then death. Tobacco usage seems to run around 40% of Americans, while illicit drug addiction is perhaps around 8%. So per user, tobacco deaths run about 5 times as great as those from illicit drugs.

I do not consider even valid such concepts as second hand smoke effects, that alcohol is a drug, or that tobacco is addictive, notwithstanding the finding of the AMA. These are in the same category as CO2 causing global warming. I would prefer that the statistics not include marijuana (because it is not addictive), and assume that they do not (because marijuana is only indirectly and improbably a cause of early death). Pot, like martinis, just destroys brain cells. Studies vary on the subject, but my experience with too many potheads (and drunks) corroborates the results that affirm brain damage.

The greater health problem that Edell doesn't take into account is that smoking cigarettes takes about 5 years off a person's life while illicit drug addiction takes perhaps 45 years. Studies again vary, but once upon a time I kept a list of dead celebrities who were known drug users. Some were quite long-lived, like Timothy Leary (75) and perhaps Jerry Garcia (53), but too many were incredibly short, like River Phoenix (23), and others who hadn't lived long enough to gain much notoriety. Typically, they were like John Balushi (33) or Janis Joplin (27), dying from all causes on average at about 33.

Someone made a popular list of 319 dead rockstars, noting their early demise. (It's actually 320, but one's age was unknown.) Their life expectancy was 37.0 years. The life expectancy in the US is around 78 years, so being a rockstar only costs about 41 years. If we assume these data were to pass all the sniff tests, then we could say 91% of rockstars are illicit drug users with a life expectancy of 33 years and 9% are not, and have a life expectancy of 78 years. At least we have a rough test of reasonableness.

So net, illicit drug use is roughly twice as serious as tobacco in terms of manyears lost per user.

The justification is far from limited to health care costs. The big swinger is the huge societal costs of crime, including property losses, drug enforcement, incarceration, trials, divorce, prostitution, STDs, derelicts, murder, and mayhem.

I also reject the popular notion that drug use is due to poverty, oppression, feelings of inadequacy, bad parental role models, or adolescent stress. At its core, the drug problem is economic. It is fomented by a most lucrative underground business. It capitalizes on peer pressure, free samples, addicted soldier pushers, the you-can-always-quit slogan, and finally on the power of the addiction of these drugs. And that last observation is why marijuana does not qualify for subsidation.

The price of street drugs is proportional to the money that can be raised by crime and inversely proportional to the supply. That is why the US has the world's biggest drug problem. We are the market place for the world, legal or not. So, if interdiction cuts the supply, the price goes up, but the cash flow stays about constant.

When the government captures illicit drugs, the loot should be purified for sale, not burned. The same principle holds for elephant tusks or rare animal hides.

As the politicians say, “under my plan” no prescribing physician is allowed to have a financial interest in the sale of the now legalized drugs.

The societal costs of the illicit drug market would be all but eliminated by taking the profit out of the illicit drug business. Everyone should agree, from Cato Libertarian to Brock Libertarian, the entire spectrum of political philosophy - everyone but the cops. They will have be reprogrammed.

The fix begins, so to speak, when addicts get their drugs from a government approved clinic at subsidized low costs. In my plan, an addict would get a reliable, regulated dosage of quality stuff at the clinic, of the substance of their choice, as often as waranted, 24 X 7, and under a prescribing doctor's long term supervision. Methodone and counseling would be tangential options. The life expectancy of the current crop of addicts would be increased substantially, though not yet normal, and they would be able to lead fairly normal, safe, civil lives. But that generation of addicts would be effectively the last.

#145- That makes good sense. I have always thought the economic drivers had more to do with it than poverty/ etc.

#145

"And that last observation is why marijuana does not qualify for subsidation."

Jeff, subsidation is not a word, and I'm not sure what you mean by this sentence. Marijuana is less harmful than any other substance you mentioned, and its use is not associated with any of the negative effects of drug use that you mentioned. It took a simple google search to find hundreds of articles that refute your claim that marijuana causes brain damage. Here's a link to one.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain

It seems to me that you are buying into the anti-drug propaganda that our taxes fund. There really isn't a logical reason why marijuana should be illegal. Please explain.

Also, there is no difference between free market capitalism and laissez-faire capitalism. Most people who complain about "unfair prices" just don't understand the concept of supply and demand. (Unless a monopoly is present, in which case, it is most likely supported by the government)

As for your dog-fighting and goat-raping questions, I think it is completely within the libertarian philosophy to assume that certain animals have some basic rights that should also be protected by the law.

@ #75- Marathon Runners

I'm trying Crossfit + CF Endurance + weekend long runs this winter to build a base for a spring 50K, but I think there is no way you should attempt a marathon on CFE alone. I like the intensity, and Tabatas and those types of workouts definitely will boost your VO2max, but I just don't see how you can build the cumulative time on your feet that you need to be really ready to go 26.2, ESPECIALLY if you've only run a 10K as your longest distance up to that point.

Email me if you want details of the plan I have worked out to incorporate a long run progression up to 24 miles 3x before I do the 50K, as well as CF type workouts. You can easily adapt it to your marathon training.