whew, rest day

No 5k for me. Hurt my foot a couple of weeks ago. Sub'd Tabata KB snatches for 25 min with the 16 kg.

Happy Rest Day to the Party Bus Challengers!

Looks like Jim D. is in the lead. Playoff Beard is going to need to bring a KEG!

Ah yes, rest day is good!

F/22/5'6"/140

GHD Annie
10:58

More right-wing fodder for the rubes and zealots? Wonderful.

I really like a lot of the reading Coach puts out. Coach, have you ever thought about recommending a monthly book to digest?

Nice picture and it looks like Carolina Crossfit is a great place to train.

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

thank youuuuuuu!

I've been doing crofffit since September of last year. I always browse the comments to compare times just to see where I'm at in the mix. I guess it's about time to step up and start posting my times as well. Started posting yesterday, but just wanted to thank everyone who posts helpful comments here. I've learned a lot from checking this board often. looking forward to whatever next cycle may bring!! I've been hooked since the first oh so painful workout! Love the pain/ Hate the pain! Thanks to everyone here once again! Love the crossfit community!

Caught up by doing my first nasty girls ever.

subbed 28 dips/PU for MU (no rings)
14:53

Comment #6, The Guy,

I take it that you do not like the rest day article, how come?

Remember that rest day is for the brain. There are many articles that appear here that I find incorrect, incongruent and poorly written. There are other articles that I find very poignant. Try to comment about the article, not the slant. Its great to hear opposing viewpoints and everyone here loves a well articulated counter point. Beleive it or not there are many left of center folks and libertarians that crossfit too.

I often think that Greg and Jeff should post left of center commentaries so that the right-of-center-rest-day-post-people would have to post a counter argument for a change instead of defending the right of center view. That would be fun.

Almost as much fun as when coach posted a giant vibrating exerciser video and let the forum decide whether it was any good or not.

Have Fun, Train Hard,

Billy

#12-

"comment on the article, not the slant. Its great to hear opposing viewpoints and everyone here loves a well articulated counter point."

Well said Billy, well said...

Plutocrats try real hard to disguise themselves as libertarians.

What we're doing in Iraq is statism. Nation building is statism. Progressive taxation is simply an efficient way to collect revenue.

hard to post left of center viewpoint as so much of them are of a socialist nature. hard to take that seriously. "the guy" should just go watch the View or bill mahre and spend to rest of his day drinking huge glasses of water to get his estrogen pills down his throat

Well said Billy Olympic. It is actually a well-written article and I enjoyed reading it. I guess I just get annoyed sometimes that everything has to be politicized, especially a fitness site that I love. Then you have people like Merle #15, who is clearly one of the rubes/zealots that I was referring to. The thing about these articles is that they don't really promote thought and productive conversation, as much as they attempt to shove views down your throat. Everyone thinks their political position is the correct one, and the people who take their own opinions too seriously are usually incapable of expressing them in a way that encourages thought. It is however, pretty funny to read the obnoxious comments posted by uneducated meat heads (Merle). Hey Merle, you probably also think the world is only 6000 years old huh? Clown. Either way I'm thankful for the site, it just sucks that it happens to come with a whole political set of political views. Either way, I can't wait for Wednesday's workout. Word.

merle and theguy,
Let's try to keep the doodoo in our pants and not start flinging it around so soon. There's only like 15 posts so far. Post a comment that shows you're using your head, not brainless gut reactions rebutted by senseless manhood attacks

Loud noises!!!!

I believe the old saying is, if you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Made up Nasty girls today.
14:27 rx'd MUs were very broken towards the end

Loved the picture of Carolina CF, the humble beginnings of CF Omaha, and of course, opportunities to think outside of my own opinions.

Completed solid swim set prior to the lunge/PU/SU WOD from Saturday, as rx'd 14:46(PR).

Ahhh, ready for 5K and "Nasty girls" tomorrow:) Sleep well all and train hard!

3,2,1,GO!!

OK so I'm putting my money where my mouth is and i tried to use my brain reading those articles and here's what I came up with:

Today's articles try to trick you by showing a slice of what "conservatives" claim as their own great idea - small government. But I ask everybody, who in their right mind disagrees with the holy grail of small government?

Unfortunately it's a pipe dream, so it shouldn't be used as a foundation for a valid ideology. The government is already too huge to get small again. It's been getting that way for more than 2 centuries here (and everywhere else since history started being recorded). The population of the earth is exploding. Information is exploding. In practice a lot of people claiming to be conservative could never downsize the government to an idealized small size, nor would they even pretend to try once in power. The only person who appears like he would give it a truly sane attempt and honest effort is Ralph Nader, and I don't know enough about politics to know if he even claims to be a conservative.

Furthermore, human nature being what it is and one of the definitions of a state being what it is - an entity holding monopoly of armed force, combined with the situation that governments need money and thus need to manipulate economies and represent corporations that sponsor them and thus preserve their monopoly of force, you're never going to get a small government defined like the idealized one mentioned in the article. It would practically require a major paradigm shift like an actual extra-terrestrial alien invasion or bizarre genetic mutations to the entire human race on a grand scale or a series of giant disasters that put us back to the stone age to accomplish that. I exagerrate, but not by much.

I'm not sure what everybody thinks "conservatism" means (myself included) as the term is abused by people lauding and decrying it alike. If somebody would post the real definition of it without comparing it to something that is "liberal" (another confusing and abused term) that would be helpful. When defining either one of those terms, try to completely eliminate the use of the word "evil" or "dumb".

this is a test

OK so I'm putting my money where my mouth is and i tried to use my brain reading those articles and here's what I came up with:

Today's articles try to trick you by showing a slice of what "conservatives" claim as their own great idea - small government. But I ask everybody, who in their right mind disagrees with the holy grail of small government?

Unfortunately it's a pipe dream, so it shouldn't be used as a foundation for a valid ideology. The government is already too huge to get small again. It's been getting that way for more than 2 centuries here (and everywhere else since history started being recorded). The population of the earth is exploding. Information is exploding. In practice a lot of people claiming to be conservative could never downsize the government to an idealized small size, nor would they even pretend to try once in power. The only person who appears like he would give it a truly sane attempt and honest effort is Ralph Nader, and I don't know enough about politics to know if he even claims to be a conservative.

Furthermore, human nature being what it is and one of the definitions of a state being what it is - an entity holding monopoly of armed force, combined with the situation that governments need money and thus need to manipulate economies and represent corporations that sponsor them and thus preserve their monopoly of force, you're never going to get a small government defined like the idealized one mentioned in the article. It would practically require a major paradigm shift like an actual extra-terrestrial alien invasion or bizarre genetic mutations to the entire human race on a grand scale or a series of giant disasters that put us back to the stone age to accomplish that. I exagerrate, but not by much.

I'm not sure what everybody thinks "conservatism" means (myself included) as the term is abused by people lauding and decrying it alike. If somebody would post the real definition of it without comparing it to something that is "liberal" (another confusing and abused term) that would be helpful. When defining either one of those terms, try to completely eliminate the use of the word "evil" or "dumb".

Both articles were interesting. However, Nock misses the point in the Isaiah story. He says the remnant are those that are smart enough to understand "the humane life" and ballsy enough to carry it out. This is not the truth.

The remnant were those that believed; those that put their trust in God and not in men (including kings and other politicians). This is still true today. It has nothing to do with intelligence. It only has to do with simple believing. This is not to say we should be illogical. "the guy" infers that it is silly to believe the earth is 6,000 years old. This is true. But his statement also shows that he does not know what he is talking about, because he has not read what is written in Genesis, he only listens to what others have told him.

This is illustrative of the laziness that Goldberg points out that Nock understood about mankind. Our present society refuses to investigate for ourselves the claims of others.

Simple believing, and thus being one of the remnant, requires looking for the truth. As recorded in Mark 10:15, Jesus Christ said "Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein."

A few thoughts on Isaiah's Job....

The Remnant are those capable of rebuilding up society after it has gone to the dogs.

What distinguishes the Remnant from the Masses is quality, not circumstance; the Remnant have superior force of intellect and resolve.

Isaiah's job was to take care of the Remnant.

But it is not possible to discern the substratum of right-thinking and well-doing that distinguishes the Substratum from the Masses.

I wonder then, how is Isaiah to do his job?

Perhaps, it is simply by giving his best, since: "The Remnant want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied...."

But without a "measure of this substratum" how do we know if our best befits the Remnant?

Did Milton Friedman's "best" satisfy the Remnant? Does Paul Krugman's? Or Ted Williams? Does mine? Does yours? How are we to judge? Or is the judging to be left to those among us who have the requisite "quality" and "force of intellect"?

Yes, lets all try our best, of course, but for ourselves, for each other and for our children, not to confirm that we are among the preordained elect.

I love to watch this all happen, to unfold. Every rest day discussion it's always the same nonsense. Don't get me wrong I love to listen to a well-thought out argument and then the re-enforced rebuttal as much as anyone. I also love to see jerks being jerks. Yes I am stirring the pot, but I am going to stop there and continue to watch and laugh at those who do get butt hurt. I am not being the least bit sarcastic when I say this; I love it when ego's vomit nonsense. Those of you on all sides of an argument please don't ever stop being idiotic. There are those of us who are very fond of you and cherish you for whom you are. Coach is a genius.

hello, my posts keep getting censored. An explanation would be just.

I have a delayed question about the Nasty Girls WOD. If the original girls did the hang cleans at 135, then shouldn't the the men's weight be 205? My understanding of Rx'D weight is that women's weight should be 1/3 less than men's, and visa versa. I've always done this WOD with 135, but that thought dawned on me after I made it up today. Just thought I'd ask and see if anyone has any insight on that.

P.S.- Nasty Girls Rx'D, 10:08, first time doing from full extension, palms out

So we Crossfitters are those in humanity who pursue our needs and desires with the > amount of exertion?

#24
Just what tonyf? just fine, just dandy, just a waste of everyones time? You are leaving me hanging here.

trip,
"just" as in "right" or "correct" or "containing justice"

As you read Nock, consider CrossFit

What started as a free idea (and my eternal gratitude to the Glassman's for the idea part and the "free" part) has become a State.

The CrossFit Games are offered up by former CrossFitters who have fled to GymJones and Mountain Athlete, etc. as an example of what CrossFit has become. CrossFit for the sake of CrossFit, and for the ego stroking, trophy seeking, do-it-in-front-of-an-audience event, akin to the antithesis of Alpinism...competition rock climbing. And now you have the RRG. CrossFit is becoming the State. And now the come the business people, who want the State to fill the roll of slanting the game in their favor, not perpetuating the free idea. I predicted the coming of the CrossFit Games was the beginning of the end. Now the RRG. What's next the Bureau of CrossFit Investigation? To root out the ones who won't drink the kool-aid? Nock's Hiroshima?

I CrossFit so that I can survive and prevail in combat, and get quickly and safely up and down mountains. That's it. CrossFit is a simple, effective system for achieving that. I don't CrossFit to get good at CrossFit. I don't use it as a social network. I don't have a mission to get others to join, except in that I share what works for me with other MIL/LEO. If you want to drink the kool-aid 'cause you like having purple lips, more power to ya, knock yourself out and all those other cliché’s, just don't fool yourself about it. When the cult becomes self-insured, and hosts Nuremberg-style lets-watch ourselves-be-great rallies, it becomes a state. So I'm speaking to you Remnants out there when I say, just watch what kind of state you become.

Okay I've said my piece, bring it on. Tell me to go somewhere else if I don't like it. Problem is I do like it, the website has a great easy to use format, and the system works. So I'll stay as long as it's free or until I find something better. And I'll stay to see where you go from here. America Love it or Leave it? It's still the greatest country in the world, and CrossFit is still the best fitness website. Just not sure what kind of state its going to turn out to be.

And it has a great comments section that lets me vent things like this into one of the best web forums I have found. So I'm stayin', just not playin'.

ok i read them ther articles and ima now gonna try to git my opinion past this here godawful spam filter by posting it bit by bit, by gawd...

Today's articles try to trick you by showing a slice of what "conservatives" claim as their own great idea - small government. But I ask everybody, who in their right mind disagrees with the holy grail of small government?

Unfortunately it's a pipe dream, so it shouldn't be used as a foundation for a valid ideology. The government is already too huge to get small again. It's been getting that way for more than 2 centuries here (and everywhere else since history started being recorded). The population of the earth is exploding. Information is exploding. In practice a lot of people claiming to be conservative could never downsize the government to an idealized small size, nor would they even pretend to try once in power. The only person who appears like he would give it a truly sane attempt and honest effort is Ralph Nader, and I don't know enough about politics to know if he even claims to be a conservative.

Furthermore, human nature being what it is and one of the definitions of a state being what it is - an entity holding monopoly of armed force, combined with the situation that governments need money and thus need to manipulate economies and represent corporations that sponsor them and thus preserve their monopoly of force, you're never going to get a small government defined like the idealized one mentioned in the article. It would practically require a major paradigm shift like an actual extra-terrestrial alien invasion or bizarre genetic mutations to the entire human race on a grand scale or a series of giant disasters that put us back to the stone age to accomplish that. I exagerrate, but not by much.

tonf,

It's possible (likely) you're not being "censored" intentionally, but that something you've written has triggered some response from the software that is the forum's automatic censor. This has happened to me even when not using profanity. I wouldn't take it personally, though, you never know, perhaps Coach thinks your a caulk (just kidding).

I'm not sure what everybody thinks "conservatism" means (myself included) as the term is abused by people lauding and decrying it alike. If somebody would post the real definition of it without comparing it to something that is "liberal" (another confusing and abused term) that would be helpful. When defining either one of those terms, try to completely eliminate the use of the word "evil" or "dumb".

woohoo! it worked. lol prole, yeah i know, way to get that idea past the spam filter.
I tried to post all that at once as is but it didn't work earlier

I really liked today's Rest Day articles. Really gave me some food for thought. A lot of what Goldberg is trying to say in the first article is stuff about how individuals try to shape the ideas of others, yet the ones that truly have good ideas are really only followed by a small population that exists within society. It can really be related to the current political atmosphere as well as very strongly to the Crossfit Community.

Personally, after reading this, as I'm sure some of you felt as well, I feel connected to the Remnant. In no way am I trying to come off as elitist as I most likely will, but I have always felt that I possess the ability to comprehend concepts, ideas, morals, and values more intimately than others. I had never known by name the people that the prophets preach to, though I have been affected so positively by the work of the disciples in my own life, and now I do.

The preacher's message is heard by all, but not many truly listen.

In my own life I have experienced the Remnant, it seems that most do not preach openly, but rather teach by example. There have been a number of individuals in my life that have given me a second chance, that have seen something in me. And these individuals do not just do this for one person, they do it for others who they can identify as being willing to accept their help. And it is our duty to them and to the rest of us out there to say that we are not alone. I think that the Remnant crosses all lines and we shouldn't discriminate against one another on a broad basis. After all, good people are good people, regardless of what form they come in.

I agree that Nock goes wrong with not caring about success. I bilieve that in our day and age, it is our job as members of the Remnant to preach to the masses, in hopes that others members of the Remnant will hear us.

People I would put into the Remnant (not exclusively, but a vast majority) are those such as grade school teachers, members of the military, police officers, fire fighters, etc, etc, etc.

I've probably repackaged a lot of this thought into my own words, but that's what Nock says humanity does. Anyways, if you read all of this, chances are you too feel some sort of connection to the articles for the rest day.

If anyone wants to discuss any of this, feel free to email me, I would really enjoy a conversation on these articles and want to know what others think about the articles and what I've laid out.

tonf

Jonah & Albert are Libertarians. Not conservatives.

Hey FRAT,

Sorry for falling off the band-wagon this cycle. After not getting enough sleep from going to Reno Friday and Saturday, I just decided to give myself a break for once and take the whole cycle off. I felt like I needed it to give me more motivation. Sorta like a vacation if you ask me. Time to get back to work!!!

jakers
forgive, im kind of ignorant with the details. At the end of jonah's article jonah refers to Nock's legacy as the prophet so to speak of the "modern conservative and libertarian movements" alluding to them as the Remnants. I'm not so sure I agree with them being the Remnants, but i'll take small government any day of the week, if at all possible. Doesn't seem possible to me. Barry Cooper would surely call me a useless brainwarshed sheep or something. I figure im just being realistic.
What's Nader? A libertarian? I'm honestly ignorant. He's the one true conservatives should rally behind. Everybody else gives conservatism either a bad name or only lip service. The 2 party system here kind of screws him though.

hey Franiel! Good to see you're back :)

I am hoping for a crushing 3-day cycle.

Since it's rest day&most of the discussion is way over my head, i thought i'd put this out there to all the single parents - does it ever get any easier to have your kids leave for part/all of the summer? It's been 4 years, and i still feel like i've lost an arm or leg every time i see them go.

tonf is challenging barry cooper for most posts/longest posts on a given topic....

where is barry anyways? i miss his interesting--if long winded--diatribes

Here we go again.
Love cross fit
Why diminish the site with political articles?
It is pathetic when a site so cutting edge in practical fitness provides political articles or opinion pieces which do little to enlighten the community.
Who is in charge of this bilge?
While to the person who posts the articles I’m sure they seem insightful, but they aren’t. If you really get into history it’s fascinating and insightful. But these articles are not.
The discussions about the article in the comments section are also limited. It’s great, it sucks, here’s my PR for one of the girls.
Please stop!
Why not post articles about car repair, local weather, the best MP3 player to work out with, organic food, the best fly paper, how to train a dog, the best work out shoes, steroid use, ect.

Dave...are you there Dave...Dave.

The reason is so simple Dave. CrossFit is out to get you. They are doing this simply to upset you. Maybe now that they got your post they realize what sniveling twit you are and only post things that you enjoy or that keeps your agonizing ramblings at bay. When you come up with your own unique idea and post it for the masses then you can put whatever trivial dead and bloated dung on there that you want. That top part was from Space Odessy Dave.

#44 Dave (a member of the masses)

Here's an idea. According to the idea of the Remnant showcased in today's articles, if you actually believed what you wrote in your post, you would have taken the time and thought to write an article and post a reference on one of your many topics as your argument. it is commonly referred to as the power of leading by example. I'm personally interested in your take on car repair.

If you work out, and your only area of expertise is working out, and you can only clearly discuss your work out, what actual societal good are you? You are then a member of the masses. One of the main principles of Crossfit, as I understand it, is anything, anytime, anywhere. the rest day challenge, again as I understand it, is to read something, form an opinion, and persuade or dissuade others to share your belief in the topic. Use the hour that you would normally exercise your body to exercise your mind.

in my often less than humble opinion it takes a high degree of ignorance to state what you have. it has long been a standing classical ideal of the fit mind and body. The Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in this, and so do I. similar to the kipping vs strict pull-up, try something new and read and discuss the article.

3,2,1 ... go!

As you read Nock, consider CrossFit

What started as a free idea (and my eternal gratitude to the Glassman's for the idea part and the "free" part) has become a State.

The CrossFit Games are offered up by former CrossFitters who have fled to other fitness websites (website names withheld), as an example of what CrossFit has become. CrossFit for the sake of CrossFit, and for the ego stroking, trophy seeking, do-it-in-front-of-an-audience event, akin to the antithesis of Alpinism...competition rock climbing. With a common treasury (self insurance). CrossFit is becoming the State. And now the come the business people, who want the State to fill the roll of slanting the game in their favor, not perpetuating the free idea. I predicted the coming of the CrossFit Games was the beginning of the end. Then the insurance consortium. What’s next, the Bureau of CrossFit Investigation? To root out the ones who won't drink the kool-aid? Will this be Nock's Hiroshima?

I CrossFit so that I can survive and prevail in combat and to get up and down mountains safely and quickly. That's it. CrossFit is a simple, effective system for achieving that. I don't CrossFit to get good at CrossFit. I don't use it as a social network, though I do like the forum. I don’t make a dime off of it, nor do I begrudge those who do. I don't have a mission to get others to join, except in that I share what works for me with other MIL/LEO. If you want to drink the kool-aid cause you like having purple lips, more power to ya, knock yourself out and all those other cliché’s, just don't fool yourself about it. When the cult becomes self-insured, and hosts Nuremburg-style lets-watch ourselves-be-great rallies, it becomes a State. I speak now to the Remnants, just watch out for what kind of State you become.

Okay I've said my piece, bring it on. Tell me to go somewhere else if I don't like it. Problem is I do like it, the website has a great, easy to use format, and the system works. So I'll stay as long as it's free or until I find something better. When someone is even slightly critical of the CrossFit dogma, the “America Love It or Leave It” response usually gets thrown out. The answer; America is the greatest country in the world and thank God we live in a country that you can criticize. The same goes for CrossFit. It is the best fitness website in the world…

And it has a great comments section that lets me vent things like this into one of the best web forums I have found.

So I’m stayin’, I’m just not playin’

Quite an interesting article. I am not big on trying to persuade or disuade others, therefore, I won't despite my anonymity on the boards. I always appreciate a breath of fresh air as it relates to an outlook on life. Nock gave me just that. It was, as if the sky full of clouds briefly opened up to reveal a yet unseen area of clear blueness. It might not be perfectly attainable, but at least it gives me perspective on things. I am constantly amazed at the mulititude of different ways people see the world. Great thought provoker, Coach.

tonf,

i would say that just about every person who votes democrat disagrees with the notion of small government. It's not arguable because everytime a democrat is elected government programs grow,especially under our current leadership

Hey I'm in Thailand for a while, Chiang Mai, and I was wondering if anyone out there is around this area and would like to train together?

I am living in Chiang Mai, Thailand and trying to get a group of CrossFitters together since I can't seem to find a good gym anywhere. So if you are in the area or know anyone who would be interested let me know!
-ship

I'm so glad I don't care about all this stuff you guys are debating about....life's so much easier and stress-free....

16th June 2009
Kelly
17:02

Good articles. I enjoyed the idea of simply airing one's views and then letting those who will listen do so and those who won't carry on counting on not knowing whether or not one has actually been listened to.

Dave - I think you would have trouble justifying the assertion that these articles do little to enlighten the community. A lot of people enjoy them and I highly doubt you have access to sufficient numbers of crossfitters to get a representative sample.

tonf - I think such a change might well require something cataclysmic. I can see a couple of potential such events looming over the next 100 years - water shortage, nuclear war to name but 2.

I enjoyed the article and the resulting posts. I agree that political reading for a workout site is silly but it isn't my website. I don't pay for it so I will take what they give me. Thank you Crossfit. On the posts, why do we so easily divide ourselves into two or three groups? Liberal, conservative and some weird middle group seem to be the only political affiliation you can have. I am very conservative with the size of government and deficit spending but liberal on social views. It is a political view that is uniquely mine. I read the first article and it does not expose either current political party that we have in the United States. It doesn't espouse conservatives or liberals either. The first article gives a great definition for a state, "attend to national defense, safeguard the individual in his civil rights, maintain outward order and decency, enforce the obligations of contract, punish crimes belonging in the order of malum in se [evil in itself] and make justice cheap and easily available." We should stick to that and we would all be happier. Just my thoughts.

Jonah Goldberg is the worst kind of partisan. I'm usually openminded on the articles, but a guy who made his fortune circuitously linking modern liberalism and fascism is not worth the effort. If you have to throw a Hitler mustache on your opponents, you're not interested in reason. I'll give this one a miss and see you next time.

Good video though, I'd like to see the rest of that one.

OK Coach, I have an idea for you. Apparently, which is typical for those on the left, though you have given them something as great as this website completely free, some are unhappy with what you present so they wish to change it to suit their wants.
I propose that you add some new "Hero" workouts to the WODS. Some names that I suggest are "Marx", "Guevara" and "Alinsky". Then, when one of these workouts come up as a WOD (which they should 50% of the time to be fair), the portion of any membership dues that we producers pay to affiliates are forfeited. Then people like The Guy and David here can go out and find some of the non-procucers who are busy hanging out on their porch or street corner smoking and drinking instead of actually being at a....JOB! They can give them a free ride to the nearest affiliate and give them the opportunity to workout using that portion of our dues that we producers have forfeited. Now they can choose (because we can't actually expect that much out of them) to either workout or just receive the cash back that they didn't pay in the first place.
Also, I think the cost of a certification should be increased to $1500, because after all, if we can afford $1000 we can certainly afford a measley extra $500. That way, those less fortunate than we producers can attend a cert free of charge to themselves. While at the cert these people need only sit around and watch everyone else do the work, drink some coffee and smoke some cigarettes. Then at the end of the weekend everyone gets a certificate showing that they completed the requirements for certification. After all, we don't want to harm anyone's self esteem.
Come on coach...what do you think?

20k cycle - cruisy

comment #55. right on. Call me political but if there is ever a named WOD like Che, or Hitler, then I would be done here.

Great articles. I have never heard of the term Remnant--but I've always thought of them as the 20% to which the Pareto Principle apply. While I am libertarian/conservative in philosophy-I certainly believe the 20% exist and thrive on the left as well.

Nock writes that the Remnant will always survive, but I'm afraid that they are becoming a smaller and smaller percentage of the population.

The Entitlement mentality, the willingness to spread equality of results as opposed to equality of opportunity will result in a much smaller and effective 'Remnant'. Ayn Rand called them the 'producers'. Victor Davis Hanson asks, "Where is the unapologetic doer..." He also mentions the '60 million Americans' that are out making this country great which amount to 17%.

The job of the producer will continue to get harder and harder as long as the masses continue to be comfortable taking from them to satiate whatever latest social ill exists (universal healthcare seems to be the latest production killer).

I would consider the Crossfit Community a 'Tribe of the Remnant', the Warrior Tribe.

Have a great day.
bsn

Good articles. I like to think of CrossFitters as the remnant. I have always thought of us as the few that actually love to work excessively hard, and in some ways Coach has done the job of Isaiah. He has thrown the stuff out to the masses and the remnant has responded. Many have criticized, but remnant grasped the wisdom and benefitted.

IMO Goldberg gets Nock on some levels, but he can't take it that Nock has no use for politics. Goldberg feels he must defend the value of something he has devoted his life to- political hacking. I'm sure Nock would be disappointed to be receiving credit for birthing National Review.

Brilliant choices for rest day reading.

In all fairness, I have seen no comments from the website admins that directly conveys a personal opinion. All articles are not the original thought of those controlling this website, but articles borrowed from other sources. While we may not all agree with what is being presented, nothing is shoved down our throats and I really don't think these guys are asking us to believe a certain way. Sometimes they may seem misplaced, but like a lot of people are saying, the website is free...and kicking my ass.

Champ wrote: "What we're doing in Iraq is statism. Nation building is statism. Progressive taxation is simply an efficient way to collect revenue."

What, getting out of Iraq with our tales between our legs only to leave it in the hands of the evil and corrupt...I guess you are right.

Progressive taxation is simply an efficient form of taxation?? Perhaps all payroll should just be submitted to the Federal Government and then It, in Its' infinate wisdom can pay us after it has gotten what it needs.

No. Theft is theft, regardless of the entity or motive. Government officials seeking more from one than another is picking winners and losers and stealing in order to be "fair". Every time it is to gain political power with the income of the winners for the votes of the losers.

Hardly an ethical stance.

#55, Tom H

I know how you feel, sometimes when someone disagrees with me, I like to build an elaborate strawman to make me feel better too. I like to call them communists and non-producers and feel so superior to that caricature of their beliefs that I've created. But when I turned 14, it just lost its magic. I hope you never lose the magic.

#62 are you saying that there is not such thing as producers and non-producers? Tell that to me when you see the dude roll up in the Jaguar and pay for produce with food stamps...

The rest-day reading today struck a chord with me. I like to think that I'm part of the Remnant, but I'm also reminded of the bumper sticker, "You're special, just like everybody else."

I'm in the infant stages of trying to assemble my political/social opinions in a coherent fashion, but I think I'm similar in mind to Joel, #53;
"I am very conservative with the size of government and deficit spending but liberal on social views. It is a political view that is uniquely mine." (...and mine too ;-) ... )

I will say that a government that can set private sector wages, take majority stock in huge private sector businesses, and tax carbon dioxide (a major by-product of human metabolism) emissions scares the hell out of me.

Imagine a world where CrossFit Boxes have to buy 'credit's' from Globos because the athletes at the Boxes are actually doing work, and therefore putting out Carbon Dioxide? (I recall 'Fireman Fran' vids where athletes use a 40-minute bottle in under 10 minutes)

Every time the government makes a law, we all lose some liberty.

Hey guys and gals, are there are any military folks out there that have established CrossFit programs on their bases? I've been stationed in Hurlburt Field, FL since March, but the gym facilities here are not very "CrossFit Friendly." I've found this rather surprising, since this base is home to a high concentration of special operations personnel.

For anyone with experience in developing or establishing an on-base CrossFit program, I would love the opportunity to pick your brain. What kind of support did you get from base leadership? What are realistic time frames and costs for an on-base CrossFit program? Is it better to try to establish a full affiliate, or just to make CrossFit-friendly equipment available?

Anyone who has thoughts or advice on bringing CrossFit to a military base, feel free to shoot me an email.

ad hominem attacks are the true sign of the feebleminded...

To the community:

Can we stop the political crap?!? These articles are not meant to belittle "the other side" or divide the community. Although I do not know Greg Glassman personally, I know enough about him to know that he is an incredibly smart, inquisitive, open minded individual (how else could he have come up with crossfit). These are posted to give us something to talk about and think about other than our workouts (which he knows we could talk about all day). Just read, and think. Dont criticize, critique. Or just dont read it at all.

C'mon people, its like being in college all over again...

theguy -
The unfortunate thing for you is that our beautiful bill of rights gives Tom H and the other "feeble-minded drone(s)" the opportunity to say whatever they like.

The unfortunate thing for the rest of is is that the same bill of rights gives you the opportunity to make say things like that.

CCTJOEY, you obviously don't understand even the basic idea behind progressive taxation, and your statement strongly suggests that you've given up on any pretense of rational, considered thought on the matter.

I agree with Richard at #54; Jonah Goldberg is a blatant hypocrite and the worst type of political scum. The subject of the article, Nock, sounds interesting enough (and thank you, Coach, for bringing the article to our attention), but there's no way I'd be willing to take Goldberg's word on anything farther than I can throw him. I'll read Nock's own words after work.

Also, Tom H at #55, Richard has you exactly right at #62 - your post just wasn't funny. I mean, it wasn't. It was devoid of any sort of wit, and relied entirely on partisan buffoonery. That's bush league, my friend. If you want actual political humor, I'd suggest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZPGhE5WcnI
(Hope that doesn't get caught in the filter - SFW)

Merle at #48, I know a number of folks who voted Democrat - particularly in 2004 - because they didn't like the administration's expanding encroachment upon their civil liberties. Also, what was the last cabinet-level agency created? Who created it? Is consolidation of government power into singular entities exclusively a characteristic of one party, or do both major parties share this?

Grr, post is caught in the filter. I'll try breaking it into parts, as tonf did earlier.

CCTJOEY, you obviously don't understand even the basic idea behind progressive taxation, and your statement strongly suggests that you've given up on any pretense of rational, considered thought on the matter. Wealthy people use more of the government's services, like law enforcement, contract enforcement, roads, etc.

I agree with Richard at #54; Jonah Goldberg is a blatant hypocrite and the worst type of political scum. The subject of the article, Nock, sounds interesting enough (and thank you, Coach, for bringing the article to our attention), but there's no way I'd be willing to take Goldberg's word on anything farther than I can throw him. I'll read Nock's own words after work.

Also, Tom H at #55, Richard has you exactly right at #62 - your post just wasn't funny. I mean, it wasn't. It was devoid of any sort of wit, and relied entirely on partisan buffoonery. That's bush league, my friend. If you want actual political humor, I'd suggest:
(video that kept tripping the filter; try searching for "Bob Hope on Zombies" - safe for work)

"Linda" as Rx'd (BW 152)
10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1
225lb deadlift
155lb bench
115lb clean

15:41

first time doing this one

Nick at June 16, 2009 8:47 AM

In your view, is it okay to take from others against their will?

Wow, it's been a long time since I've posted from this computer. All my info was wrong. Well, I'm still male, but otherwise...

merle at 48,

I know a number of folks who voted Democrat in 2004 because they didn't like the encroachment - and even the threatened encroachment - of the administration on their civil liberties.
What was the last cabinet-level position created? Which president created it? What party was he? Arguments for and against the action aside, is the centralization of power in government exclusively a characteristic of one party?

Nick at June 16, 2009 8:56 AM

The answer to your rhetorical question is obviously "no". That's why our system has been described as a "two-headed, one-party system".

m/36/6'1"/199

Made up yesterday's 5k
about 22 min -- watch failed somewhere near mile 2

Brendan - I completely agree. Either read and enjoy, read and agree or disagree and come back and carry on a debate with others or don't read at all. We all know what the rest day reading topics center around.

The guy - do you really think I expect the coach to get back to me on my topic? That I really expect him to take such an assinine suggestion into consideration? And obviously you care what I think, regardless of whether you like it or not, because you took the time to respond and call me names.

After four years in the military and another twenty in law enforcement, I am hardly feeble minded. What I am is sick of seeing non producers taking advantage of the producers and the left enabling them. I am not talking of those who are unable, I am talking of those who are unwilling to go out and become productive in our society. Able bodied and able minded people who only want to take what the government is increasingly willing to give them. You only need to go on a ride along with your local police or ambulance crew to see who I am refering to.

Goat at #74,

You're oversimplifying, and getting the issue wrong. No, it's not ok to take from others against their will. However, you've implicitly agreed to it, as has every American. U.S. Const., art. I, § 8, cl. 1; see also id. amend. XVI. I'm guessing your state has tax laws, too. Isn't having a republic swell?

And Goat at #77, I entirely agree. It's disappointing on a number of levels.

Ok, I need to actually *do work* today.

No, it is not over-simplification. It is morality. If it is wrong, it is wrong. Everyone knows instinctively that property rights are sacred, at least so far as his own property is concerned. But you failed to answer my question. Is it wrong to take from others against their will?

As for my implicit agreement, I don't recall ever being asked if I wanted to live under the U.S. legal code, my State's legal code, or any legal code anywhere. You can hardly claim the high ground by stating that I "agreed" to having my property taken from me by force simply by being born on this soil (or any soil, anywhere, since government-in-defense-of-rights doesn't exist anywhere I know of). I certainly cannot "disagree", by which I mean I cannot leave here for somewhere my property isn't stolen, since no such place exists, to my knowledge. So if "implicitly agreed" means having no alternative, and being powerless to stop what is being done to me and others, then you must be correct. But I don't think that is what it means.

Nick that is great that you are going to go *do work* today. There are a lot of people who aren't quite as ambitious as you who are depending on your efforts. Not appreciating but depending.

#63, roden

I'm not saying there are no such things as non-producers or producers, just like I wasn't saying there is no such thing as communists. All of those categories and people in them are clearly real.

What I don't believe in is the productivity of an elaborate strawman argument, like the one Tom H posted.

M/20/6'0"/160lbs
No rest for me today! I only have 2 years until I go to BUD/S so I need to prepare HAHA So i went to the Crossfit Camp Pendleton website and found an interesting WOD from a couple of days ago...
For Time
3 handstand push ups
30 double unders
6 HSPU
20 DUs
9 HSPU
10 DU
As Rx'd 3.37 (and I fell down during last set of HSPUs)

Then, of coarse, a healthy dose of push ups and flutter kicks

Whee, a day off from running and politics. Both make me want to puke ;)

Great facility Paulie! Carolina CrossFit is getting it done! See you on the 27th.

"Nasty Girls" details there. 22:10

I am not a Remnant, I am a mass. I strive for the greater good, for something more than I am - but I am a drone - everyday I go to work and do the same thing and dream of more. I do not even know what that more is.
I am not a Remnant. I am not brilliant, I do not invent or make this world better through my work, I am not a Doctor or a politician, I do not create change, but rather I am a cog in the wheel that keeps on turning whether I step off or not.
I am not a Remnant. I am in the military and would freely and with complete knowledge lay down my life for freedom, truth, and the man next to me, but I am not a pilot or SF, rather I am one of the masses that it takes to keep our military alive, neither important or special.
I am not a Remnant. I CrossFit because it is hard and challenging, I will never be the fastest or the strongest and there is much I cannot do.
I am not a Remnant. I would love to hear the prophets or know that I am chosen, but I do not hear or know any of that no matter how hard I listen.
I am not a Remnant. I am, however, grateful that I know of them and I am thankful for Coach and team for giving me another concept to think about and for all of you who post opinions that give me more to think about.
I am not a Remnant - just a person trying to figure it out.

tb

The point I got from the article is that most people are chaff or sheep. Pointless to try to convince them of anything.

Is it a coincidence that the one reponse (on April 20th) to Nock's article in 'The Freeman' is from an individual named 'Greg'?

Are we (crossfitters) the Remnant of the fittness word?

RickA at June 16, 2009 10:31 AM

>>Are we (crossfitters) the Remnant of the fittness word?

If we are, then the way CrossFit is flourishing makes me think that Goldberg's assertion that the Remnant can spread the word and thereby increase their numbers may be true.

I just wanted to point out that dismissing small government as an actual possibility doesn't excuse having the largest government possible. Small government is an ideal that we all should strive to achieve, even if we know we'll never get it quite perfect. You set that up as the goal and then base decisions off of the goal. Is this going to help restrict the power of government or is it going to increase it? You can't just throw away an idea because you think it can't be achieved. We're never going to be rid of murder but that doesn't mean we should get rid of the laws against it since it's going to happen anyways.

It's up to us to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and start paying attention. We've all been convinced that we're powerless and the situation is above being changed by an outside force so we all just stay happy with our distractions.

As I see it Republicans and Democrats don't have your best interests in mind, so arguing for one side or the other is pointless. Don't think along party lines and think of what's best for the country by what you believe, not by what your party professes.

And remember, free your mind, shoot your t.v.

Goat 33/M/201/5'-11" at June 16, 2009 10:35 AM

No doubt

#61 CCTJOEY

Doesn't that "Theft" pay your salary the 1st and 15th of every month?

i did the rocky mt qualifier wod #2
3 rds
10 c2b pull-ups
10 165# front squats
10 burpees
as rx'd:
=4:54

m/5'3"/160/29

no weights no gym
Nasty Girls
3 rds
50 squats
7 muscle ups
25 burpees

19:05

#95 Spence

That "salary" is for sacrifices made for the country. Also, it is hardly payment enough for what our military is called upon to do.

Providing a military for national defense is one of the FEW responsibilities our Constitution gives the government.

The essay, "Isaiah's Job", spoke to me. Force of intellect is not enough. Force of character is also required, to refuse the lazy, half-hearted road and do what's right, regardless of how you feel.
Coach, was it you who commented on the article in the Freeman?
Please revisit http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/dazembiec.htm and read again what Major Doug Zembiec still says. His words and his example live on. Always faithful!

Whew...I managed to finish today's WOD in just under 6.5 hours last night.

I'm going to try and clean up my mid-day rest skills, shooting for 1 hour +. It's nice and rainy today so hopefully that will help.

I'm gonna try a double-WOD: 7.5 hour target for tonight.

3...2...1... zzzz

#97 Tom:
Congress also has the responsibility to:

"LAY AND COLLECT TAXES, duties, imposts and excises, TO PAY THE DEBTS AND PROVIDE FOR THE common defense and GENERAL WELFARE OF THE UNITED STATES" (emphasis added - pardon the capitalization);
Regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Establish uniform rules on naturalization and bankruptcy;
Establish post offices and post roads;
Grant patents;
Establish federal courts underneath the Supreme Court;
Declare war;
Raise and support armies and a navy (as you pointed out);
Regulate and provide for organizing the militia; and
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

Among others.

If there is such thing as a Remnant, is it befitting of her to want to belong to the "Remnant Club"?

Disco Girl,

I don't think anyone will ever meet a Remnant. The Remnant is not a human being, but the aspiration of a human being hoping to be told when she has succeded, hoping not to have to define and achieve that for herself. The Remenant is Nock's formulation of Calvinism Lite (makes for an exclusive club without the inconvenience of original sin or damnation - will appeal to the Objectivists...and the libertarians?).

Perhaps someone could sell that aspirational human being a t-shirt to let him/her and all the world know s/he is among the Remnant Elect.

#70 -Nick – “you obviously don't understand even the basic idea behind progressive taxation, and your statement strongly suggests that you've given up on any pretense of rational, considered thought on the matter."

It’s always funny to see “you obviously don’t understand” something then has the person go on to be a fool. There are about 10 different ways to so what you are saying here is nonsense, Nick. Let’s me provide a few.

Nick, “Wealthy people use more of the government's services, like law enforcement, contract enforcement, roads, etc.”

Nick, do even HAVE you a source or any evidence for this?

A current progressive tax discussions are for a tax on income not wealth. Wealth and income may have a correlation but it certainly isn’t 1.0 and so wealth is invalid in the discussion of a progressive tax; might as well tax on the basis of the inverse of the number of lottery tickets bought. Wealth is taxed by real estate laws and the like, and, AFAIK, no one is realistically talking politically about a progressive wealth tax, even democrats aren’t.

So even if the “Wealthy people use more” is true how does this fact indicate a progressive tax is better than another type of taxation? The wealthy as a correlate may also produce more, risk more, employ more, and consume more non-govt items and as such a flat sales tax would work just was well wouldn’t it?

Really, Nick, you have a meaningless statement “the wealthy….” and then a have a nonsense conclusion “so progressive tax obvious” and never do the two meet. For someone claiming to another,” you've given up on any pretense of rational, considered thought on the matter.” it is sad to read. Rational implies logic and your argument shows none, much less having any “considered thought”.

Prole, “I don't think anyone will ever meet a Remnant. The Remnant is not a human being, but the aspiration of a human being hoping to be told when she has succeded, hoping not to have to define and achieve that for herself.”

Wow, is that deconstructionism at its best or what? It’s the only way you could read what was written and take away the opposite, outside of satire of course.

Did you miss the quote from the article, ““Nock made the essential point: ransack the past for your values, establish a coherent worldview, depend neither on society nor on government insofar as circumstances permitted, keep your tastes simple and inexpensive, and do what you have to do to remain true to yourself.”

Where from the reading do you get a Remnant is “a human being hoping to be told when she has succeded” or is “hoping not to have to define and achieve that for herself”?

Seriously, Prole, usually I can see where your coming from though I may not always agree but this time I’d really like to see/hear how you get what you said from the provided reading?

#102 penty,

"Nick, do even HAVE you a source or any evidence for this?"
How much government service does a bum use? How much government service does a major corporation use? Lines are likely to be blurry between individuals of similar economic/social strata, but are you arguing that you don't think that there's at least some sort of relationship?
My earlier statement was incomplete - let me expand. How do people amass and continue to hold onto wealth? It's within the economic system, right? Does that system enjoy government protection and support (contract protection, law enforcement, roads, subsidies in many areas)? Does that suggest that those who use (and benefit) from the system the most enjoy the most benefits of this protection? Does this suggest that they should pay more to enjoy these benefits?
Apparently not to you:
"So even if the 'Wealthy people use more' is true how does this fact indicate a progressive tax is better than another type of taxation?"
So... payment shouldn't be related to usage? Tell that to your electric company and see where it gets you.

"[A] flat sales tax would work just was well wouldn’t it?"
It'd be regressive, laying a disproportionate burden on the lower classes because poor people use more of their income to buy taxed classes of goods than do rich people, but if that's your platform, go out and get someone to vote for it!

Being new here, let me say I love the site. Beginning this week, after some extensive training, I intend to take on the "ladies." While I have trained for some number of years, any advice for those new to Crossfit would be a welcome addition to my email; feel free, with my Thanks.

That out of the way, it is a nice change of pace to see a site dedicated to fitness outside the norm, also do something to invoke thought and discussion along those same lines. Nock's remnant and the Crossfit community seem to have a great deal in common. Nock's remnant forsook the mainstream approach to life in favor of their own, often time-tested approahces; Crossfit does the same. Both clearly promote thinking--a form of "mental training"--outside the box, as well.

Keep up the good work, and the thought-provoking articles. As someone else herein stated: How could anyone in their right mind not support the idea of a smaller government?

Penty,

I spent less time on the commentary than the source (usually my preference).

The reasoning behind my "deconstructionist" statement is set out in my first post at #22.

My problem with Nock's piece comes from his use of the concept of Remnant to reify the attributes of 'good', or 'smart', or 'industrious' (force of intellect and resolve) into a class called Remnant.

I guess my comment was directed at the tendency of folks to immediately self-identify, or not, as a Remnant. How do you self-identify with a thing that has no substratum as Nock would say, but is simply characterized by superior force of intellect and resolve? My comment was uncharitable, but it was directed at pointing out that there is no shorthand for being good, industrious, smart, etc., you cannot be these things by being a Remenant (one of the Elect). There are not, as Nock might say, two kinds of people, or two kinds of clubs that everyone falls into - the Remenant and the Masses. It seems to me there are are only people and their deeds, each person is a club of one.

Nick at June 16, 2009 12:59 PM

>>My earlier statement was incomplete - let me expand. How do people amass and continue to hold onto wealth? It's within the economic system, right? Does that system enjoy government protection and support (contract protection, law enforcement, roads, subsidies in many areas)? Does that suggest that those who use (and benefit) from the system the most enjoy the most benefits of this protection? Does this suggest that they should pay more to enjoy these benefits?

Subsidies and roads aside, which are outside the proper responsibilities of government, and in fact harmful to the economy in general (can anyone seriously suggest that a privately owned and financed company would let it's road workers stand around in groups for hours at a time while being paid $55 per hour, or that subsidizing or bailing out a failing company improves it's efficiency, it's final product, or it's commitment to serving it's customers?), government does provide these services. But do you really believe that we need to RAISE taxes to fund this? The fact is, we could fund these government functions, and a purely defensive military, and pay down the national debt at the same time, all without ANY income tax at all, without raising any other tax we have. (source: http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2008/08/is-freedom-movement-really-ready-for.html ) So what is all this talk of "paying" for services used. The vast majority of the federal budget is spent on welfare and other "social services", decidely not the services being used by the wealthy. Also decidely not the proper function of a limited, liberty-protecting government. All sophistry aside, it is just one group using the gun which is government to extract money from another group.

Penty,

I spent less time on the commentary than the source (usually my preference).

The reasoning behind my "deconstructionist" statement is set out in my first post at #22.

My problem with Nck's piece comes from his use of the concept of Remnant to reify the attributes of 'good', or 'smart', or 'industrious' (force of intellect and resolve) into a class called Remnant.

I guess my comment was directed at the tendency of folks to immediately self-identify, or not, as a Remnant. How do you self-identify with a thing that has no substratum as Nock would say, but is simply characterized by superior force of intellect and resolve? My comment was uncharitable, but it was directed at pointing out that there is no shorthand for being good, industrious, smart, etc., you cannot be these things by being a Remenant (one of the Elect). There are not, as Nck might say, two kinds of people, or two kinds of clubs that everyone falls into - the Remenant and the Masses. It seems to me there are are only people and their deeds, each person is a club of one.

Another reference for federal spending:

http://www.whitcam.com/research/archives/248

Another thing: If we are paying for government services used, why not just have us pay directly for what we actually use, rather than taking a percentage, funding programs people may or may not benefit from, then trying to tailor the percentages to reflect who uses the programs more? Of course, it would then benefit us to open those programs up the private competition, so long as our benevolent government could restrain itself from making laws which would give it a leg up over the free market. Surely, if the government was either A: The only entity which could properly supply these services, or B: The best possibly supplier of these services, then it wouldn't need laws to make you use it's services, and private companies which tried to compete would fail from lack of business.

The preceding, naturally, was rhetorical. We all know this won't happen, and we all know why.

Nick, “How much government service does a bum use? How much government service does a major corporation use?”

A bum would pay personal income tax , a corporation pays a business tax; the two are not comparable in the example of the “wealthy use more”. You are giving an example of comparing apple and oranges i.e. nonsense.

So basically you are saying you don’t have a source or any evidence and you are talking out of you’re A.

If you can’t provide a source or real evidence then any conclusion you draw about the "weatlhy using more" is logically absurd and nothing beyond “premise” a non-argument and non-opinion and as such not worth addressing.

Did "Mary" (Max rounds for 20min of: 5 HSPU, 10 oneleg squat alternating, 15 pullups) today as rx`d
17 rounds + 5 HSPU. New PR with 2 rounds.
Great feeling

Government at its current size has outgrown its ability to function either effectively or efficiently. Case in point" Stimulus spending. Such a rush was placed on the need to "spend it or lose it" in a vain attempt to pour money into a stalled economy that most of the projects paid for by these funds are pointless at best, downright useless at worst.

Shrinking the size of government is a positive not only in that it would save the American people billions annually, but also in that it would improve the functionality of government. Improvement in function would correlate directly to the degree of shrinkage, of course; something liberal, democratic governments never want to admit.

As for the taxation, it has been proven time and again that the Fair Tax Act (google it) could fund a smaller, more efficient government much better than the current income tax system ever could. Again, no Democractic regime will ever relinquish their "guaranteed monies" however. Unfortunately even right-wing conservatives have been reluctant at best in acknowledging the many shortcomings inherent in our tax codes.

#97 Tom H

After almost 15 years of active duty I'm well aware of the sacrifices we in the military make. Its personally has cost me a marriage and more then a few good buddies. But regardless of our chosen duty we soldiers still work for "Uncle Sugar" and are paid in tax dollars.

jt at June 16, 2009 10:36 AM,

I totally agree with you. I fully endorse actually trying to shrink the government. I don't feel that we should simply be resigned to its absurd bloat. I was being a bit hyperbolic to make the point about how hard it would be to do and that most who pretend to endorse its downsizing by flickering a totally idealized abstract version of a stripped down government for us to dream about are misleading people.

Apparently the dems don't seem to care about the humongous size of the government and republicans always point that out as if they would do substantially better at it, which is a bit deceptive on their part because in reality not enough if any of them actually care about it either.

Unfortunately those are our only two choices. It's like having to choose only between coke and pepsi when you really just want some ice water.

Hey Tom, thanks for being out there, so we can be here, expressing ourselves. Sorry to hear of your losses; soldiers pay a hefty price for the liberties we all enjoy.

I hope your home, Tom; if not I hope you get back soon, and safe. Be well; you have my Thanks. Believe me, that is one destination for my tax dollar I hope never changes.

penty #109,

Are you going to argue that someone like Jerry, who lives in a van down by the river, and someone like Bill Gates, who has vast amount of various types of property, use the same amount of government services? Who uses a bank more? Does a bank receive some sort of government support in terms of the legal structure within which it operates and the protections it enjoys?
Since you asked for a source, Adam Smith seems to understand that those making more use of the system to reap more benefit should put more back in:
"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, IN PROPORTION TO THE REVENUE WHICH THEY PROSPECTIVELY ENJOY UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to CONTRIBUTE IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE INTERESTS IN THE ESTATE. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."
Enjoy more revenue under the protection of the state? Have a greater interest in maintaining its protections? Pay proportionally.

Also, (emphasis added) in my last post. I never got the impression that Adam Smith was much of a shouter.

Goldberg is too optimistic, Nock too fatalistic.

Nock's Anti-Statism, like the anti-statism of all radical right wingers (and anarchists!) is so idealistic and unrealistic that it essentially cannot be maintained except by someone who is also willing to say: "my political ideals can never be achieved."

Nock's admirer Goldberg, on the other hand, only shows that he is out of touch and nostalgic when he calls the Reagan revolution "still unfinished." If there's any revolutionary spirit left in the American right wing, if it ever manages to whittle down the state (remember... Reagan himself and those after him have never achieved anything like a real shrinkage in the size of our government -- our government has grown in real terms every year from the time of Reagan until now) then it won't be called "the Reagan Revolution" when its day comes.

I am amused that Nock implicitly compares himself to Isaiah, who was a stark raving radical in his own time (example: he spent 2 years wandering naked through the streets of Jerusalem in order to shame his contemporaries). But aside from the inapt comparison, I also take issue with the idea that we can simply blame the downfall of Judah on the "masses." Yes, that's what Isaiah's God says, and that's what the scribes of the fallen Judeans would later say... that God brought down the nation because of their faithlessness. But as a historian I can't help but pointing out that it was the military might of the Assyrians and Babylonians, not the impiety of the Judeans, that laid them low.

Now we can argue about predestination and divine providence all day long, but the fact is that the Judeans were (almost completely) destroyed by the highly disciplined, socially regimented, PAGAN, militaristic IMPERIAL STATES (Assyria and Babylon) Babylon) that were their near neighbors. Their subjection to these powers was inevitable, and can be explained without recourse to divine anger over the Judean "masses."

Anyway, Christian theological tradition isn't so fond of the Remnant that did survive the eventual Babylonian exile... they founded the oppressive, "legalistic," theocratic second temple state of Judea that the Christians say Jesus came to repudiate and reject. Christians and Jews will disagree on the question of how and why the Remnant that did survive were or were not righteous.

Just a few thoughts... not organized... no final point. Keep training folks.

Jay at June 16, 2009 1:38 PM

A strong objection to the FairTax: http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance168.html

Ran 1 mile in 7 min
Abs
Pull-ups(3 x ~5)
Rows
1x7 hang clean at 135 lbs
Tri-extensions(3x10)

Re Nock and Isaiah’s Job:

Nock would have been chagrined to see what happened to his piece called Isaiah’s Job. Whoever cut it in half successfully emasculated it.

Nock was answering his “European acquaintance” who claimed to have a “mission to the masses.” I wondered, considering Nock’s vehemence against statism, if it might have been John Maynard Keynes, the great apologist for statism via economics. In the original article this person was still anonymous, but Nock implied that he belonged in the list of “Dr. Townsend … , Father Coughlin … , Mr. Upton Sinclair, Mr. Lippmann, Mr. Chase and the planned-economy brethren, Mr. Tugwell and the New Dealers, Mr. Smith and Liberty Leaguers — the list is endless.” I’m only familiar with a couple of these names, but they are certainly statists and collectivists. Added to “planned-economy brethren”, I think I get the gist. Keynes would (a) belong on the list, and (b) isn’t.

“Isaiah’s Job” appeared in The Atlantic Monthly in 1936, the year before the book date. This was the same year that Keynes wrote his monumental tome, “General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money”, a contrived justification for interventionism. But he had developed that theme and revealed it perhaps six years earlier. This was the theory that spending by the government would stimulate the economy. It took FDR a decade to prove that it (a) not only didn't work, but (b) made things worse.

It’s a neat idea to think that Nock was talking to Keynes, but apparently it’s not so. In the original article, Nock says his man in Europe was a Jew. Keynes had the reputation of being an anti-Semite.

The point of Isaiah’s Job is ambiguous in the edited version. It was clearly to disavow the statists of their appeal to the masses. His article was not so much an exaltation of the meek Remnant who would inherit the Earth, but a demolishing of the masses, the vast majority of self-indulgent ignoramuses. Nock characterized the masses as “the overwhelming majority of mankind” who lack both (1) the intellectual capacity to comprehend the principles of “the humane life”, and (2) the strength of character to act accordingly. Nock proclaimed the Remnant to be those had both (1) and (2), leaving uncertain the numbers who have (1) or (2), but not both.

So the power Nock incidentally gave to the Remnant is intellectual capacity. This is very attractive to libertarians, a group proven on these rest days to have a phantom platform. So they are now both libertarians and Remnants. But that is not the Remnant to whom God dispatched Isaiah. That holy Remnant were those who would know Isaiah was a prophet, that is, would know that he spoke for God. In other words, the Remnant is the Choir to whom one proverbially preaches.

Everything in Isaiah’s Job turns on understanding the principles of the humane life. These are revealed by the Prophet, as in Isaiah, and to follow him requires intellectual capacity! A prophet is one who speaks for God, and Nock suggests that a true prophet is known by dint of intellectual capacity, not faith or blessedness.

What Nock seems to have gotten quite wrong is to give the Remnant intellectual power to discern Isaiah’s miraculous origins. That should offend most theologians and preachers.

But defining the Remnant was not Nock’s primary purpose; it was calibrating the masses.

What I got from Nock was a vain attempt to dissuade or distract statists from appealing to populism. It is wishful thinking, as evidenced by Obama and Democrats in control of the federal government. We are heading into collectivism with revolutionary zeal, with wild abandon about concerns for national power, wealth, the size of government, or stability of the currency.

Updating Nock’s view, no historical basis existed in 1936 nor exists now for spending to stimulate anything but inflation and a deceleration of the private sector. To stimulate the economy, Obama should have prosecuted those who triggered the economic crash through fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, repealed the laws that mandated bad loans, cut spending, and decreased tax rates. What Obama is doing is exactly the opposite, which he wants to compounding by adding the multi-trillion dollar burdens of nationalized health care and a carbon tax. To Democrats debt doesn’t matter, nor the size of the government, nor international responsibilities, nor especially individualism.

The masses have a very low threshold for charisma, and a very high threshold for understanding economics. Obama’s charm will wear thin as his Depression worsens. Fifteen percent unemployment by January ought to cost him the Congress in 2010, and the Presidency in 2012, provided the Republicans can figure out that the Big Tent is not a Revival Tent -- the latter goes inside the former.

Goat Comment #123

Goat, that link raises some very good points. Firstly, before I could really "get behind" any 'alternative' tax plan I would have to see a guarantee that the Income Tax could not come back on top of it. As the article mentions, this "two-headed hydra" could cripple many. This is indeed something that the Fair Tax fails to address.

Alas, however, for my biggest lack of insight into this topic: operating from the socially-conditioned belief that there MUST be SOME tax. What is 'fair' and how is it determined, when 'fair' means giving up a portion of your income to government so that they can research pig odor and the effects of concentrating while performing difficult tasks. (Yes, these are real research projects - sad, but true.)

You have given me something to think on this evening, while I am acquiring the final compliments to my new home (Crossfit-oriented) gym. I had two choices: $100/month for a crossfit gym 30 miles from home, in the opposite direction of work. OR $500 worth of gear from a discount sporting goods store that I could put in my own basement....

Thanks for the thoughts, Goat. Good to be here.

haha. I did my level 1 cert with Joe & Ricki in july '07 @ mecca in Santa Cruz... we teamed up on a WOD & beat out all the other 30 or so teams... I have a group pic, I wish I could attach it here.

Quick question: On heavy DL's, how many of you folks use the hook grip. Before you answer, please note that I'm NOT inquiring about the reverse grip.

The reason I ask is that I visited an affiliate while on vacation last week, and they suggested I stop using it.

Hmmm...seems like I can lift more with it, although my thumbs aren't very pleased with me afterwards.

Thoughts? Comments?

I just did my PR 410 DL yesterday with no straps and a hook grip. I'm playing with the olympic lifts a lot too, so I am sticking with it...

Beware people who suggest to you that you're special. You're not. And beware people who tell you that ideas can get planted in your head and spring up later all of their own with force and purpose. In my life experience, people who go on like that are a bit weird and mostly full of sh*t. If you have the impression that no one is listening to your ideas, you might want to run through a quick check-list:

a) your ideas are actually rubbish;

b) your communication style is holding you back;

c) you are in a cult or into religion "in a big way" so your view of the world passes through a very strong "crazy filter" which you might want to dial back.

Never discount that you might have great ideas and are communicating them effectively, but that your audience needs time to get to grips with what you're saying. But I suggest not banking on this - particularly if you have some mouths to feed.

Goat, government is big, bad and holding all of us hard workers back by giving our money to people who are lazy....unless and until we ourselves are unemployed, sick or face discrimination. Then, it's maybe not so bad.

The state controls fishing rights, land ownership, rivers.....what's a guy supposed to do if he's made redundant from his job and lives in suburbia? Refuse welfare and hunt squirrels in the local park? Opting out is not an option. You say yourself that property rights are sacred (post #83 - I'd disagree, BTW) so someone's going to own everything and pay enough tax to fund a state police / military to stop anyone taking it off them. If we didn't have a state and a government, what you would inevitably end up with is a vicious concentration of wealth in the hands of the few. That, ultimately, is where well-practised free market capitalism will lead us. It's not bringing us to a pretty place with cheaper I-pods, less tax and people riding motorcycles with no crash helmets.

Peace.

my personal view on progressive taxation

Well....I am probably one of the few people here that believes in progressive taxation because I think it is just. Not theft, but the right thing to do for people who have more to share it with people who have less.

I earn a substantial amount of money each year - I would be called rich in almost every definition (not showing off but important to note because of the tone of my views). While clearly, I would like to buy bigger houses and cars and nicer holidays with it, I am happy (within reason) for a larger proportion of the income I generate to go to others on the higher end of my income.

Until we have complete equality of opportunity, I agree with redistributive taxation - I believe that I was born into a situation that made me more likely to be successful than others. If the state needs a certain amount of income to make the system work properly, then I believe it is fair that more of it comes from higher income earners and give I don't believe in the Laffer taxation model and it's brethren, I believe progressive taxation is necessary as well as just.

The annoying part of this contract with the state (which I can only break by moving to another country) is wastage. I can handle money being spent on stuff I may not have spent it on - certain wars, local government, roads I will bever travel on, certain benefits etc etc. That is part of the contract.

What I hate is my money being wasted on bureaucracy, ridiculous benefits, misguided foreign policy and yes, social security to the undeserving. That drives me nuts. Really nuts.

I'm not sure I have a realistic and workable solution for it though and...I'm probably too comfortable in my life to care enough to throw myself towards a solution.

I'm certain this makes me a screaming liberal to most people. I actually vote for the conservative party in my country of origin.

approx 4 mile run downtown

“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, avowed communosocialafascist, Wealth of Nations

Nick:” Are you going to argue that someone like Jerry, who lives in a van down by the river, and someone like Bill Gates, who has vast amount of various types of property, use the same amount of government services?”

I’m sorry, Nick, I’m not arguing/debating with you at all. An argument or discussion is between 2 people using the rules of logic and rational discourse. You are not using logic or rational discourse so I am relegated to the realm of educator. Instead of debating with you I’m forced to point out obvious logical errors and glaring holes in your thinking e.g. educate.

You have what is an unproven fact/premise, “the wealthy use more govt services”. Before we can even discuss your conclusion, “a progressive tax is the best”, all premises have to be either proven or axiomatic. I am unwilling to allow “the wealthy use more govt services” is axiomatic as the statistics should be available or the study already done.

Using Adam Smith isn’t a factual source it’s an opinion, his, and you are basically using an argument from authority, a logical error. More so his opinion can’t logically prove yours. So since your premise remains unproven there is no need to even discuss your conclusion of “progressive tax”.

All you have is opinion backing up your opinion. In other words: nonsense.

Even more ridiculous is that you are “for” (I refuse as thing stand to call it arguing) the taxation though a correlation and don’t see anything wrong with it.

If you are so sure “the wealthy use more govt services” it should be a piece of cake to prove, right? So Please do. Do you have a study from anywhere validating what you are claiming? What data did Adam Smith use, if any, in his logical conclusion? Are the data he is using valid for today’s govt of welfare, Medicare, handouts, and social programs or not?

Again, you claim to believe in “rational, considered thought”, show you can practice what you preach. Maybe then we can have a agreement.

46/M/6'/185

DID FRAN TODAY...21-15-9

100 POUND THRUSTERS BUTT TO D-BALL
10 POUND WEIGHTED PULL UPS CUB

PRACTICING FOR THE SECOND PART OF THE FRAN CHALLENGE AT CROSSFIT NORTHWEST TUCSON.

FIGHTING TONIGHT!!

STRANGE FOR YOU

RURAL/METRO FIRE DEPT.
TUCSON, AZ.

22:17

smitty #133, if it's reasonable then such a law shouldn't be needed to enforce it it would happen automatically.

The rich, as everyone, act out of self-interest. If it was "resoanable" it would be in their self interest to pay more and they would. It isn't, so they don't.

Funny how people without something know perfectly how to use it?

Prole,

I do to some degree understand your point. It’s like “being cool”, it’s easy to think you are but reality may be different. But the fact remains some are “cool” and some are not. And yes, cool in one circle may be uncool in others further muddying the waters.

It was something I actually thought about after reading this article. Remnant or Mass, which am I? Do I talk the talk, walk the walk? Neither? Both? Am I a sheep in wolf’s clothing or the reverse? How would I know? Does not caring about being one make me one?

Does this uncertainty, this lack of detection before hand, mean there isn’t a Remnant or that it is simply theoretical? No, it doesn’t. The reason why Isaiah had to speak in/to the dark knowing he wouldn’t’ be contacted by remnants are out there is because they themselves may not realize who they are; they won’t until the chips are down.

Until then they are lost in both the internal and external noise. It is in the silence they will appear.

Walking lunge 100 ft.
21 Pull-ups
21 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
18 Pull-ups
18 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
15 Pull-ups
15 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
12 Pull-ups
12 Sit-ups
Walking lunge 100 ft.
9 Pull-ups
9 Sit-ups
Walking Lunge 100 ft.
6 Pull-ups
6 Sit-ups

Total time: 10:28

Cash out: 115 tire flips

Isaiah - saw the Lord in His Glory. Which we will see soon when He returns. Not as a baby but as the Conquering King and He will slay all of His enemies flat out done.
Love,
Dave

God Bless You Dave

Jay at June 16, 2009 3:50 PM

As far as gyms go, I was in much the same situation as you are. I equipped a little spare room in my house and have been quite happy with my choice to do so. The only real problem I have is that I find it hard to maintain good intensity when working out alone.

Mark - Indy at June 16, 2009 3:59 PM

I have used the hook grip on deadlifts, and found it satisfactory. I use it as little as possible, though, because I suspect it doesn't make my grip any stronger.

Lauren Glassman,

Thanks.
You know why.

Melissa
Magnolia, Texas

another nick at June 16, 2009 5:19 PM

Tell me how using the threat of violence and imprisonment to take my property away from me is NOT stealing. Is it just because the government does it? Or could private individuals do it too? Could I take all of your property and give it to a shelter for the poor, and that would be okay? Or is there a certain percentage that I could take, and have THAT be okay?

A fictional conversation with my fictional ten-year-old-son:

"Little Goat, come here for a second"

"Yes, Dad?"

"I just got a call from your teacher. She tells me that you got in trouble today for taking Joey Nugget's lunch money. What is that about?"

"Yeah, I did get in trouble, but I shouldn't have. I was doing the right thing. Joey had enough money for ten lunches, and little Bobby didn't have enough to buy one. If I hadn't beaten Joey up and taken his money, Bobby would have gone hungry"

"No, L.G., you were NOT doing the right thing. Your heart was in the right place, but your actions were immoral. You stole. You did it because you thought things were unfair, but you still stole. What you should have done was give Bobby YOUR lunch money."

"But Dad! I only had enough for one lunch, and Joey had enough for ten!"

"It doesn't matter. Your lunch money is yours to give, Joey's lunch money is his to do with as he pleases. If you felt strongly enough that Bobby should have money for lunch, you should have given some or all of yours. Beating up somebody and taking his money is wrong, no matter what reason you have for doing it. Now shut up and get me a damned beer!"

J1 at June 16, 2009 4:57 PM

Here we disagree entirely. I believe that most or all of our current economic ills, poverty issues, and deterioration of personal responsibility and a reliance on having things "given" to us can be traced straight back to the state. Real capitalism (as opposed to what has passed for capitalism for the last ninety years) would bring about an increase in general properity, peace (since it's hard to trade in a war zone), and personal responsibility.

Goat, I liked your example.

Little Goat should also be told he could also try to reason with/appeal to/instruct Joey on moral/ethics as well.

He is also allowed to be dissatisfied with Joey's behavior and all that entails, excluding the beating up of course.

penty #134: you're grasping at straws.
"If you are so sure 'the wealthy use more govt services' it should be a piece of cake to prove, right?"
No, no it shouldn't. You can't point to a single statistic and declare "ah-ha!", because that's not the way complex systems like "socioeconomics" and "real life" work.

Now, you're right that my citing Adam Smith is an appeal to authority, and he *was* an avowed communosocialafascist (exactly the word, smitty), so let's try a thought experiment. It's a limited situation, but illustrative, and you can take it from there.

First: defense of property. This is done largely through police protection on the front side, and the court system on the back side. With me so far?
Now, the next step: who has more property to protect? Jerry, our charming but down on his luck hobo, or Bill Gates, magnate?
Third: who receives more protection? Well, assuming the amount of protection given is equal between property, then Bill Gates does; he has more property that's being protected.
Defense of property as government function -> Bill Gates ("the wealthy") has more property -> Assuming equal protection between property, Bill Gates receives more protection -> More government services flow toward Bill Gates.

Even if we step beyond this convenient assumption of equal protection for property, however, I think it's fairly clear that law enforcement and the court system ultimately provide far more protection to Bill than Jerry: who's more likely to get knifed and have their things stolen?

Goat at #144,

Cute story - your kid has some good fire in him - but a bit of a strawman. If everyone in the grade voted on ten representatives, who then voted amongst themselves and put into the school's foundational document (that could be changed if enough people wanted) that everyone had to put in a small part of their lunch money over a certain amount, and then Joey whined about not liking that rule, and then they had a meeting and fined Bobby's money... well, then it might be more accurate, although more bureaucratic and soulless. Those would be scary children.

Also, I don't recall whether it was you or someone else a ways up the thread who complained that there was no country that didn't charge taxes, and that you couldn't leave the social contract. Well, this is half in jest, but if you really get serious about freeing yourself, it's only a hostile takeover away:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand

Nick, first of all if Bill Gates and Jerry Hobo both paid 20% taxes, Bill Gates would be paying more for the questionable protection provided by the government. In fact, Jerry Hobo would be paying zero for it, and getting it anyway. So why do you support a "progressive" tax on the basis of usage? Additionally, Billy-boy has his own guards, and lawyers, and accountants, and other employees to protect his interests, and this reduces his reliance on the government to, for instance, keep trespassers off of his land.

penty is right, however. If you are going to point to the wealthy "using" more of what is "provided" (meaning getting more of what is forced on us) as a reason for your support of progressive taxation, then you need to show that they do so, clearly, in order for your statement to be defensible. It doens't matter that showing it might not be easy, at all.

But how in the world can you claim both that government protects property, and that government should tax those with much property at a higher RATE than those with less. It's oxymoronic. It's either protecting it or taking it. Which should it do? For the last ninety years or so, the government has been taking it, and throwing property rights out of the window. Does this system seem satisfactory to you?

Excuse me, if *Bobby* whined about not liking that rule. Joey has every reason to like it.

Nick, if neither Bobby nor Joey agreed expressly to the redistribution of lunch money, then neither could be held by the contract. A contract isn't valid unless entered into freely. Having the majority of your classmates tell you that you are in the contract does not count as "freely". Naturally, we are ignoring the fact that they are minors for the purposes of this discussion.

However, if Joey HAD freely entered into such a contract, then enforcement of the contract would be just. I would still tell L.G. that his force was most likely excessive, and to hurry up with that beer.

As for Sealand, it would violate my principals to take the property by force or deceit. However, I do hear that jakers has been trying to arrange for helicopters...

Sigh, this is just sad, now you are actually disproving your own position:

Nick, “You can't point to a single statistic and declare "ah-ha!",

Isn’t this what you are doing, Nick? Stating a SINGLE unverified fact (the wealthy use more govt services) and then drawing a conclusion (progressive tax). In one fell swoop you’ve negated yourself yet you continue to charge on oblivious. Really you don’t even have the “fact” which is why I said “stating” and not “providing”.

Nick, “so let's try a thought experiment.”

No, this type of information doesn’t require a “thought experiment”. The information is out there and probably even on the internet in some form, define wealth, define govt services put the two together. Put up or shut up, provide EVIDENCE. This isn’t a rebuke, it’s a challenge, rise to it or don’t. (Truth be told I think you have tried to look it up and found nothing to verify your point so have to fall back onto continued nonsense.)

Sadly, even your thought experiment is flawed. Ever read millionaire next door? How do the majority of millionaires live? Do you even know? An old lady could have all her “wealth” in a mattress and live in the slums with no income but according to you she should pay at a higher tax rate than her non-wealthy neighbors because you continue to confuse wealth and income.

So this “thought experiment” of yours is three things: flawed, wrong and unnecessary.

You are still talking out of your A, you have no premise, no logic and therefore no conclusion to your “argument”. Since you refuse to even attempt to learn or improve and instead continue to spout absurd nonsense, this is a waste of time.

I’ll check back to see if you decide to use that thing sitting on top of your spine instead what’s on the bottom. Again put up or shut up.

Nick at June 17, 2009 7:46 AM

Strange that I should stumble across this article today of all days: http://www.reason.com/news/show/133865.html

Massively busy, but did want to give a quick shout out as far as Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in one lesson". I should have read it long ago, but didn't. For clarity of exposition and prose, it is in my experience unequaled.

And what is distressing, is that the VERY SAME ISSUES he discusses, the very same arguments he review and refutes, are being offered, again, today. He quotes, if memory serves, Santayana's well known phrase "those who don't study the past are doomed to repeat it" twice in the first few chapters.

THE STIMULUS WILL NOT WORK. All government expenditure is taxation. In the end, there is no other way to understand it. Borrowed money is taxation. For every job Obama creates, another job will be lost because it was not created by private industry, since he took the money for it through taxation.

We can and have for the last 30 years created the illusion that the laws of economics could be suspended by borrowing money, which is nothing other than postponing the taxation. This is an illusion.

The basic laws of virtually everything are clear, and it takes a Harvard education to make them murky.

Unless we can bring our academics--and their brethren in the media (which might be termed our Culture Creation System)--back into the real world, and reintroduce in them, somehow, a sense of both pride and shame that is connected with the outcomes of their beliefs--and not the self serving hedonistic pleasure of moral self righteousness--our civilization will continue to decline.

At some point, we run a very real risk of the dogs taking over. I will read the articles at some point in the next couple of days, if I have time.

Goat, I skimmed the first few paragraphs of the article - looks interesting, and I'll check it out.

Penty, I'm having trouble defining exactly what I mean. I'll get back to you. Until then, stomping your feet and being shrill doesn't make you look great, either. I'll agree that most of what we tax is income, but that doesn't mean that wealth doesn't derive in some part from public benefits. Try looking up Lindahl pricing if you get bored, it's interesting reading.

Nick,

If you come up with something feel free to email me.

Oh Nick, I'd suggest you also look up

"laffer curve" and

"Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich" - WSJ.com

Goat, you say, "Real capitalism (as opposed to what has passed for capitalism for the last ninety years) would bring about an increase in general properity, peace (since it's hard to trade in a war zone), and personal responsibility."

"Real capitalism" sounds great. We would be free to choose to give what we want towards services, and free to decide what to do with our own money. We'd realise that it makes sense to contriute to a health service. Or to cleaning up that beach. Or to helping out others who are less fortunate. Right?

Wrong. Big time. Look around the planet right now. There is a disgustingly uneven distribution of wealth. Do we First World dwellers owe our relative fortunes to brains and hard work? I don't think so. It's largely down to blind luck. We were simply born in the right place at the right time. We had an education, we haven't had to worry about famine, we can get basic healthcare. There are many on the planet born into countries which are still reeling from the effects of a horribly divisive and exploitative colonial past. Their systems of government, education, taxation and wealth distribution mean that those at the top are wealthy beyond measure, and those at the bottom - literally - starve. Many such regimes are propped up by outsiders looking to exploit natural resources or cheap labour or bigger markets in those countries. Look at the way the richest in our societies grow richer. That's how the system works currently - even with some checks and balances. It's called Wealth Condensation and it should p*ss 99% of us off. But we're dopes and we buy the dream that we can end up in that top percentile if we just got an even break, worked harder and if people stopped taking so much from us in tax.

What are we doing, in 2009, about the kids with no clean drinking water? Did you hear much about it in the election? Or since? We live in a global village where you can get on a plane and fly to these places in 48 hours. If we wanted to, we could solve so much. But instead, we obsess about "free market capitalism" in our own First World society. We obsess about marginal rates of tax. Growth slides into negative territory for 3 consecutive quarters and it's treated as a national emergency. This cheapens the real emergencies going on around the planet right now. Screw Joe the Plumber. Screw the "dream" of getting rich. What are your riches actually worth if there are children starving to death on the same small planet? How will future historians look at 2009, when they see the technologies and resources available, with so much poverty?

The fact is that, as a species, we are very selfish. Left to our own devices, beyond our immediate family, we routinely make very cold choices. The apparatus of state, with its constitution, its separation of powers and its capacity to redistribute wealth, is really an expression of our better nature. It is not evil.

As for the view that it is difficult to trade in a war zone..... War is about as profitable as it gets for trading companies. They won't trade where the fighting is going on, but they'll get fat trading off the back of it. Oil, steel, munitions, rations, transport. War is a resource-consuming machine.

Strip away the powers of state and create "real capitalism" and you risk stripping away the vestiges of humanity from our society - local and global. You risk having a return to Darwinian survival, but where all natural resources are owned and controlled by someone. Not necessarily one person, but someone will always own whatever is there and have the backing of the state - with force if necessary - to stop you roaming over their lands, taking their game, fishing in their waters. We can't support private property ownership and not recognise that capitalism thrives on leveraging. The strong eat up the weak. You don't end up with a constant re-birth of new companies exploiting weaknesses. You end up with a concentration of power and resources into corporate war chests which facilitate the growth of massive corporations. We're seeing it now. And they're not elected.

Bit of a rant there...

Peace.

#159 J1:

I'll use your words to answer two basic questions:

1) By what principles did America become the country in which we've been so blessed to be born, and how are those maintained?

"We had an education...we can get basic healthcare."

"The apparatus of state, with its consitution, its separation of powers and its capacity to redistribute wealth, is really an expression of our better nature. It is not evil." An apparatus, I'll note, quite uniquely...American.

2) By what principles are other countries still in such a state that drinking water is unavailable?

"Their systems of government, education, taxation and wealth distribution mean that those at the top are wealthy beyond measure, and those at the bottom - literally - starve."

If you're willing to look beyond a single generation - ours - and its "blind luck" to be born in a certain part of the world, you'll see that that part of the world became so through something far different, and far more difficult, than "blind luck."

You point out the war and famine and suffering taking place in other countries, but are these countries with unfettered capitalism? No. Generally, these countries, where the population is much worse off than you and I, are places where individual freedom, personal liberty, and property rights are basically ignored. You fail to address the causes of these problems in a logical fashion, and instead blame it on selfishness and cold choices. Show me the connection. While the U.S. is not a capitalist country by any realistic measure, we are a lot closer to it than most South American, Asian, or African countries, where "...systems of government, education, taxation and wealth distribution mean that those at the top are wealthy beyond measure, and those at the bottom - literally - starve." So if these less-capitalistic countries create these problems through government, how is this an indictment of liberty and capitalism? Nevermind that your argument assumes that the average human would be helpless to feed himself under a system where he could make all his own choices and have his rights protected. Your own argument is self-defeating.

As for the rich feeding off the poor, how do they do it? By way of creation of fiat currency. Not a capitalist method of money creation, but a statist one.

As for "...a concentration of power and resources into corporate war chests which facilitate the growth of massive corporations.", show me where monopoly power exists without government intervention.

As for war, nations start wars. War is too costly for private individuals, and while some people benefit, the vast majority suffer. Is this something which a population would choose to engage in, left to make their own decisions about it? Not likely. It takes a powerful central government to maintain a decades long trans-global conflict. Tell me how capitalism supports this.

I get the distinct impression that you really don't understand what I mean by capitalism. You associate it with what is going on in our economic system now, but that has nothing to do with economic freedom, individual liberty, or property rights. It's the result of a coersive and intrusive government and it's policies, and it has NOTHING to do with capitalism.

I also have to say that your suggestion that big government, which is directly responsible for the death of millions in the twentieth century alone, is the guardian of "... the vestiges of humanity" in our society is draw-droppingly naive.

This is in regards to the CrossFit Kids cert that I finished up on Tuesday.

I just wanted to express my gratitude to and extreme satisfaction of Jeff, Mikki and the entire CrossFit Kids staff for a certification seminar that quite possibly was more impactful to me than the Level 1 cert I took 1 day prior! The information that you guys have put together is so eye opening, I cant wait to start sharing it with everyone that I know!

Your kids were amazing and I can tell that they really enjoy what they are doing in class. Im so excited to get my two kids on this program both physically, mentally, AND nutritionally! The information I learned in two days is potentially life changing to not only kids that I come across but adults as well! It transfers so well! I am so glad to see that there are so many people that are really getting hardcore into getting our kids fit! We are going to do amazing things through this community.

I could go on and on, but Ill leave it here.
Thanks again guys and gals, bravo! PS, keep those mics on, it gets loud in there sometimes!

Nick Cruz

Great posts, all.

Loved the Isaiah's Job/Remnants article. Nock's writing was brilliant.

A great bunch of political statements above. Kudos to all who choose to participate.

My own reading of that passage left me with a single distinct impression that can be summed up in four words:

"Less talkie, more dooie."

'Nuff said.

Time to go work on my bikes.

Cheers, All!

Chas #160, there is nothing uniquely American about a separation of powers doctrine (which originated in Ancient Greece) or a redistribution of wealth through tax. Just look at the public health system of Cuba, or the welfare code of France.

You ask me to look beyond the current generation. I see massive confiscation of lands from indiginous peoples. Wanton pollution by companies with product and profit repatriated to the First World. Slave labour and trade generating today's equivalent of hundreds of billions of dollars, with palaces, roads, armies, schools and churches the result - back in the First World. I don't buy into the idea that there is something innately more hard-working, deserving or superior about those who are in the First World now, or those who went before us. Looking at much of the First World, I'd say there's a lot of luck and a lot of cruelty in our past.

Goat #161, I was suggesting that the very obviously selfish attitude of the First World towards the Third World is evidence of our lack of humanity. I'm not necessarily blaming the First World for causing poverty elsewhere (let's leave that for another day). But we're not exactly breaking our necks trying to sort it out. The world's "working target" for foreign development aid is a piddling 0.7%. And this is not being met. You might think that putting a free market into less developed countries will be good for them. I agree to a point. The efficiencies of the market can be used as an engine to drive and assist development. But if we're suggesting a worldwide "free market" for everything, current evidence suggests to me that we'll simply make the rich richer and the poor poorer. We're better off with interventionist, wealth-re-distributing governments. I would fear for the most vulnerable in any alternative.

To answer your specific questions:

1. Monopoly without state interference: A small country with limited fresh water supplies. Big corporation with large war chest buys up lakes, rivers and canals. No one can match the prices paid. Over 30 years, it makes the money back a hundred fold. Someone tries to compete - say building a lake / dam or whatever, the company drops prices long enough to drive them out of business.

2. Nations start wars so why would capitalists support them? I'm not suggesting that capitalism, among "isms" is any more likely to produce armed conflict. In fact, I would agree that if we had lots of individuals solely focussed on the accumulation of personal wealth, they may see war as an unwelcome interruption of business. But you posit that property rights are sacred and will need to be protected. This is only possible with a nation state to enforce the property rights. So corporations will always necessarily be creatures operating within a nation state. We've seen plenty of examples of corporations in our current systems which support a foreign policy stance, up to and including armed conflict, if it was in their interests. So whilst I'm not saying they're the root of all evil, I don't think they're a solution either.

Your comment at #161 - I can't defend every decision of every government that ever had a welfare state. But it doesn't seem naive to me, to be proud of the fact that no one should starve to death in my country, no one should go sick without medical care and no one should face old age without financial support and to credit this to the system of wealth re-distribution brought about by an enlightened (if imperfect) taxation system. Maybe this doesn't contradict your views at all. I suspect we're ending up here with differing views of human nature and how best to do the most good.

Peace.

Sub'd:

Main Set:

Overhead Squats
5 x 5

135, 145 (2 then f), 115, 125, 135 (4 then f)

then partner workout...
5 x 10 Burpees
Partner does deadlifts at 225lbs while other partner completes burpees

Goat,
sorry it has taken me a while to get back to you.

You asked
"Tell me how using the threat of violence and imprisonment to take my property away from me is NOT stealing. Is it just because the government does it? Or could private individuals do it too? Could I take all of your property and give it to a shelter for the poor, and that would be okay? Or is there a certain percentage that I could take, and have THAT be okay?"

To answer your question, it is of course, because the government does it that it is not stealing.

The government are elected representatives of the country I live in and we 'outsource' to them the responsibility of a large variety of jobs/services that are assumed to help the people within that country live better lives. These are jobs (in the main) that are assumed to be better organised and run by a central source and power than by individuals or groups of individuals. In most countries, these include...infrastructure, health, security, transport, education, law enforcement etc etc.

I am not an anarchist. I believe in a central governing body and I believe in paying them a portion of my income to handle and pay for a certain amount of services as above. I believe that is part of the contract we make with our governing body.

And yes, for this contract to work properly, everybody needs to contribute as per the standards and laws set down. And yes, this means that the governing body needs to have certain powers to collect them and deterretns to ensure that people willingly pay them. And in extreme cases, the ultimate deterrent may have to be imprisonment.

NB, I don't agree with violence to collect taxes.

But this only works in the case of a governing body (or in other circumstances where a contract or an implied contract or agreement has been entered into between an individual and an organisation or another individual or group of individuals).
Joe Citizen collecting taxes from Jane Citizen for his own means, however just they may be, is not allowable unless Jane Citizen is happy to do this.

There are three main questions for me

1. do we need a government presiding with authority over certain aspects of society. I believe the answer is yes.

2. exactly which aspects and with what depth to we need the government presiding over them.

3. are they spending this money wisely and justly.

The second issue is more complex. Different countries have different interpretations. Ultimately every individual's choice is either to agree/accept the interpretation in the country they live in...try to change it democratically or to leave and go live somewhere that has an interpretation of government involvement more to your liking.

On the third issue. It drives me bloody nuts to think how much tax money is wasted on bureaucracy, corruption and bad policy. Absolutely nuts. But I'm more focused on my businesses, my wife and my kids to do anything about it. That's the choice I've made

From the leaning of your posts, you appear to be an advocate of far less government involvement than me. Respectfully, we will ahve to disagree

J1 at June 17, 2009 3:01 PM

I think I will go back to front:

Yes, quite obviously we are both discussing how best to do the most good. I don't get the impression that you are out for personal power, and in fact I believe that most of the non-power players in the world who support statism do so out of a sense of righteousness. It is just that the state is the so clearly the source of so many ills, that I cannot see it as a force for good in the world. So:

2: What you are talking about here is NOT capitalism. Really, for true capitalism to exist, the society in which is existed would have to be governed by a limited republic. I don't think a democracy can support a capitalist economy for long, because so many people would A: try to use the government to create and enforce laws based on their personal morality (e.g. anti-smoking. This is outside the bounds of our discussion, though), or B: try to use the government to create and enforce laws which would give them an advantage in the marketplace. Government is force, and using force to gain market advantage is decidedly not capitalist. In a limited republic, designed to protect only life, liberty, and property, the government would not have the power to give this advantage, and that includes prosecuting wars for market advantage or for territory. Only defensive wars would be allowed. As you see, to me capitalism and republicanism co-exist, and cannot exist separately. Therefore, while the "nation-state" is a necessary evil, it is limited such that no corporation or private individual can make use of it for anything other than protection of rights.

1: I am not asking for a hypothetical example. I am asking you to show me a real-world example of a harmful monopoly which has arisen without the use of force (remember that government IS force). Use of force is, once again, NOT capitalism, except force used to defend life, liberty, property. In a capitalist republic, force, including government force, cannot legally be used to gain market dominance. It is true that one company can dominate it's market so thoroughly that it is essentially the only player. It can do this by supplying a better product at a better price than it's competition. Note that society BENEFITS from this. This is good. However, even when it achieves such dominance, it cannot waver in it's commitment to quality and affordability, because if it does, entrepreneurs would see the opportunity and form competitive companies. Since the only legal way for the dominant company to force them out of the market is through superior market competition (not force), then this ALSO benefits society. In this scenario, the "monopoly" isn't really a monopoly in the sense most people mean, since there can be no predatory pricing, or really any wavering of it's quality and price, or it loses it's monopoly. So, taking the word monopoly to mean a company which totally controls a market, keeps better competitors out, engages in predatory pricing, and generally acts to the disadvantage of the consumer, show me a monopoly which exists in the world today, or has existed, without using force.

>>I was suggesting that the very obviously selfish attitude of the First World towards the Third World is evidence of our lack of humanity. I'm not necessarily blaming the First World for causing poverty elsewhere (let's leave that for another day). But we're not exactly breaking our necks trying to sort it out. The world's "working target" for foreign development aid is a piddling 0.7%.

I hardly consider not giving gobs of cash to everyone throughout the world who needs it to be evidence of a lack of humanity. As humans, we are most likely to help those in need who are closest to us, physically and socially. This we do, despite losing 30% of our income to taxes sent to other countries. I, for one, donate to the United Way, even though I am on rolling layoffs and in danger of losing my house. Most of the people I work with do the same, and are in the same straights. My girlfriend donates as well, and buys gifts for her less-fortunate patients, also despite pulling her hair out when it's time to pay her bills. These are not isolated examples. Do you not donate despite the fact that your government takes money from you to send to the Gaza Strip? Do you think you are alone in this? Tell me again about our lack of humanity.

And this "working target" for foreign aid, who sets it? How is it calculated? 0.7% of what? How is the money distributed? How many hands does it pass through, and how much are these government hands paid to pass it along? Wouldn't you rather give it to volunteers, so more of it would get to it's final destination? Is it not true that dictators and bureaucrats around the world have often used foreign aid for their personal benefit, and much of it gets squandered? This is why it's "good" that my own government, supposedly in place to protect my rights, gets to proverbially hold me at gunpoint and take the first four months of pay out of my pocket each year?

Above I mentioned my belief that for capitalism to work, it requires republicanism. Well, for republicanism to start, it requires the support of the people who make up a nation. It cannot exist without it. I submit for your review the idea that no amount of aid will solve the problems of the third world until such time as the cultural views of the populace change, and they grow so tired of a string of petty dictators and all-powerful bureaucrats that they are willing to make the sacrifices it takes to set up a republican government, and also willing to show the strength of character which is required to prosper within a capitalist economy. Until the populace of any nation is willing to do these things, until their apathy, or their fear, or their desire to benefit from the current regime mean less to them than liberty and personal integrity, no amount of foreign aid or foreign troops will raise them up to a First-World standard of living. That standard of living is a reward for sacrifice and diligence and courage, a desire to deal fairly and without force with your fellow man, even if it is the harder row to hoe.

The populace of the U.S. has been coasting on the hard work and character of it's forbears for too long, and we are about to pay the price for that. Soon enough, we will have the economy of a Third World country, and we will have to learn these lessons all over again.

nick sydney m/37/6ft/185 at June 17, 2009 4:56

>>To answer your question, it is of course, because the government does it that it is not stealing.

My question was rhetorical, and you answer defies logic and common sense. Taking things from others through deceit, violence, or threat of violence, is stealing. Look it up in the dictionary.

>>The government are elected representatives of the country I live in and we 'outsource' to them the responsibility of a large variety of jobs/services that are assumed to help the people within that country live better lives. These are jobs (in the main) that are assumed to be better organised and run by a central source and power than by individuals or groups of individuals. In most countries, these include...infrastructure, health, security, transport, education, law enforcement etc etc.

I did not elect them. In fact, no bureaucrat IS elected, they are appointed. Many of the regulations we are burdened with are not laws, did not go through Congress, were not signed by the President. They were created by bureaucrats. I outsourced nothing to them at all. I was never even asked. I have no “social contract” with them. If these jobs can be done better by government, why do they need laws and regulations to protect their monopoly? Let the government open these things up to fair competition, using no laws or regulations which would give the government an unfair market advantage. If people thought the government did better, then they would use government services, and government could collect a fee. I think this would not be the way it worked, though. The state needs a monopoly BECAUSE they are not the best provider of these services. The idea that it is otherwise is almost laughable.

>>And yes, this means that the governing body needs to have certain powers to collect them and deterretns to ensure that people willingly pay them. And in extreme cases, the ultimate deterrent may have to be imprisonment.

NB, I don't agree with violence to collect taxes.

And how would they imprison me without violence? I won't voluntarily pay taxes. I do so because they will throw me in jail. And if they were to come to throw me in jail, they would have to catch me and drag me there kicking and screaming. Do you really think this process does not involve violence? The threat of violence alone is coercive, and immoral.

>>But this only works in the case of a governing body (or in other circumstances where a contract or an implied contract or agreement has been entered into between an individual and an organisation or another individual or group of individuals).

As stated above, I have entered no contract to pay taxes, and no matter how many of my fellow citizens vote to take my money from me, it does not imply a contract. Tell me, if 99.9% of your fellow citizens voted to emasculate you with a grapefruit spoon, would you be contractually obligated to drop your drawers?

Your three questions:

1: No, we need a government protecting our rights. Our rights, incidentally, do not include an income, health care, a t.v., insurance, an education, food and water, or massages with happy endings. They include ONLY life, liberty, and property.

2: See #1

3: Who cares? If someone breaks into my house and steals $100 off of my nightstand, I don't care if he buys food, medicine for his grandma, or if he lights his cigars with the bills. He still stole $100 from me.

>>From the leaning of your posts, you appear to be an advocate of far less government involvement than me. Respectfully, we will ahve to disagree

Don't worry about it, I disagree with almost everyone. I'm used to it.

Goat,

Honestly, it staggers me that you believe in the stuff above. You clearly do and you are clearly intelligent and have mature opinions (ie well thought through..not to do with age) but they are more anti establishment than many/any people I encounter.

I understand your arguments and your pov, but I can't agree with it - I think you reduce issues to a black and white place that doesn't exist and then use these polarities to dramatise your points. Good arguing tactics but not realistic conditions to live under.

Sadly, short of heading off to the wilderness, I'm not certain you're ever going to live under anything close to a system that is going to satisfy you.

go forth in peace

You are right, it is likely that I will never see the day when these things will come to pass, and maybe I am so far to the anti-statist end of things that I am already out in the wilderness, proverbially. But things can be a lot better than they are now, and without people who believe that there can be no change. I cannot and will not excuse someone from stealing from me just because he is a government employee. My rights are equal to his. And I cannot stand the argument that bigger government makes for a better society, because it so clearly is not so.

As for black and white, I do not belief that my world view is impossible to implement, or mostly implement. While I may refuse to say I am wrong when I am not, or to concede a point which has not been earned, I certainly understand the need for compromise in practise. That being said, I live my life by the standards I have written of above, and not only am I happy with it, I believe that I am much happier and better off than when I did NOT live by those standards. I am living proof that this way of life can work.

Goat,

The reason the government does certain things is not only because it does them better than business, it is also because it is the only entity willing and able to do them. Business, appropriately seeks to make profit. If it profits a business to sell unsafe food or pollute neighboring property, business will tend to do this (or at least tended to do it before appropriate legislation was passed and government agencies were created). The threat of litigation and lost market share is a deterrent, but if the cost of the litigation and loss of market share is calculated at less than the savings created by cutting corners (harming, killing, destroying the property of others) then the business will likely do things like selling tainted meat and polluting its neighbor's land.

In many of the most important industrial sectors (i.e., drinking water, electricity, roads, trains, telecommunications infrastructure) the ability of an entrepreneur to capitalize on the inefficiencies of a bad natural monopoly would be extremely limited and could take many years. In some industries, the barriers to entry would be so great as to make entry possible in only situations characterized by the worst kinds of inefficiencies. Imagine, if you will, the death toll resulting from a water monopoly operating in a large city that is, for even a short period, not devoted to "high quality". Image the death toll that could result from a a bad monopolistic road proprietor (when was the last time you ate food you grew?). Look at the history of the industrial development of the United States (railways, tramlines, subways, bridges, water industry, harbor construction, intranet, nuclear power, highways and canal construction - try to imagine the industrial ascendancy of the US in the 19thC without the publicly funded Erie Canal!) and consider how integrally bound up with tax dollars it has been.

It is simply false, based on the historical record, to state as a matter of principle that "government" (i.e., publicly funded and executed enterprise) is incapable of providing net economic benefits to society that private industry is not (I won't mention social benefits because I imagine you doubt their existence).

This is not meant as a defence of all government enterprise. It is meant as a caution about being unduly doctrinaire.

By your style I read you as an Objectivist, though you might identify more as a libertarian, or you might read them as near equivalents.

In any case, I think one of your basic ethical principles would be that no person should live for the sake of another, or ask another to live for her, and that each person should act as the judgment of her own mind directs and to keep the product of her effort. A corollary with more overtly public implications might be that no person should initiate force or perpetrate a fraud against another person and that no person should be forced to give up, or be defrauded out of what is hers.

If this is so, what do you think is the proper relationship between a person and the things that are hers, but that are not the product of her own effort? By what ethical principle can she claim exclusive ownership of the things she possess, but that she did not earn?

You see, to me, ethical judgments are more properly grounded in a consideration of what a person does with what she's been given or has inherited. If you are in a 400m race and your competition is given a 350 m head start, and your competition wins, has she earned the prize money or the honors that go with her victory? How about another competitor who finished ahead of you but was riding a motorcycle, a bicycle? The rules of the race were simply that the first one to the 400 m marker wins and that no one may use physical force to interfere with a competitor. The rules do not address the where you must start or how you must reach the finish line. To me this is the utopian libertarian world. Everyone is "free" to race in the sense that no one's progress may be physically impeded, but the results of the race are often decisively influenced by things unrelated to personal ability and effort.

There is nothing in the rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" as I think you would interpret them, that addresses head starts. They address impediments but not head starts.

The alternative is not a 100% inheritance tax or the abolition of private property. The alternative is to mitigate the unethical (i.e., the unearned) inequalities that are sure to arise in a libertarian (and of course in a mixed-economy, just look around) by creating some minimally fair starting point for even the competitor who has been disadvantaged by contingencies totally unrelated to her own ability and effort.

If we take what seems to be a neutral concept of justice - the proper ordering of things and persons within a society - it seems to me that the "proper" ordering of things in a secular non-authoritarian society should require some element of fairness, some notion of desert, so that what you do is the crucial factor for considering what you get and how you are treated; not who you are and who your parents are, and what health challenges you were or were not born with or developed. Perhaps this is just my middle class background (thankfully in the place I grew up the children of propertyless parents get high quality free state-funded educations so that they may do more than watch the race from the sidelines).

nicely put Prole, although I reckon Goat may have a few issues equally nicely put

Prole at June 17, 2009 10:14 PM

I am not saying that there is no sphere in which the government can offer better services than private enterprise. I am saying that there are very few, that the laws and regulations which make it "illegal" to compete with government enterprises are de facto proof of this. I think that if government opened itself up the fair competition, fair meaning that the government didn't use laws and regulations to gain a market advantage and charged only for services used (meaning it collects fees, not taxes), then most of the services which are currently government monopolies would no longer be. The only way to know for sure is to do it, and anything the government actually does better would remain with the government.

I don't know much about Objectivism, except that it is associated with Ayn Rand. I've never read Rand. I've come to my beliefs through a life lived, and comparing how I would want to be treated with how I treat others. I do believe that initiating violence, or threatening to, or decieving people, is wrong, and therefore illegal. Understand that I do not use illegal in the standard sense. To me, illegal refers to something which violates natural law. Pass as many laws as you want against using (for example) drugs, or racial slurs, or walking around naked. It doesn't matter. Since these things do not violate anyone's natural rights, they are not illegal, no matter what government says.

I agree that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" does not in any way address peoples' "starting points". In fact, I think Jefferson said that directly in one of his letters. I've never understood this widespread insistence that we all start from the same place. I do not mean to insult, but frankly I see this need some people have to compare themselves to others as a character flaw, and a major one. Seriously, are we all trying to reach the same place? Are our life goals all the same? Even if we started from the same place would it matter when we have different destinations? Is wealth and opportunity the only measure of the worth of a person, or is it really an arbitrary measure of some lack we see in ourselves? Personally, I don't judge anyone by where they started or where they finished, I judge by how they live their lives, how the played the game, as it were. Success can be measure in a thousand different ways, all of which depend on what is important to whoever is doing the measuring. How can we make everyone's starting point "fair" when we have this many criteria to satisfy? And why would we, when it matters so little to who we are? I see myself as a successful and decent person, yet I am not rich, did not come from a rich family. My family might have barely scratched middle class, in truth, and I struggle every month to pay my bills. Yet I do not look at a rich man and see unfairness. I see someone whose values and goals differ from mine, and so long as he does not hinder me in the living of my life by my values, I do not begrudge him anything he has (no matter what criteria one has for what is "earned").

An example (for what it's worth): I grew up with a guy named Dave. His family has less money than mine, his house was not as nice, generally I was more "priviledged". We were broke but they were more so. He worked hard, put himself through school, and is now an electrical engineer. His salary is roughly twice mine. He will be able to give his kids opportunities I will not be able to give mine. Mine will have to work harder than his to "succeed" (assuming of course that their definition of success is the same as his kids'), just like Dave did. Am I supposed to bemoan this fact, which is a product of his superior drive, ambition, and integrity? If we are to impose "fairness" in the starting point, should we not impose it on the ending point as well?

In a practical sense, this need for "fairness" is destructive of society. It is a simple truth that society cannot elevate all it's members to the higher levels (of whatever your criteria is, unfortunately it's usually money), due to the limited resources available, and the fact that some are less willing to put in effort and make sacrifices than others. The only way to force "fairness" on a mass scale is to drag people down to the lowest common denominator. The Soviet Union, Cuba, and China (prior to the easing of economic planning) demonstrated this well enough. I will not drag someone else down because he had a better "starting position" than I did. I submit that nobody with any real integrity would even care about the other guy's starting position. Worry about your own life, and how you live it. I've found quite enough to improve within myself without having to go around worrying about "fairness" between me and others.

Prole at June 17, 2009 10:14 PM

I would also argue that the practical effect of a government which can A: set the tax rate at whatever level it pleases and B: take all property away in the name of collecting taxes, is that private property has already been abolished. What I "own" isn't mine, it is what they allow me to have, until such time as they decide to take it.

Goat,

I appreciate your thoughtful post. Here are some things, based on your last post, (or what I read into what your last post) that I think we might agree on (more or less):

- If government has established a monopoly for itself there should be very strong policy reasons for doing so. If the private sector could and would provide a service at an acceptable standard, the presumption should be that the private sector should be permitted to do this. I’m nervous about privatising things like drinking water, however. And while I agree we should pay higher rates for things like water that are made artificially cheap by government service providers, there is a clear policy rationale behind keeping access to water affordable to everyone regardless of its market value.

- a society of strict material/economic fairness is a bad society, a poor society, probably a society with few liberties. The greed motive, or the motive for distinction, (i.e., the pursuit of material goods or honors) is a very productive motive.

And here is a point of disagreement:

My proposal for ‘fairness’ does not require that everyone starts off at the same point. It requires ensuring (to the extent possible) that no one starts off below a basic minimal point (I will acknowledge that what is considered the “basic minimal point” tends to rise over time, and that this puts increasing burdens on those above the minimum; but I think the historical record would indicate that as the minimum rises, so to does the average and the top end).

The concern with starting points and fairness is not about comparing oneself with others. It is about enabling folks to have a chance to compete. Your hardworking friend who has done well for himself is admirable to the extent that he has worked hard, and I begrudge him none of his material or other successes. But I wonder…was he required to leave home and school to earn a wage to support his family age 8? Was his mother addicted to crack? Was he born with a disability? Did he grow up in foster care? Is he an abuse survivor? To the extent that any or all of the answers to these questions (and others like them) is “no”, your friend benefited from blind chance (though not to the degree of many many other people).

I agree with your suggestion that we should worry about our own lives and how we live them and not compare ourselves to others. Actually, to my mind, this sounds like a precondition for personal happiness and right living.

But, I do not think it is a “character flaw” to consider other people’s circumstances and other people’s starting points. I think it may be a character flaw for those of us who could answer “no” to any or all of the questions I posed above, to not acknowledge that we are the beneficiaries of blind chance, and that it is our moral obligation to share the unearned benefit of blind chance with those who endure the unearned burdens of blind chance.

And yet the disconnect between "it is our moral obligation to share the unearned benefit of blind chance with those who endure the unearned burdens of blind chance" and using government violence to collect money from unwilling individuals remains unaddressed.

My statement is not and has never been that the least fortunate should be left to fend for themselves. I am NOT a social darwinist. My statement is that our moral obligation to each other includes the proscibtion against initiating violence. Government has no other way of functioning, it IS violence. While this evil is sometimes necessary, it can never do good. Using government to redistribute wealth not only removes wealth from someone who earned it, thereby creating resentment between the socio-economic strata, it also creates a "moral hazard" for the recipient of the wealth. This person effectively has stolen this wealth, or accepted stolen goods, and likely tends to vote for people who actively support this theft. A person in dire straights is left with the option of holding onto his integrity, and foregoing the help he so desperately needs, or discarding his integrity to accept it. There is no winner here, no net benefit. The recipient of freely given charity, which so many here believe would disappear if we all got our four-months-per-year pay back from the government, despite the millions upon millions donated every year... anyway, accepting this charity requires only the sacrifice of some pride. We could all probably stand a little less of that anyway, but whether that is true or not, it is much less of a sacrifice than one's integrity.

Are welfare and medicaid and medicare and social security and the department of education really performing some vital services which society would be unable or unwilling to perform for itself? How is that the U.S. managed to have the highest literacy rate and standard of living in the world prior to the introduction of these government programs? How is it that U.S. society became world famous as a system which allowed the lowliest man to raise himself up the a captain of industry?

Also, how do you reconcile your view of government's benevolent role in caring for the less fortunate with it's total control of the money supply and setting of interest rates? Does not the printing of fiat currency make the corrupt and connected rich richer, and the poor poorer? It is the most REGRESSIVE of taxation schemes. Abolition of the Federal Reserve and the legal tender laws would likely lift quite a large number of people out of poverty within ten years. Our government does more to keep the poor poor than it ever did to raise them up, and now it's trying it's best to make the rich poor as well. When that happens, who is going to pay us to work for them?

Oh, and what I meant is that it is a character flaw for someone who didn't start out with wealth and priviledge to look at someone who did and see only the world's unfairness. The world is unfair, but it offers each of us more opportunities than we could possibly take advantage of in six lifetimes. How can we complain that someone else's opportunities seem "better" than our own? It's foolishness.

Goat,

The moral obligation to help is as strong as the moral obligation to avoid using force, thus, laws enforcing the former (when enacted by the elected representatives of the people within the bounds of the Constitution) are just as legitimate as laws enforcing the latter.

It is moral to help someone use legitimate force.

It is moral to force someone to provide legitimate help.

These are broad principles. Which actions will be considered legitimate force, and which actions will be considered legitimate help will change over time with the electorate’s preferences. However, the broad principles, which you would likely grant if you believe in the legitimacy of military conscription, lead to the conclusion that where forced help is legitimate, it is also moral.

I disagree with both broad statements. It is moral for me to provide help to someone in need. It is not moral for me to provide it by stealing from you. It is not moral to steal, or kidnap. Period. I may provide every dime I own to help others, and sleep well at night. If I take one dime from you to help others, I should toss and turn. And no, I do not believe in the legitimacy of forcing someone to join the military, forcing him to risk his life and take the lives of others. It's worse than stealing.

Simply put, allowing our morals to become lax in the name of doing good for others is a zero-sum game, maybe even a losing game. There are moral ways to do good. They work. Your argument is that so much less good would be done without government violence that the violence is justified. Unrestrained governments have done so much damage to so many, I wonder how you can possibly hold this view. Even if we narrow that statement to only include our own government, and only the last ten years, the tale is so terrible I ask you, how can you believe in the loving god-state?

Comment #48 - Posted by: sgt feather

Sarge, you miss the most significant point - CF cannot compel anyone in any way, whereas, the State can and does, at gun point, and uses folks like you and me to hold the guns.

Your analogy, otherwise, is a well written opinion piece of little concern to me. But I'm always disheartened to see the sheepdogs not understanding how the ideas we would defend are corrupted by the State, when the State loses track - as it always seems to - that it exists to defend the People, not the other way around. Paul

Comment #78 - Posted by: Goat

Goat, thanks, memorable quote. Paul

Comment #90 - Posted by: discogirl

Nicely done, dg, please let us hear from you again. Paul

Goat,

I must say I am impressed with your principled consistency and if you live according to your stated values I’m sure you are a credit to your community.

I agree that it is immoral to steal. But, as I made clear in my previous post, I distinguish between stealing and legitimate taxation.

I don’t want the state to love or be loved. I don’t want the state to be unrestrained. The state is an instrument of the people for the people. Insofar as it acts on its own behalf it is a Leviathan. When I mentioned the legitimate uses of force I tied it to the will of the sovereign people as articulated by their elected representatives, and confined it within the boundaries set by the Constitution. The arrangement I am arguing for (which, admittedly is legally and constitutionally the status quo) is prone to abuse. It requires the people to hold their law-makers and public officials accountable. It requires individuals to be vigilant and to consider participation in civil society and public affairs to be as important as being economically self-sufficient.

Comment #132 - Posted by: another nick

Nick, congrats on your financial success. If I read you right, you say it's OK for the State to coercively extract from you and the rest of your fellow citizens in order to do good. You assume that what the State does with the money they've extracted actually does good for those less fortunate who do not have the excess with which you've been blessed.

Comment #134 - Posted by: smitty
“It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.”
-Adam Smith, avowed communosocialafascist, Wealth of Nations

Then let us have a long and thorough discussion about what should be the proper role of the government. It's one thing to make the above argument that Smith made, and another to say what level of State intervention such taxation justifies. A brief look see will show that in the US - keeping in mind the difference between 'rich' vice 'those with high income' or 'those with valuable financial assets' - the rich pay a very high percentage of income taxes.

If your point was that govt should be limited to the defense of individual rights, and the defense of the citizenry from invasion, then I would accept your posited argument for how it may best be accomplished. Paul

Socialism is the freedom for individual to fail. Capitalism is the freedom for individuals to succeed. The first breeds, systematically, dependency, lack of initiative, and mediocrity. Look at modern Europe, unable to generate enough spirit to protect their own civilization.

The foundational idea of the totalitarian State is that individual moral improvement is impossible. This is a necessary conclusion, drawn from their bedrock belief that free markets, and equality before the law are insufficient for individuals to advance.

True liberals understand that to take his struggle away from a man is to deprive him of his chance in the sun.

Here is the fact: do-gooders NEED victims, since the only morality left for thoroughgoing postmoral hedonists is the pleasure of self righteous compassion, which need not help anyone.

A kick in the ass is the most compassionate thing you can do for many people. The only possible durable happiness depends on self respect, and that CANNOT BE GIVEN, even by the most maternal Leftists, who are--as in the Birdcage--practically breasts.

To mistake material advantage for moral growth is to undermine the very possibility of the continuation of our self government. This is unambiguous.

Goat,

Glad to see you on here. I don't have time to read everything, but looks like you're doing a great job. This stuff wears you out, but damn it's useful.

Barry,

plenty of questions but I'll limit them to
- at what point does this worthy struggle start and for whom? and a linked point - what exceptions do you see for your kick in the ass compassion?

- please give examples for the sweeping statement about modern Europe

and sadly, to my mind most modern western society mistakes material advantage for moral growth regularly

Prole at June 18, 2009 12:55 PM

Thank you. I try to keep an eye on myself, keep myself honest.

I have to say, this has been an invigorating discussion.

While I agree that some government actions are legitimate, I disagree that the legitimacy comes from it's people. Earlier nick basically stated that without government, all help for people in need would evaporate, because people as a rule are not inherently inclined to care for each other outside of family and friends. You have said things which make me think you would agree with that.

If this is true*, then government acting on the will of the people would be much much worse than a land without government. No organization is more powerful than the U.S. government, and that givernment acting on the will of the majority would trample rights without a second thought. This does not strike me as a legitimate use of force. What this DOES strike me as is a pretty good description of our current socio-political situation. The majority (lower and middle classes) voting itself payouts from the government, at the expense of the minority (the rich). We are seeing the "tyranny of the majority" in action. This is why so many of the founders deplored Democracy.

The legitimate use of force comes from defense of natural rights. Legitimate government is one limited to the defense of these rights. One where the will of the people, should it be to violate these rights, would mean... nothing.

Your words apply equally well to my legitimate government: "It requires the people to hold their law-makers and public officials accountable. It requires individuals to be vigilant and to consider participation in civil society and public affairs to be as important as being economically self-sufficient."

Barry, good to be here. I agree, it wears you out. I haven't been able to work up the energy for it lately. Finally got back into my groove.

*I disagree with this, generally. I think that government goes bad because it takes amazing strength of character for an honest person to remain honest when under the dual pressures of having immense power to wield (and let's not fool ourselves, even middle-level bureaucrats wield much power) and being surrounded by others who wield it so casually. Corruption would be difficult for anyone to avoid.

Goat, I've met a small few of the "super rich". Most of them had inherited their fortunes. Most of them I found to be fairly unremarkable human beings. This is anecdotal, I know. But it leads me to wonder that you place a lot of store in property rights but you also seem to have an abhorrence of free-loading. So do you see a tension there on the issue of inheritance of wealth and perpetuation of "parisitic fortunes"?

(Separately, the 0.7% I referred to is a UN target for foreign development aid as a % of GDP. I self-edited that info out of my previous post, in error. The target is largely ignored in the West.)

Peace.

No, no tension. If some rich dude wants to pass his money along to his kids, it's his to do with as he pleases. It's certainly not mine, and therefore it's really none of my business what he does with it. If he would rather give it to me, I'm good with that too!

Now, any fortune gained through dishonest means, such as the fortunes certain bankers make off our fiat currency system, is something which I abhor. So do I abhor the inheritance of a fortune originally amassed through dishonest means, and if so, what would be the honest thing to do with the money? I've never thought about this. I will have to get back to you.

I don't know what you mean by "parasitic fortunes". I've known a few millionaires as well, and one thing they all have in common is they spend a whole lot more than I do. It seems that a lot of hard-working people could benefit from that. How many CrossFit trainers make a decent buck off of rich clients, I wonder? Anyway, if the recipient of the fortune is truly unremarkable, it will likely be gone soon enough anyway.

Prole, "However, the broad principles, which you would likely grant if you believe in the legitimacy of military conscription, lead to the conclusion that where forced help is legitimate, it is also moral. "

That is circular logic, you can’t agree with conscription unless you already accept the fact that premise.

Further military conscription is wrong, if a nation/state can’t call to itself volunteers to defend it then perhaps it shouldn’t be defend.

“It is moral to help someone use legitimate force. It is moral to force someone to provide legitimate help. These are broad principles.”

Yes but they are your principles. They are not ”givens” or axioms. Don’t confuse an action,(such as stealing) with the reason (feed straving kids). Stealing is stealing and no amount of reasoning gets around that it’s an action that occurs. Now a reason for stealing might mitigate punishment to the point punishment is waived completely.

J1, two things.

Generational wealth is a rarity not the norm in the US.

Second, "trustfund kids"(of any age) usually, as you are said, "fairly unremarkable". Carry the logic forward.. it doesn't matter where the money comes from just that a person gets it without earning it. Welfare then would also create "fairly unremarkable" individuals.

Penty:

You quoted me:

“However, the broad principles, which you would likely grant IF you believe in the legitimacy of military conscription, lead to the conclusion that where forced help is legitimate, it is also moral" [emphasis added].

And your comment was:

"That is circular logic, YOU CAN’T AGREE WITH CONSCRIPTION UNLESS YOU ALREADY ACCEPT THE FACT THAT PREMISE" [emphasis added].

You are correct. That was exactly my point and that is why I used the word "if" in the relevant sentence. The conclusion was conditional upon the premise. Goat made it clear that he did not accept my premise, and I complimented him on being so consistent. I had supposed, incorrectly, that he would support conscription but not support the notion of legitimate force. To my surprise he does not support either the notino of legitimate force or conscription (nor do you it seems, bravo!).

You quoted me, - “It is moral to help someone use legitimate force. It is moral to force someone to provide legitimate help. These are broad principles”.

And you noted your disagreement with these “axioms”. Really there is one axiom here: “It is moral to that which is legitimate.” Whether the thing you do involves the use of force is secondary.

I posited my own axiom because I sensed that Goat and I were at an impasse based on what I took to be his reliance on the single axiom to the effect that “The use of force is impermissible.” I tried first to modify his single axiom in the following way: “The use of ILLEGITIMATE force is impermissible.” Next I defined the meaning of “legitimate” based on republican and democratic priniples - admittedly, I used the concept of “legitimacy” as providing the stamp of morality which it does not, I should have said:

“It is PERMISIBLE to that which is legitimate."

(As an aside, it should be clear I do not put much stock in moral or political prinicples derived from the "mythic" state of nature or natural law, or natural rights. I don't view these words as descriptive of anything that has ever existed or could exist, to me they are purely theoretical constructs, useful for limited purposes.)

Back to the axiom: I concluded that where the use of force is legitimate it is also permissible. It would follow, that the use of legitimate force(to help or to do anything else) is permissible.

In response to your comment to JI:

You are right when you say that welfare is likely to create "fairly unremarkable" individuals, just as inherited wealth" creates "fairly unremarkable" individuals. The question is not what kind of individual WILL BE CREATED by unearned wealth (whether provided by the state or by daddy or mommy or uncle or auntie), it is what kind of individual WILL RECEIVE unearned wealth. If both individuals are “unremarkable”, but one is rich, and the other is poor, is that just?

My question is not the question of a person who is whining about someone else’s good fortune. My question is directed at discerning some ethical principle to justify severe disparities in wealth (particularly at the lowest end of the scale) resulting from blind chance, beyond the notion, “that’s just the way things are.”

Re: the direct response to me about you post. I do find it strange that you would have assumed Goat approved of conscription. How from what had been stated previously how would you draw that conclusion? I think that is where the disconnect was for me in what you had written.

Prole: “If both individuals are “unremarkable”, but one is rich, and the other is poor, is that just?

You also have it backwards, or perhaps this is where our difference lies. You assume the rich person is "fairly unremarkable" and so doesn’t deserve the money(or isn’t any more deserving than another). However I see the trust-funded’s “entitlement mentality” the CAUSE of the "fairly unremarkable"-ness. Further a trust-fund is created willing by persons (all involved parties are in agreement). Welfare,paid for my taxation, as we discussed is theft as one party not in willing agreement. So just? Yes.

Prole,”My question is directed at discerning some ethical principle to justify severe disparities in wealth (particularly at the lowest end of the scale) resulting from blind chance, beyond the notion, “that’s just the way things are.” “

There wouldn’t be a trust fund if the receiving individual didn’t need it would there? No one creates a trust fund for someone wealthier than themselves. In other words without the trust fund the rich person would instead be poor one. So now we’re choosing randomly between poor people? Don’t be silly. The endower gets to use his/her own morals/ethics to decide which of the poor (pre-trust fund their own family is in this group) becomes an endowee.

So “blind chance”? Not from the point of view of the endower, they are choosing. Sure they may not choose the same as you would but any “right” by which you would try to lay claim to (or tax) said monies infringes directly on the endowers more natural right.
Nice discussion we can continue or leave it.

Here is an interesting blog post which seems to be related to the current discussion:

http://thomasmullen.blogspot.com/2009/06/politicians-talking-gibberish-about.html

Penty,

From the perspective of the trust fund recipient it is blind chance that has made him or her the child of a trustfunder, just as from the perspective of the child of the welfare recipient it is blind chance that has made him or her dependent on welfare. My beef is with unearned poverty, it is not with gifts.

The reason I wrongly assumed Goat would approve of conscription is because I've read many posts on this website from people who pretend to be libertarian neo-conservatives(if you can imagine someone thinking that these two ways of looking at the world could work together coherently - these folks seem to be more coherently anti-Democrat than anything else).

I am pleased to see the libertarians crowding out the neo-cons these days.

Would it not be that from the perspective of the welfare recipient that the welfare was blind chance, using what you said about the trust fund recipient? And if the trust funder's blind good luck is a demerit against him, and needs to be offset, what about the blind chance which takes money from me and gives it, unearned, to the welfare recipient?

And no, I am not neo-con. I hesitate to self-apply "libertarian", even though it's a convenient term which most people basically understand. "Individualist", maybe? I get Ayn Rand comments often enough that maybe I am an Objectivist and just don't know it. Anyway, I don't feel any need or strong desire to belong to any of these groups. I sometimes use the terms to describe my way of thinking when I don't have seven hours free for conversation, but I am always and ever just myself.

Lot to read: regrettably I don't have time to get into all the give and take, so I will offer some general ideas.

Henry Hazlitt shows--conclusively, in my view--that all the variations of what Bastiat called the "broken window" fallacy derive at root from two errors. First, looking only at the immediate consequences of a given policy, and not at long term, system effects, which are quite often different than what was intended. Second, from looking at the effects on one group, and not on the effects on the general well-being.

For example, you can tax the rich and give it to the poor. The poor benefit, financially, immediately, and rich are not unduly effected. This olicy is called by leftists justice, and displaces in their thinking substantially everything else that has gone by that name in human history.

In their Victimology, which serves as the locus of their faith, what matters is intent, and not outcome. To be clear: THE GOAL IS NOT TO HELP THE POOR BUT TO WORK TO HELP THE POOR. This is a corrupt, lazy doctrine, adopted by short sighted and self absorbed fools.

For example, the City of Detroit has not seen a Republican in city hall since roughly the 1960's. The policies have been compassionate, empathetic. They have tried to help. What has happened is the inner city blacks have lost their work ethic, sense of personal autonomy and self respect. They have been indoctrinated for 40 years to think that the means of advancement consist in the manipulation of the State and other peoples money, as made possible by a Democratic hegemony. Thre "rich", for their part, seem to have collectively given the city the finger, and taken their money elsewhere. This allows them, on the plus side, to collect 100% taxes. On the down side, there is no one left to pay it.

The city is on the verge of collapse. Is it the rich who will suffer? No, it is precisely the people who were supposed to BENEFIT who will most suffer.

There can be no quantitative solution to a qualitative problem. There can be no secure and durable solution to the problem of poverty but through job creation. And you cannot create jobs for people who are not fit to fill them

Leftist moralism, for this reason, must be seen for what it is: something that makes leftists feel good. They never take themselves to task for failed policies. It never occurs to them that the rich become rich because they WANT to become rich. It never occurs to them that the investment capital for job creation can only come, in a sustainable way, from the wealthy. If the State does it, it merely takes from business owners--peope who know how to run businesses, and can prove it by their success--and gives it to people who do not create jobs, and don't know how to run businesses. Iti reinforces incompetence, and punishes success.

How can any stable economic order be built on such a basis? And if the order is unstable, how can the poor be protected? Look at Cuba. They are all poor. Nobody puts investment capital there. Why? It gets stolen. So they live in abject poverty, constantly looking over their shoulder, lest they accidentally tell the truth in public and get in trouble with the State.

With respect to the proper role of the State, read the Declaration of Independence. "And to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men. We need governments to be free. They need the power to tax. This is not objectionable.

The proper question is what functions are best done by the State, and which by individuals. Moreover, which are best done by the Federal Governemt and which by by the States, or municipalities.

Leftists love to think of themselves as compassionate care-givers, and like the metaphor of the Maternal. Let us take that analogy and run with it. Who is the better mother: the one who insists that her son--at an appropriate age--move out and make his own way, or the one who encourages him to stay at home forever, so he will need her indefinately? If you ask a leftist, it is the one who induces indefinite dependency.

How do these 800 people who can't get out of bed come into being? Somebody feeds them. Somebody enables them: somebody who meets their OWN emotional needs through the manipulated dependency of another.

To speak of compassion is not necessarily to be compassionate. In our current political discourse, the much greater likelihood is that person is intending much more the creation of monsters. Thugs. Gangsters.

What is this hip hop phenomenon but an unhealthy way of earning a form of self respect in the midst of a system dedicated to your emotional impoverishment through malnutrition? Do thugs make good fathers? Do communities of thugs plant trees, start legal businesses, and help little old ladies across the street? Do they congregate in churches to reinforce the moral order?

Prole, "From the perspective of the trust fund recipient it is blind chance that has made him or her the child of a trustfunder, just as from the perspective of the child of the welfare recipient it is blind chance that has made him or her dependent on welfare."
And that’s the problem of looking at something with only one perspective. Bill Gates had endowed billions to Africa do they see themselves as the the recipients of blind chance? Do the bums on the street see the aid from NGOs as blind chance? I understand Warren Buffet is leaving most of his fortunes to charity as well leaving his heirs enough to “do anything but not enough to do nothing”.
So what if a small percent of the population receives a trust fund due to genetic/familial bonds? Blind chance gave them the money, if they haven’t the merit to hang on to it, it is soon gone spread out among everyone for goods and services (i.e. working people) they want without the govt having to do a thing. If they have the ability to hang on to their money they are making it work (job creation and adding economic value) so there is an overall benefit, again all without the govt having to do a thing.
In this country at least, generational wealth disperses quickly (spent) and most of the wealthy are first generation. We do have an uneven distribution of wealth, but it is also very mobile and it’s the mobile that equalizes the “ blind chances” everyone gets in life.
What isn’t blind luck is the similar work ethic between both trustfundies and long term welfare recipients. Their lives couldn’t be more different except for two things: the receiving of unearned money and their work ethic. Causation or correlation? I see causation.

Barry,

You wrote: "This is a corrupt, lazy doctrine, adopted by short sighted and self absorbed fools."

Sometimes it's hard to follow you Barry, but I'll presume by "doctrine" you mean something like: "...you can tax the rich and give it to the poor."

C'mon Barry, do you really mean to say that people who think it is ok to tax the rich to give to the poor are "self-absorbed fools"? Really Barry?

Perhaps these people are illogical, unreasonable, ignorant (of course you would face the burden of making credible arguments to that effect), but "self-absorbed fools"?

I didn't read past that comment in your post and won't.

Otherwise, I wish everyone a fine weekend.

With respect to the topic of the day, I am going to offer a number of related but somewhat disconnected thoughts, then possibly tie it together. We'll see what happens.

First off, it seems to me this fellow Nock is an Epicurian. They were not, in general, hedonists, so much as old thinking, dour folks of the "immortal" sort, who knew much of life is vanity, and sought simply to make their way through with as little trouble as possible. As, I think, Daniel Robinson put it, if someone were sticking their neck out in an Assembly somewhere, they were certainly not Epicurians.

More likely, they were Stoics. To me, a Stoic is someone who chooses who they want to be, and acts consistently with that, come what may. In this world, if you have clear values, sooner or later you will come into conflict and suffering. Stoics accept this.

Stoics know who they are. They have the comfort and the challenge of having an identity, a knowable form. They don't need fights, but they likewise don't shy from them, when they are necessary. They know that there is only victory and death, and that both, in some ways, are illusions, as Kipling indirectly put it.

And to fight is not to engage an enemy. It is to engage yourself in being who you are. , without apology, or ambiguity. One metaphor I like, which I believe is in the Bible, is of a man walking, throwing seeds as he goes. Some go on fertile soil, some on rocky soil. Yet he never looks back. His job is to create the possibility of new life; he cannot control it, and he therefore need not be attached to it. If he keeps up long enough, surely he will succeed to some extent.

And you never know what detail, what off-handed comment will make a difference. The Watergate burglars were caught because one taped a lock open. Had that piece of tape not been there, they would not have been caught, and we would have won the Vietnam War, and prevented the Angolan Civil War, among other things.

One can never know what effects your actions will have. We all MUST, if we consider ourselves moral people, to try constantly to understand the consequences of our actions, but simply because we can't predict everything, does not mean we should stop trying.

Countless battles have been won by one last charge, one last effort. Never quit. Again: there is victory and death. We need not concern ourselves with anything else. This is, paradoxically, a path of peace.

Prole,

Is, then, Detroit your idea of a utopia? Are you, even now, unwilling to accept that blind hatred of the rich, and uncritical "support" of the poor NECESSARILY constitutes an ethically defensible policy?

Kettle bell day with my son Joel @ 31's:
2 rounds:
4 right and 4 left arm Turkish get ups 1P
5 right, 5 left clean and press 1P
5 left, 5 right snatch 1P
5 right and 5 left single arm swings 1P
10 KB burpees with a swing on each 'up' 1P
10 KB wall balls 1.5 P
Kept moving, didn't have a clock, but it was tough!

Yet again, I get to the nub of my feelings on this some time after the actual Rest Day. So, if anyone is still reading this:

Goat, I do see a very real tension between your simultaneously held views that:

- taking by way of tax is theft; and

- someone can do with their wealth whatever they please during life and after they die, even if that means giving it to a bunch of un-deserving, lazy, f*cked up trustafarians. Because this is what they want to do with their property and property rights are sacred.

Why do I see a contradiction? Those who would take your taxes shamelessly use the full force of the state - with its police, laws, judiciary and even army - to take from you. It is this element of compulsion which you see as theft.

But your society would also enforce private property rights, holding them as sacred. Including inter-generational bequests, capable of tying up many of the limited resources we have on this small blue planet. (Yes, our resources are limited. Just look at what we're doing to marine life). Your society will use the police, laws, the judiciary and the army to enforce these private property rights. Which I see as a form of theft under your own analysis.

Classic example for me: places of outstanding natural beauty on cliff-tops and beaches where wealthy people have simply been allowed to "buy land" and can exclude me and my family. In my own country. They've put up fences and they'll prosecute me if I try to walk around. To me, this is a form of theft as you apply that definition to taxes. I did not agree to dividing up the natural resources of my country in this manner. In fact, I fundamentally disagree with it. For millenia, people were free to roam the countryside, swim in the lakes, hunt on the plains. What happened? Private property rights became very important - to those with the might to enforce "laws". It's an in-built bias in your system which could be partially off-set by tolerating.....some form of tax. But you want to throw that out! So then everything is gone that used to belong to everyone. It's partitioned off and taken away. By force of arms. Because private property rights are somehow sacred to you. And those who do well under this "private property" system through ownership, parasitic rent-seeking or ability to generate income, are asked to return nothing to those who are not doing so well - because you think that the tax element offends your sense of personal freedom.

You take issue with one small element of private property ownership - arguably the moral lynch-pin - and labelling that lynch-pin as theft, blind to how the system as a whole functions.

It's as if you are supporting an electoral system with no possibility of anyone other than the incumbent taking power, ever. "Hard work will get you there" you say? This is the opiate keeping so many from realising this is a wholly unrealistic potential.

I'm reading "Guns Germs and Steel" at the moment. A fascinating insight into why wealth and power have evolved as they have on our small planet. To me, (so far) it is building up an irrefutable argument that the engines of prosperity are neither ambition, intellect, vision or bravery but blind chance. Some humility gained from a better understanding of this on the part of those living in the First World would do the our species the the power of good.

Peace.