7/12/2006

CATO's Cook Book (sold only at fine objectivist websites)


If you've followed the banter at ontheborderline.net long enough, there's no
doubt you've heard some terms repeated by the Dr.s of Liberty
time an time again. Some of my favorites are "Collectivists","Statists"
"Government Schools","Free Will","Federalism" and The Right to Bear Arms".
Dr.Bill rages against "Altruism".& Dr. SpiritofBS rants about Free Speech, The
Right to Property and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Sometimes you just wonder "Where do they get this stuff?" It makes you feel
like if you only had a program you too could follow along. Well fear not.
Net-tel has collected all your favorite borderline buzz words and concepts and
compiled them into one single easy to read source.
"CATO's Cookbook" The Pocketbook Objectivist Reader.
(Forward by Ayn Rand)
Also found online here.
All your favorite borderline terms a here in an easy to find fool proof outline.
If a question is posed to CATO and you want to know his response before he posts
it, this invaluable resource will do the trick. A lot of time he just never answers.
Ever wonder why?
It's simple, it not in the CookBook.
So don't delay, join in the fun and learn to talk & think like a borderline Doctor.
Order before midnight before someone calls you a socialist.
Call 1-800-DRbill. And tell them Andy sent you.

33 comments:

Cato said...

Ha.

Things get lost as they move down the page. I try to answer everything even if it isn't in my cookbook.

AndyRand said...

Glad you can laugh at this. I just found it interesting that most of your recipies could be found in one place.
Of course you realize from my perspective the whole book is a recipe for disaster. But that's why we debate right!

666 said...

ON the way to my capital acquisition opportunity creation site this morning, I was listening to WPR and they were talking about online gambling. I didn't listen too long, but the woman being interviewed made the statement that "gambling destroys countless families."

What kind of gambling? Life insurance purchasing? No having regular checkups at you doctor? Driving on bald tires?

I wonder want Cato's cookbook has to say about this. I think, if anything destroys countless families, it would be the individual who gambles the family's fortune away. I'm in a NASCAR pool and that hasn't destroyed my family...although I haven't won in 2 1/2 seasons. So I say it's the individual's fault.

But what if the indivdiual can't stop gambling because of some genetic dispostion that gives him or her some inbalance that makes them keep gambling and embezzle from the company and forget about the bills. Then isn't it time for the government to step in with its guiding hand and control the situation?

Cato said...

The rewason why you were hearing about this is that the US House passed legislation that would ban US banks and credit cards from making payments to online gambling sites. Some people have said that this was the Congress attempting to say they want to stop the evilness of gambling, from some sort of "religious" moral prospective. No, it's the prospective that people can't help themselves and government ought to be helping them when they are down. From the same people that want to save us from ourselves by mandating seat belts we get this. This is not to say it is not entirely stupid to NOT wear your seat belt, or to gamble on the internet for that matter, but it's not government's place to save us.

666 said...

Have you ever wondered why there is a mandatory seat belt law and not a mandatory motorcycle law? I'm sure I can name 10-15 people I've known that have been killed on motorcycles and only half that in cars. Certainly there are way more cars than motorcycles.

Cato said...

A mandatory motercycle law? I don't think there should be laws to force people to pay for a certian type of transportation.

666 said...

I wasn't talking about people paying for certain types of transportation. I was wondering why states like Minnesota and Wisconsin have mandatory seat beat laws for cars but no mandatory helmet laws for motorcycle riders. Some states, like Nebraska, do have mandatory helmet laws.

AndyRand said...

This back and forth is getting so predictable it's boring.

Cato said...

Oh I see, you forgot a word there, "helmet." I thought there was mandatory helmet laws. Look I don't know why they do one or not the other. I do know that usually they do things on the presmise that they "help people," especially children, and it is just more of government knowing better than me how to run my own life.


So what if it is predictable andy? I am consistent ------not a flip flopper.

AndyRand said...

So being intransigent is the ultimate virtue. OK I got it. Boring!!!!!!!!!!
How would you like your dinner Mr.CATO
Hot or Cold. Black or White.

Yes, you are free to smash your head
on the highway. But don't expect your health insurance to pay for it and raise my rates in the process.

Cato said...

I would expect to get what I paid for. My health insurance is, as 666 rightly said, a gamble. No one forces you to choose a medical provider -- either which provider or one at all. Not having one can have disasterous consequences, but it always seems you on ly need it if you don't have it. So it is a gamble. I don't see why you would say "don't expect your insurance to pay." That's silly.

666 said...

Cato:

The reason the is no mandatory helmet law in Wisconsin is because of politics. Insurance companies pushed for the seat belt law because car occupants are more likely to sustain less serious, i.e. costly injuries wearing seat belts. On the motorcycle helmet side, the insurance companies don't lobby for it because motorcycle riders are more likely to die without a helmet. The helmet is more likely to save their life but keep them in a more permanently, i.e., costly, injured state of health. Likwise, whenever a helmet law is proposed, 100,000 motrocycles converge on Madison on a Saturday and drive around the Capitol building in protest. There is always a minor accident that results in a serious head injury to someone not wearing a helmet.

It's politics and money. The motorcyclists are putting on the libertarian protest hat. Common sense says wear a helmet and don't gamble your family away. But how "common" is common sense?

Cato said...

Actually I believe that more accidents happen now with seat belts than before people just live through them more often, with the exception of pedestrians, for obvious reasons. People "feel safer" with a seat belt on. You don't play with your cell phone going 90, but you do going 30, 40, 50, etc. You feel like you can handle the huge hunk of metal flying down the highway and you've got all this stuff inside to keep you safe. Not that these things are bad things, it's just human behavior of looking at things through risk benefit analysis. Anyway, I'll find that study for you if you can find me where it says people who wear helmets are "more likely" than those who don't to be in very bad accidents yet still alive.

AndyRand said...

If I have the misfortune of
having the same insurance company that you do when you smash you pumpkin, my rates go up. You Liberty is at my expense. I don't like it. Wear a helmet.

Cato said...

How about you buy insurance from a company that will not insurer someone without a helmet? You made the mistake, not me.

Anonymous said...

Cato
Did you ever think that the State does have the right to legislate road laws. We all pay for those roads that even you drive on. So as voters and taxpayers we also have a vested interest (and ownership) in how people conduct themselves on publicly owned roads.
People that don't conduct themselves in a safe mannor have an ultimate financial impact on all of us, whether it is higher taxes to pay of emergency services, or higher premiums for insurance (which by the way, all insurance users share the cost). We also all share the cost for uninsured people seeking medical treatment.

666 said...

Currently there is no helmet law in Wis or Minn. There is only a helmet law for children under a certain age. This is in line with Cato's comment on seat belts and saving the children.

So wearing a helmet is the rider's choice. Cato suggestion of checking with your insurance company to make sure they don't require helmets is an interesting options. However, I would prefer the insurance company not to insurance motrcyclists period. As an insurance agent told, the rates would go up with a mandatory helmet law because more motorcyclists would live with more longterm and permanent, i.e., costly injuries.

Cato said...

Oh I know for a fact the government can (state government that is) create rules for the roads, but that has no bearing on whether or not they always should. If they were privetely owned a private company would do the same thing. I have an issue with the policy, since I find the babying of government of it's citizens quite revolting.

jpn said...

Cato:

You always equate rules and regs from the government as babying. But rules and regs for business are some how different. I can't speed in my company's parking lot or run. Forklift drivers have to wear seatbelts, steel-toed shoes and safety glass.

Is this a case of private enterprise copying government or visa versa?

AndyRand said...

anonymous:

Like JPN, 666, and Me and 95% of the population, you just don't "get it".
In CATO's world there is no sharing. Everyone is on their own. Your agrument makes to much sense to the everyday citizen. That's why CATO rejects it.

AndyRand said...

JPN said:
"Forklift drivers have to wear seatbelts, steel-toed shoes and safety glass.

This most likely is an OSHA reg.

My favorite law is the state regulation that states that you can't bring your own beverage on a golf course. I wonder what lobby forced that one through.

jpn said...

I believe the forklift-seatbelt rule is from OSHA. However, steel-toed shoes and safety glasses are for insurance reasons. With mandating these, you pay more for insurance. So this is a case of private industry (insurance) applying rules to private industry (users of the insurance).

Or take bicycle helmets. Every little kid I see riding around on a bike has a helmet. When adults ride with those kids, a majority of the adults are not wearing bike helmets. Of the adult v. the child, the adult is much more liable to suffer a far severer injury than the child. A six foot fall for a head on the pavement is going to much more injury than a two foot fall.

Anonymous said...

I don't know about the survival issue with nonhelmeted motorcycle drivers. However, I personally know several people that were involved in crashes, didn't have helmets, and sustained life lasting injuries that ultimately impacts all of us in the pocket book (I understand the reasons for that). Insurance pays the cost, and guess what, we all get to make up the difference.
Recently there was a rally to support injured motorcyclists. I think (my opinion) that with helmet regulations, we all would eventually be better off. Some times government regulations are meant to protect everyone, not to just baby-sit a few. I agree that there shouldn't be to much government regulation, however there are justifications for some to benefit the majority.

jpn said...

I think Cato's point is that it's not government job to be a babysitter. If you want to ride a murdercycle and smash your melon unprotected on the pavement then its your personal freedom. As an insurance purchaser you also have the option to shop for insurance companies that don't cover motorcycles. That would reduce the overall liability to the insurance company and theorethically reduce the price of insurance.

AndyRand said...

JPN,
Seriously, are you going to shop around for insurance that doesn't cover motorcycles? How many other conditions would you weigh in making your choice. Do you really have time to evaluate these kind of options and who's to say the information you base your choice on is honest or accurate?

Anonymous:

" I agree that there shouldn't be to much government regulation, however there are justifications for some to benefit the majority."

Again you use common sense. It's the wrong kind of thinking when you have "principals" to live up to. Ask CATO about the
"Tyranny of the Majority".

jpn said...

No I don't think I'll be shopping around for non-motorcycle insurers. I was piggy-backing on Cato's idea. Hell, I don't even complain about my taxes and I don't examine the DNA of my insurance policy on a regular basis.

My complaint is that there's a law saying I have to wear a seatbelt and no law that says the guy flying by me on the murdercycle has to protect his head. Common sense would put a helmet on a motorcycle rider before a seat belt on a car occupant.

By the way, the insurance man who told me why insurance companies don't push the helmet law was a good friend who died in a car accident from injuries sustained because he wasn't wearing a seat belt. He would definately be alive today had he been wearing a seatbelt.

AndyRand said...

JPN:

"No I don't think I'll be shopping around for non-motorcycle insurers."

I didn't think you would, but why aren't you. It's your personal responsiblity:-).
Personally, I used to think like CATO
nobody should tell people to wear helmets or seat belts or to stop smoking. (the non-smoking laws still bug me, and I've never been a smoker). But the more I've thought about our roles in society, I've realized that we are not all these seperate islands in our own spheres of influence. The stupid things we do affect others,like raising their insurance rates. I've come to the conclusion that some limitations are resonable on my choices. Where that line is drawn can be troublesome. My guess is that CATO would say there should be no restrictions period.


Back to the Cookbook. I came across
this because I was brushing up on what Kant said about aprioi knowledge. I see that the cookbooks twists this idea to suit it's worldview in a way that is the opposisite of Kant. No surprise there.
I find it interesting reading for geting myself riled. There ain't much there I agree with. It's an ugly stew if you ask me.

Cato said...

So apparently the Libertarian Party, whom I do vote for (but I would consider myself a libertarian, not a Libertarian) gutted their platform.


Apparently they thought it was too akin to my cookbook.

http://reformthelp.org/platform/freedom/index.php
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright

One statement in the old platform I was particularly disappointed to see go was the declaration that "all persons are entitled to keep the fruits of their labor." Not surprisingly, the call for repealing the 16th Amendment was also removed.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
In my humble opinion your views are extreme, so much so that they are to the right of the Libertarians. You certainly have your "right" to your views. As I said before, I doubt the world will be in concert with them any time soon.
As to the 16th amendment. It must have passed and been ratified in accordance with the law. (I assuming ). You seem to be of the opinion that the law was "fixed" and static
with the Consititution. I am not a lawyer as I said before. Maybe you are or are more familiar with the law than I. Where does precidence fit into your legal view? My understanding is that it carries much weight in future legal decisions.

Of course I was talking about apriori knowledge and Kant, which this has nothing to do with, but that's OK.

Cato said...

Actually the ratification of the 16th Amendment is up for debate as to if it actually was ratified legally. But I digress...

The law is static in that if we could change on a whim (without literally changing the law, just the meaning) than the law means effectivley nothing. I would hope everyone would want laws that could not elastically change! That's not being unreasonable at all.

Precendence does carry alot of weight in law, yes, but there can still be bad precendent. Continuing to allow such bad precedent to exist is pretty terrible.

666 said...

Cato:

Why do you question the ratification of the 16th Amendment so much and not the other Constitutional Amendments? I didn't know the Constitution and its Amendments were a buffet.

Cato said...

Well not that it matters (as it gave Congress no new taxation powers, it just clarified what the income tax is) but Kentucky and Oklahoma did not ratify the amendment as it was written, and Tennessee violated it'sown Constitution in voting on the Amendment too soon (had to wait until an election of legistlature intervened). Texas ad Lousiana violated their COnstitutions that prohibited them from giving the Feds additional taxing authority (although as stated before, the Supreme COurt has ruled it really didn't). And fianlly, Mississippi, Ohio, Arkansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, West Virginia, Indiana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Colorado, and Illinois all violated their state constitutions and did not read the amendment three different days to the legislature (to allow debate). Ohio, California, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Minnesota did not send copies of legislation backed to Washington at all, but they counted them as ratifiying it.

36 states were needed for ratification. 38 "ratified" it. Take away the first three I mentioned, and it wasn't ratified. Add in the tweleve who violated the three seperate day rules of their Constitutions, California who never sent back approval, and the other two states who, depending on how you look at it, violated their constitutions by confering new taxing powers andwe're down to 20 who ratified the amendment. But it's all water under the bridge at this point. Andyrand said he assumed that it was ratified properly and I merely said it was a matter of contention. I don't really care at this point, since I think it is moot.

But it can still be repealed! What this would mean is that the income tax would once again be viewed as a direct tax (well, unless Solomonesque Court says otherwise!). What the amendment did was basically overturn a Supreme Court decision (Pollock), claiming the Court was incorrect and that income tax weas actually indirect.

AndyRand said...

Thanks for taking the time to do the research. This is all very interesting but as you say, moot.