7/18/2006

Libertarian Lesson One (Reprise)




















A couple other favorite "Libertarian" thoughts:

" Of course libertarianism is compatible with Christianity! Just substitute "the market" for "Jesus", and ask "What would the market do?""

"Public schools are a monopoly: a staggering 80% of American children attend them in thousands of independently run school districts. Microsoft is not a monopoly: only 95% of computers use MSWindows."

" DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT the fact that the Internet came from a government project."


Lesson Two in a One Part Series:

115 comments:

Cato said...

I am not a Christian but if I was I would still hold my libertarian ideals dear. In fact, sloughing off responsibility to your fellow man, demanding government do it for you, is oppisite of what Jesus teaches. Jesus wants you, like Uncle Sam.

"Oh I could diet but I think I'll pay someone else to do it for me."

"Oh I could help the poor and the leastamong us but why can't government do that? Jesus said I should give to God what is God's and Ceaser what is Ceasers... oh nevermind. Ummm.. Jesus said to love your neighbor so what better love can I show him than indirectly having the government forcibly take money from me to give to him!"

Cato said...

No one forces you to go use a MS Windows machine.

You have to go to school, public or private. You have to pay for public.

I am not sure what the numbers are for Windows machines but I don't think it's that high. I have a linux machine and I know many people who do. I can't stand Macintosh though. After Windows Vista comes out, with it's video card requirements for 3-D rendered icons on the desktop I think people will leave Microsoft. I know I won't be upgrading. But that's neither here nor there...

Cato said...

To clarify, one of my machines is Linux, which is why I won't be upgrading this particular machine which has a stripped down version of XP.

Oh and IE is terrible. Mozilla Firefox is where it is at.

Cato said...

What we all consider "the internet," as in what it is today and has been for a few years, came not from government. GOvernment did not invent Google or atbl1.blogspot.com or most of these sites. Yes, it came initially from a government project. So did nuclear weapons. So did Gulags. I really don't seewhat yourpoint is here. It had to come from something. If you mean to say that without government coming alongand doing this it would have never happened I would say that's a bunch of bull. Government did not invent the telephone, nor the fax machine, nor the computer. Government may had contributed some things (computer systems were used in WWII battleships, for example) but they did not create what we have today. While we could never test my hypothesis, without government intervention the internet will still be around today, judging from the histroy of what was necessary to end up with the internet that proceeded it.

AndyRand said...

You seem to like lesson 2 better than lesson one!

AndyRand said...

CATO said:"I have a linux machine and I know many people who do. I can't stand Macintosh though. After Windows Vista comes out, with it's video card requirements for 3-D rendered icons on the desktop I think people will leave Microsoft. I know I won't be upgrading. But that's neither here nor there..."

Yes, 2gigs of memory to run an operating system is a bit extreme. So what choice do you have? You have Linux, you must have lots of time to baby sit it. Do you write your own device drivers? Until recently I've been an avid Anti-Mac fan! A friend of mine likens them to having a car with the hood welded shut.
I'll be watching for CATO DOS!

AndyRand said...

CATO said:
"Mozilla Firefox is where it is at."
Finally something we agree on!!!!!!!
To bad you were being factitious:-(

AndyRand said...

Even the largest philanthropist on the planet(Bill Gates ) states on his foundation website:
http://tinylink.com/?uBOrujBVir
"Philanthropy plays an important but limited role."

and

http://tinylink.com/?z2ykIkuVTH
But even if the foundation funds crucial breakthroughs, we do not have the resources to reach everyone in need. We count on businesses, governments, nonprofit organizations, and volunteers to expand and sustain our grantees' work.

Reality has a nasty way of interfering with your "principals".


A very small sample of some of the cooperative endevours with GOVERNMENT.

Community Grants - Grant
September 7, 2004
Washington State Bar Foundation
Seattle, WA
$20,800 over 45 months to support an online law and government education project

WASHINGTON and SEATTLE -- The Summit Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation have each awarded the Royal Government of Bhutan a $1 million grant for its Bhutan Health Trust Fund.

Emergency Relief - Grant
November 24, 2003
Georgetown University
Washington, DC
$291,164 over 21 months to hold regional workshops that will bring together NGOs, academic institutions, and government officials from developing countries to plan for ways to improve their capacity to respond effectively to disasters


Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Willamette Announce $5,000 Gift from Bill and Melinda Gates
PORTLAND, Or. -- Goodwill Industries of the Columbia Willamette (GICW) today announced a $5,000 gift from Bill and Melinda Gates to provide scholarships for students with disabilities and special needs who do not qualify for government-funded rehabilitation programs.

New Plan To Speed AIDS Vaccine Development Released
GENEVA -- The International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI) unveiled a new global scientific strategy to accelerate AIDS vaccine development, and said it will begin work on the plan with existing resources and newly announced grants from the William H. Gates Foundation, the World Bank and the Government of the United Kingdom.

But I forgot these are not your problems.

Cato said...

I assure you, I use Firefox. RSS browsing, with tabs, keeps me very happy. Plug-ins some times do not work (to view say, shockwave material), but I really cannot stand IE at all and only use it if I can't get the plug-ins to work. The Find feature in Mozilla is also superior. And since you can put in ad-ins, well, again, a superior program.

No I do not write my own device drivers. But I have a bit of spare time, so I learned it. I also have worked on Unix machines. Point was I don't think 95% of people have Windows Machines. At least we can agree that Vista will be terrible. An OS is supposed to juat make everything run smoothly and easily, not clog up your machine. I don't know what they are putting in it but I believe it is around 20gig HD space, and yeah, 2 gig of ram... I'd have to upgrade my one year old machine just to run the damn OS. Which is terrible. but this is all a very large tangent...

AndyRand said...

CATO:
Tangent or not,I agree. I also dig
the RSS (livebook marks ).

My Amiga OS
could fit on a couple floppies, maybe
even one, I don't recall exactly.

I'm sure you've heard the saying "What
Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away"
Sure sounds like it will fit with Vista. Another fine example of "market manipulation via creation of artificial needs". So like it or not
you're likely to eventurally be running Vista on a machine with 4 gig or Ram
half of which is pretty much wasted.
Doesn't that piss you off? I've tried resisting these trends. It's pretty much futile.

Cato said...

I am not sure if it is collusion or just not caring that leads Microsoft to up the spec requirements. It could be colluision: it makes sense that hardware manufactuerers, who for years were well ahead of software, would want to push for more upgrades on compters to drive up sales. But Microsoft really could just think they are putting out their best product. They want to be around past a paradigm shift and are heding their bets.

It really does piss me off to think that one say I will have to use Vista. Actually I just got XP at work last week. So manybe I can hold off for a while. However, I did need it. I couldn't use Windows Media Player 10 on Win200Pro, only on XP, and because of this I could not use certian streaming audio to ease my work day. Now I can. Of course, did it help any of the programs I use for work? No, not at all. Well one loads faster but I think that's because of a hardware upgrade that came with my software upgrade.

AndyRand said...

Windows Media 10!!!! Talk about privacy issues. It's my understanding
that this player tracks everything you play and reports back to MS. It's not the government who's Big Brother. (Well maybe? ) But corporate america certainly is. I tried to keep media player 7 as long as I could. Eventually it becomes unfeasible. They they got you. And that again is not the government. And what about Google?
I try to you Clusty whenever possible.

Cato said...

Well it reports back if you try to play wma files without a liscense... so does my winamp though (I like it much better than WMP10 since it takes up little memory. WMP is just for certian streaming audio services. I do not d/l the wmas on to my work computer but I do at home so I can use winamp).

As for privacy, I've got nothing to hide from Microsoft or Google and no one forces me to use or pay for either.

AndyRand said...

Actually you can be forced to you Media Player10 in a way. D/L some songs from Napster. You own them right. You can only transfer them to CD or devices or play them with Napster software which now requires Media Player 10. My point is we are being manipulated into things like WMP10 whether we won't to or not.
Forced? Pretty damn close. If I want to utilized files I own Yes I'm being forced.
I suppose you read and understand every EULA? I think most people just click "I agree" and have no idea what they've agreed to. In my book that's coersion. There no negotiating is there?

Cato said...

Well you can not accept it. It's a take it or leave it approach which is fine by me...

I understand you need WMP10 for napster for streaming audio. You can get around it for other things. And Napster... you don't actually 'own' the songs, you can use them so long as you pay for the service I believe... unlike say that stupid iPod and iTunes operation, where it's a per-song basis for d/l and you do own the songs, even though they put some protections on it.

AndyRand said...

I know pretty much every trick in the book and I couldn't get around Napster.
I was uninstalling and reinstalling different versions of their software just to burn CD's of song I purchased. It was a pain in the ass.


What's your beef with Ipod other than it's an apple product? I dumped Napster and I'm pretty happy with I pod. The only thing I don't like is their AAC format. It's just their version of wma.

Cato said...

iTunes is a horrible program. On some systems it won't even work, since you can't download newest Quicktime for some reason with some versions of windows. I don't like the load time on it, etc., and I don't like buying the songs the way iTunes does it. With what I have, I pay 10 a month and have unlimited downloads of wmas and streaming audio. With iTunes I pay 99c per download which becomes actually mine (which I can then make back ups of, legally, and distribute to freinds for safe keeping who need to periodically test them to make sure they are in working order). I'd rather have more tunes at a cheaper price, but that's me. Sure I can't make back ups, but it's all in one giant catalog anyway.

Cato said...

just burn it onto a CD and you get around their AAC format easy enough. It IS yours you DID buy it.

AndyRand said...

I'm not a big song buyer. I have tons of LP's and CD's I can put into I-Tunes. What I use it for most is podcasts. The load time you're correct
Slooooooow. Not backing up? what if your HD crashes?
We have to stop this congeniality, it will ruin both our reputations:-)

Speaking of songs. I found some lyrics on the "lesson" website you might find
humorous. I do.

The Cyber-Netizen's Song
http://www.poppyfields.net/filks/00310.html

AndyRand said...

Well CATO:
I thought you'd like the song. You didn't take it as a slam at you did you? I see it as a spoof on blogging in general.

zig zag man said...

Hey, don't you guys know that vinyl is making a come back? You can trade in $800 worth of LPs over at Root Seller Records on Snelling and get $5 back. It's amazing! After I found this great deal out, I went home and got the rest of my records, traded them in, bought a joint in Frog Town, a six pack on the Wisconsin side of the river and did what I had to do...

AndyRand said...

Sounds like a great Hippy type wealth building opportunity Ziggy.

Anonymous said...

cato;
Back to your first comments; if you've studied Jesus form both an archeological, and historical perspective, you would know that he did exist. Infact all prophecies from hundreds of years prior to his birth were met (birth, death, and resurection). I don't agree with your opinion about Jesus, and necessairly any one political party being in any way part of his message. I would guess that he would say that he is more concerned about our faith and living life as he taught. Money, in his opinion was earthly, and not Heavenly.
Having said that, and a from little more earthly perspective; most cultures over time are politically cyclical. They tend to experience both totalitarian, and some form of democracy. However, I doubt that there has ever been a utopian culture.

Cato said...

anon, some of the propheseys that the New Testament said were fullfilled never existed while others were done so on purpose. I have no doubt he existed. I have no doubt that the writers of the new testament knew the old testament better than a professor of jedeo-christian history would today. That doesn't mean that any of his "miracles" were true though.

As for policial messages, I was defending both christianity and libertarians. Considering I have studied -- which is why I do not consider myself a Christian! -- to great length Christianity and the history of the area (although I am by no means an expert) I do know what Jesus' message (as in the Church's escatological vision) is, and what he calls people to do. Jesus would not want you to have other people do X (if X is what he calls you to do) for him. He wants you to do X. Just you. You you you. Not Uncle Sam, you. So a "Christian Libertarian" is not an oxymoron at all. I think a "Chrisitan Socialist" -- one who would like to see government do the work of Christ (welfare, social security, etc., etc.), however is.

Cato said...

When I said "on puirpose" in my first paragraph, I meant the writers made it so.

Cato said...

And when I said "on puirpose" I did not mean to do that on purpose.

AndyRand said...

CATO: As I mentioned earlier, when there's no cook book answer you conveniently neglect to respond.

I brought up several comments from the
Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
One of which is
"Philanthropy plays an important but limited role."
I also gave examples of cooperative ventures this foundation joined in with government and other non profit agencies.
It's a simple point. If the richest person on the planet, who recently turned into a philanthropist believes
philanthropy is needs the cooperation of governments, I would take him at his word. Libertarianism is anti community plain and simple.
While Gate's contributions to charitable causes are large and generous they are ultimately insufficient and that's according the today's most benevolent philanthropist.
Why would I believe you over him?

Cato said...

It depends on what you think "needs" are of the so-called "community." Furthermore if peoplehad more excess money to donate they would. While you may beright that it won't be "as much" as if government came and took you to court or possibly tried to kill you over not wanting to pay for redistribution of your wealth (welfare, social security, foreign aid, etc) it is "enough" as it is exactly at what people can afford to give. However, if you don't think that is "enough" and demand more sacrifice from people, then yeah, it isn't "enough." I think it is.

AndyRand said...

"Furthermore if peoplehad more excess money to donate they would."

It depends on what you call "excess".
Again, your premise has little credibility. What proof do you have that people would contribute more. I think they would just spend more on themselves. LIfestyles expand to matche available funds. Just as work expands to match the available time.

Again the "invisible Claw of the Market" fixes everything.

Again you cite the rediculous extreme.
The government coming to kill you?
For crying out loud. Examples of this are more rare than getting struck by lightning or even winning the lottery. Get Real.

Cato said...

If I refused to pay my taxes they would kill you. If I refused to give into them as they circled the wagons around my house and I tried to stand my ground and defend what was mine I'd probabbly end up dead. Really not that extreme at all. No one does it because that is the end outcome. We all know it.

Even if they spend it on themselves, what is so wrong with that? Apparently they need the money that they earned. My proof is that part of the government initially ran on donations, in addition to tariffs. Or how about when you goto the store and contimplate as to whether or not you can afford that Hi-Def TV. If you have excess money you'll be more liberal with it since your needs and wants are met, you have more to save, and then in the end you have more to give. As it stands many people do not have enough for themselves, yet government decided that they do and these other people "need" the money you earned more than you.

jpn said...

Cato:

Am I correct in assuming the concept of "community" is in conflict with libertarian idealism? That would be much like a libertarian political party, since it's all about the individual.

Cato said...

Voluntary and forced entry into a community are quite different. Also, a "community," to me, ends at the local level.

AndyRand said...

CATO: You are right and have your priorities in the proper order.
The need for a $6000 Plasma Hi Def
TV certainly out weights the need for milk for the children of the working poor. I don't know why I ever doubted you. I am convinced.
BTW I have a 1986 Sony on an antenna. Works fine to view most of the crap on the commercial channels. Luckily there's still Public TV for the times when I might want to learn something or watch the BBC to get real new, not entertainment. (Do you know who was kicked of Big Brother last?)
Maybe you should check it out since your still seem to be operating in the world of 17th Century Newtonian physics instead of 20th Century string theory and quantum mechanics.

So far it seems you've had the good sense to pay your taxes and not get killed. If you ever decide to make that stand give me some notice. I'd like to watch that Western.
Again, the scenerio of the government killing someone for non-payment of taxes is less than dying of small pox or TB or pserosis of the liver. As a matter of fact, I can't think of any less likely cause of death.

As for Christianity and Libertarianism being compatiable.
Name one Christian Libertain of note. The majority are aethiests.
What really amuzing is that people like D. James Kennedy use the same arguments as you to convince people that the U.S. is a "Christian" nation. (Christian like him not others ).

Cato said...

The "working" poor eh? Nice adjective.

Why is it that needy people's needs are more important than my wants? Who is to say I don't need that Hi-Def TV? You may say, "well you don't need it to live." That much is true. But I submit, neither do the poor need my money to live. If they did, they'd already be dead for lack of food. So you are saying, "well they need X level of comfort." And now we're at a point where you are saying what you think is the "best" level of comfort for someone and saying what you think is "acceptable burdens" for others. Why? Why does improving someone else's comfort level give you the right to burden me? Is there any moral justification for such a stand? I can think of none.

To name one prominent Libertarian Christian (do not ask me to name more because this can go on indefiently): Micheal Badnarik, 2004 LP Presidential Canidate is a Christian. As I said before, Libertarian Christians do not want to slough off their responsibility to others onto the government but rather do what Christ asks them to do themselves. They want to, you know, act Christian instead of just profess to be one and have someone else do it for them. It's like these elitist snobs like Al Gore who talk about how much we pollute and then pay others not to pollute since they can't actually stop doing it themselves. If you want X to happen, do it yourself, don't ask me to do it for you.

jpn said...

Cato:

You're taking cheapshots at Al Gore. I believe he doesn't use public tranit or take welfare and, according to your view, that's enough to qualify him to be a libertarian.

Maybe I'm simplifing this too much. Maybe you both avoid the above mentioned, but you have a different worldview. If that is the case, is your's the right/correct worldview and Gore's the wrong/incorrect worldview.

Cato said...

I'm taking cheapshots? Considering that is not my defintion I do not think it needs to be addressed further. I do not use public services other than the roads, which I do not have the same problem with the state government running as I do with the Federal government. And of course, I do not live in New Richmond proper, although apparently they want to extend the lines of the town to squeeze more money out of me, which means I do not have city water or sewer. Power is paid to a private company, subsidiezed no doubt but what isn't. I grow some of my own food, kill other parts of it, but do indeed buy subsidized food from the supermarket but there is little I can do about that other than attempt to change the law. Since I agree with Lincoln that the rule of the mob should not prevail, even though I disagree with the law I still must obey it. Yet you make outrageous claims about me... this is asinine and will not continue this part of the conversation. I have been very clear and if you feel you need to continously take sophmoric cheapshots by placing what I said out of context, then fine. I will not address it again.

My point was that Gore pays other people to not do what he trapes around the country doing: polluting. Why is he polluting so much? He's doing it to tell us all we need to stop. Ask him to stop? No! He needs to tell others and spread The Book of Enviornmentalism across the globe! People must convert!

I really don't care if he pollutes as much as he does. I really don't. What bugs me -- and should bug everyone -- is that he pollutes in excess of everyone else so that he can tell everyone else to not be like him. He then tithes other people in a sacremental act to sit around and not be productful so that he can spread the Good Word. Why this bugs me is that he is trying to force me to do something I'd rather not while at the same time doing worse than I ever could. He really has no credibility whatsoever in asking others to change their lives if he can't change his.

jpn said...

Caot:

My point was that you think you have the correct/right worldview and Gore has the wrong/incorrect worldview. You can get offended and tap dance around the fat of my question, but what about the meat of it. You are right and Gore is wrong for not having the same worldview as you...

AndyRand said...

From the dreaded Wikipedia:

"Badnarik polled just under 400,000 popular votes nationwide, in the November 2, 2004 election, taking 0.34% of the popular vote and placing fourth, just behind Ralph Nader."

If that is the most notable Christian Libertarian I think the movements in a bit of trouble.
Other than a couple of bumper stickers, I've seen nothing about the man.

In the quick an limited research I've done on the web about the man,
Christian has never come up as a prominent attribute.
This is what the American Conservative
says about libertarianism.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_03_14/article1.html
"......libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right. If Marxism is the delusion that one can run society purely on altruism and collectivism, then libertarianism is the mirror-image delusion that one can run it purely on selfishness and individualism. Society in fact requires both individualism and collectivism, both selfishness and altruism, to function."

And my newly adopted cookbook website says:

The "Party of Oxymoron": "Individualists unite!"

Cato said...

Well just because he didn't exactly garner very many votes he is still a prominent libertarian, aka, a giant among a small population of porcupines (that is to say, Libertarians are not prominent to begin with). You asked for one example, and I gave it, the Presidential canidate.

And wikipedia is a pretty terrible site for any topic other than reearching say, Herman Melville (that is to say any issue that may have political implications where someone may have an "agenda" in changing the information or distorting it, it can, will and is done so).

AndyRand said...

CATO said:
"And wikipedia is a pretty terrible site for any topic other than reearching say, Herman Melville (that is to say any issue that may have political implications where someone may have an "agenda" in changing the information or distorting it, it can, will and is done so)."

I'm not totally familiar with the Wiki review process (just the name is enough to turn me off to it). In general I'd agree.
But are is the vote count inaccurate?

"I do not have city water or sewer"
I think you might start having more of a concern about pollution if a one of the neighborhood farmers started pouring pesticides in your well.
You said:
"And of course, I do not live in New Richmond proper, although apparently they want to extend the lines of the town to squeeze more money out of me, which means I do not have city water or sewer."

You don't seem to have a problem with people picking your pocket as long as it's not "The GOVERNMENT".
$10.00/gal Gas OK. $300 monoplistic operating system no problem. I can't
help but think there's more personal anomosity than logic reason and principal in your worldview.

Maybe we should go back to talking computers, it's much less stressful:-)

AndyRand said...

CATO:
You take JPN's and my verbal jabs way too seriously. They're only an attempt to inject a little humor into the conversation. Give it a try yourself,
I think we can take it, and maybe get a laugh in the process.

Cato said...

If government had to go into direct competeition with others then I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. Unfourtently at the DMV, the customer is not always right. They don't care. You HAVE to go to them. You can't go somewhere else. Your service is not really their concern. What are you going to do? Complain? It gets caught up in red tape. If it was a buisness and someone was treating customers like I have been treated there, the post office and the social security office, among other places (I went there because I had to get proof of social security... it's amazing the information they had about me. I was asked 20 questions that they shouldn't have known the answers to before they gave me a piece of paper. My blood was boiling the whole time I was there, of course). With a lack of competetion the taxpayer is paying more than he should. This only works for government services that could operate in competition with others (schools, roads, police, fire, water, DMV, etc) but not certian things that I have a very deep moral problem with, such as social security, farm subsidies and welfare (the administration of it could be for all of these, however), as it is not providing services to any and all citizens. It is taking from one section of the population to give to another.

Tax the rich, feed the poor, 'till there are no rich no more.

Anonymous said...

Cato
Actually all the prophesies that were fulfilled did exist hundreds of years prior to when Christ walked the earth. There is substantiation of Chist in three religions, agnostic historical data, and eyewitness accounts. The many of writings of the New Testament were by people living while Christ was alive, and the miracles alluded to were even discussed in secular historical text. In a culture that relied primarily on verbal versus written word, Christ was very well doccumented. Even the apostles were willing (and did) die as witnesses. Again, Christ would not have been a Democrat, Republican or Libertarian. He was not concerned about the earthly ideals, but your hart, and acceptance of him for your salvation. The rejection of Christ is the rejection of salvation. Saying that I suggest that you study a little more.
You never did respond to the historical cyclical nature of cultures.
Cato;
Ultimately, we all need each other. Your alluding to the lack of need for public services is flawed. Tell me that if your involved in an accident, have a fire or are the victum of a crime. Public and private entities should be balanced. Without the public (which by the was is the people) oversight, you would be hard pressed to prove to any reasonable person that private enterprise wouldn't be overflowing with fraud, not that it isn't happening enough right now. In the end the masses must be appeased, or repressed. Without a balance you will have the cyclical effect occurring much more rapidly, and violently. An elitist society (which you seem to be a proponant), ultimately does not last.

Cato said...

"If it was a buisness and someone was treating customers like I have been treated there, the post office and the social security office, among other places.. someone would have gotten fired."

Sorry. Trailed off like some Maya Angeloeu poem.

AndyRand said...

CATO:
"If it was a buisness and someone was treating customers like I have been treated there, the post office and the social security office, among other places.. someone would have gotten fired."

Has it occurred to you that you may play some role in their attitude. You said you were "fuming" the whole time there. I'll bet you were "fuming" before you walked in the door. Add to that the constant bashing public employees have taken for the last 20 years. Do you think that's a positive incentive to boost morale? You seem to like the "Big Stick" Style of management.

I've been mistreated in plenty of private businesses. Try to negotiate with a bank, or Cell phone company.
You can't get anywhere past their policy. Then they ask you if you were satisfied with their service.
What do you say! If you complain the
poor working person who has to pick your pocket with a smile gets canned or repremanded, not the policy makers. Not too long ago I contacted Social Security and to my utter surprise the lady helped me emmensely with information I could not have found by myself. So much so that I asked to speak to her supervisor to commend her. (I think the supervisor had a heart attack shortly after my call.) I have also
had similar experiences with private
enterprises. I don't think competition is the driving issue behind good service. I think it's the individual placed in an environment where they are free to excercise their own good judgement.
I also know that there have been times where I have been rude to customer service people. I'm learning that I get better service if I treat them with dignity.
I can also see where poor customer service can piss you off.
I tried to get my password reset on
a phone company web site. This was done for me previously, but this agent insisted that it couldn't be done without waiting 24hr. I asked to be connected with people in charge of that issue and she told me there wasn't anybody. I hung up, called back , got another agent and the issue was resolved in min.s.
Competition had nothing to do with it.

666 said...

Speaking in Cato's defnese, these employees should always have a totally pleasant attitude and should treat everyone who walks into the door as if they were the queen of England. This correlates to all public students getting all A's in all their classes. In an idealist world, that's what we'd have.

Do you have some free Bubble-Up for my Rainbow stew?

Cato said...

Regardless of your experiences with social security or the phone company there is one key thing you forgot to mention. You have choice in the private sphere and can walk away. You cannot do so in the public sphere. This monopoly makes us all pawns to the system.

I never said I was fuming. I said my blood was boiling being in the place. The idea of the Social Secuirty office sends me into such, entering its doors was almost too much. Waiting in line with a ticket stub... I was cordial enough, even after the person starting naming off information she should not have had to ask me to confirm.

666, yes, they should. I pay for the service, I expect the best. If it is the type of service the post office issues, which has lost information being sent to me on numerous occiasions (although a few notable instances they were kind enough to deliver it 2 years+ late) then I would not go back to them. Unfoutently, letter mail is all legally carried out by the Post Office. It would be easy enough to open up competition in that considering the infrastructure for package mail already exists in the private sphere, even though it would require a Constitutional amendment to completely abolish... anyway 666 yes they should give excellent service.

And what I said before about students was because of the truism that our school systems are a breeze in this country.

666 said...

From the newspaper story the other day on schools, it appears the same breeze blows through the public and private schools.

Lord Cato:
Do you have an inferiority or a superiority complex? It's seems you are a holder of the absolute, correct knowledge and are never treated with the respect you demand of your public servants

AndyRand said...

In the absolute sense, you may be right about having to deal with gov.
To say you have no choice is incorrect. It will cost me the full cost of the "contract" I was coerced into to drop my cell phone. If you don't like the person you're dealing with at Soc.sec. get another number and go to another window.
You see, it's always so easy to explain to people you don't agree with how much freedom they have even thought they feel restricted.
Sure, if you're paraylized and don't like the health care system you're dealing with. There's competition.
You can wait till the next open enrollment period, subscribe to a similar plan, check out of the hospital and you're all set. Now that's freedom! I love liberty!

Cato said...

You opted for the cheap phone (as in they basically gave you one) and you sold your soul. And then you complain you want something other than you paid for. Take responsibility for your actions then move on to another provider once your time is up.

There was only window open at the office. And it wasn't the woman. It was the office. Furthermore that isn't choice at all. That's like saying that a cafeteria that offers hamburgers with mustad or hamburgers with extra mustard (and you can't refuse to eat) offers "choices."

AndyRand said...

I said before:
"You see, it's always so easy to explain to people you don't agree with how much freedom they have even thought they feel restricted."
You just proved my point. You're freedom is impinged upon but mine is not. I can't believe how egocentric your statements can be.

Cato said...

OK, fine.

You feel like giving up liberty for security is fine, then okay.

Your choice.

You goto Social Security office then if it's so great.

I'll take my 7.45% of my paycheck back thank you very much.

Deal?

Allow people to have choice i the matter?

I'd fight to keep Social Security alive if we could allow people to opt in or out of it. Yes, I'd go that far in the name of bipartisanship.

666 said...

Andy:

Cato does follow in the Tom Paine mode of liberty. He had all kinds of ideas on how to tear things down but nothing to contributed on the reconstruction that comes later. I guess the goal of idealists is to first level the landscape and worry about the rest later.

AndyRand said...

Frankly, I'm tire of talking about my cell phone. My point was my options were seriously restricted and the "contract" was deceptive and coerced at best. Like you , I don't like my choices to be curtailed, it seems it's just who does the curtailing that we differ about.

AndyRand said...

I'll give you a better trade. You take
someones severe disablility, and I'll refund your 7.1% and then some.

Cato said...

Deceptive? Was it not all there in black and white?

Coerced? They forced you to sign the contract? Was there weaponry involved?

Law enforcement actually is a legitament operation of government and would be your best bet. If there was any battery involved, possibly battery with the battery, there statutue of limitations may not have run out yet.

Of course, you could have read it and looked ift over before you got the cell phone. You could have demanded other things been done. You could have done alot of things.

I CANNOT leave Social Security. I want to. I have private insurance. I have my own retirement fund (social security is viewed by far too many as a retirement fund in this country, which was not it's intent).

AndyRand said...

Two things I've saidbefore.
1. I'm tired of talking about cell phones.
2. There was no written contract. You activate the phone, you made the agreement, and they won't talk to you about the phone till you activate it.
Yeah it pissed me off.

If I were you I'd read the fine print on your "private" disability insurance. Here's what will happen you get disabled. They pay the % amount of wages until you apply for soc. sec. If you don't qualify for Soc. sec. you're not disabled. Your're SOL.
When and if SS is granted you pay your insurance co. back what soc. sec. pays you. Your private insurance then pays a small fraction of you wages at the time of disablility. What a racket. Here you think you have a % of you income protected. Ha!!

Anonymous said...

Cato
As much as it hurts, to a limited extent I agree with you on Social Security. As I see it, Social Security has been tainted from it's limited intent. Politicains, and special interest groups got their hands into it.
I'd suggest that if we brought it back to it's origional intent (strictly retirement fund) it would be in a much healthier status. Force the politicians out of it, or put their retirement into that fund, and it wouldn't be raided like it has been. The State attempted to do the same in Wisconsin until they were prohibited through the court, and it is self sufficient and healthy.

Cato said...

No, it was not origianlly intended to be a retirement fund. It was originally intended to be a safety net on the very small part of the population that made it to the ripe old age of 65.

After the Court was initially throwing out New Deal legislation, FDR decided to institute a kind of retirement policy for the Nine. For each judge over 70, the President proposed, the President could add a new one. Shortyl thereafter one justice switched sides and started affirming the New Deal legislation, including the Old Age Pensioner's act. Whether or not the Cort-Packing Plan had anything to do with it is up for debate but in any event, all that was left were the "Four Horsemen" who defended reason in excellent dissents. So Social Security stood and now it's an institution that tells us it's good to sacrifice that little bit of liberty in having that extra money to plan your own retirement for the security of knowing you can get a few hundred dollars a month after you retire and be able to afford cans of baked beans.

Anyway the idea that anyone could possibly retire off the measly amount of "your money" the government gives "back" to you is ludacris. I'd rather invest it in some risky scheme and possibly loose it all then place it in the hands of people that have well, sold it all to pay off other debts anyway...

jpn said...

Cato:

Good explanation. It helps explain why the ideals of libertarianism won't work. Politics, politcs, politics.

Regardless of what the original intent was, politicians have away of evolving programs into bureacracies lined with pork. As you say, a large percentage of people see SS as a retirement/entitlement.

The children of the Depression era are dying out now. They might have lived through the Depression, but they didn't management the money and worry about were the food came from. Their parents did and they are gone. They knew what it was like to have cupboards bare, no money in the bank and the lights shutoff. We know have a nation that expects that their will be something in the cupboards for everyone and they at least have a flimsy sheet to cover themselves for the coming cold realities of retirement.

I don't see SS going away and I don't the politic balls to pull it off. The fear factor would be the great tipping point. Not being the libertarian idealist that you are, I see the need to increase the qualifying age for SS and to remove the cutoff cap so that everybody pays the 6.7+% on all income. That would make the SS tax a flat tax -- which you advocate -- removed the stain of a regressive tax that enriches the wealthy who are already benefitting from excessive income tax breaks and loopholes.

Cato said...

Flat tax is one thing, but a flat tax for redistibutionist politics in the other. Social Security will one day go bankrupt and people will be wailing in the streets and beating their backs in pain and the Lamb will unlock the first seal....

In the interim I would support an increasing of the SS age to at least 80, and removal of the cutoff. Well, maybe. I may support my enemies at times to expidiate their deaths (to keep Social Security as is to to ensure its rather soon demise).

jpn said...

Cato:

To convert your idelaist perspective into political/economical reality you have to brainwash the vast majority of people in this country into believing in the almight bootstrap theory that you have been discussing. To keep your haves with all the pie shells and pie less the crumbs that fall to the have-not, you have to resort to brainwashing and single issue politics that suck in the one-issue hillbillies of our country.

Conversely, to work for a playing field that is level and/or equitable, we have to rely on education and the ballot box. Propaganda and fear have always been the tools of choice for the puppeteers of profits. To fight the oppression of those that want to keep the masses barefooted, ignorant and categorized as just another factor of production -- like a screw or piece of plastic -- the power of the ballot box is essential. Hence, the need for a progressive tax system. A good start would be the social security tax.

Cato said...

1. I have not been discussing any "bootstap theory."

2. There are haves and have mores in this country.

3. In what world could a progressive income tax possibly be considered "equitable" or a "level playing feild"?

jpn said...

Cato:

"Equitable" and "level playing field" are bad choices of concepts. This has nothing to do with the bootstrap idealism you've discussed. It really has to do with a class consciousness that needs to be driven down to the have-nots that they must us the power of the ballot box to take the ill gotten gains away from their greedy oppossers.

We need the democratic lynch mob to know that they can take it back from the haves. We are not talking your intellectual parlor game. We are talking about the exercise of pragmatic politcal power.

Cato said...

Have-nots are nothing more than fairy tales the government tells children to take their money.

So you admit though that progressive taxation is ANYTHING BUT fair, equitable and a level playing feild? Because it is ANYTHING BUT.

jpn said...

That's right Cato, for words like "fair" are non-existant to a true libertarian like yourself. There's no "good" or "bad." People are nothing more that factors of production. I suspect from your libertarina perspective, once a human gets to old or physically able to work, they should be discarded like any other factor of production. Maybe families should be allowed to sell their aged parents at some point to be ground up into pet food or garden fertilizer...as long as they can make a buck.

Your's is a philosophy that views people as a way to make a buck and a nuisance -- unless there is some profit in the transaction.

"Haves" and "have-nots" are realative terms that depend on time and place. We don't live in 1776. There's been an Industrial Revolution or two since then. From your perspective, the idea of a minimun wage is just another socialist program that needs to tossed out. Dream on little dreamer dream on...

Anonymous said...

“Power is about making sure that every voice and every vote counts.”

Cato said...

No not at all. People are ends, not means. Only a philosophy that views people as ends unto themselves is justifiable.

I suppose until everyone is equally miserable you will saythere are "have nots." But objectivley they are a myth in this country.

Minimum wage is socailist. If people are willing to work for less who are you to deny them that freedom?

666 said...

Minimum wage is an accepted concept in the US. There is nothing wrong with socialism. It's a practical concept that has grown out of the Industrial Revolution that pulled people out of the world of selfsufficient and into the world were they were living in urban emcampments performing jobs that are dependent on the ebs and flows of the consumers' tastes and preferences.

Cato said...

Well it is illegal at a federal level. At a state level it is bad policy. While [i]Lochner[/i] was incorrectly decided, it should still have prevailed at a state level.

PS the industrial revolution happened in the early 1800s not the early-mid 1900s.

666 said...

The Industrial Revolution started in the late 1700s and is still happening...depending on what neighborhood you live in.

When you say something is "bad policy," of course, you are expressing your opinion not a fact. Correct?

Cato said...

Well of course it is my opinion but that does not detract from it being correct in any way. Regulating worker's freedom to determine their own hours and pay should not be the buisness of any state entity.

I know when the industrial revolution started.

If you say it is "still happening" to justify the idea that minimum wage came "out of the industrial revolution" than the internet of course came from the industrial revolution as well as nuclear weapons, social security, spam and concentration camps.

666 said...

Workers are free to donate an excess capital acquired to the homeless vets of their choice. Employers are being forced to be socially responsible.

Cato said...

That is true, they are free to give their money to parsites if they so desire. However, employers are people to who's rights to self determination are being trampled upon. How is it justifiable to treat the employer as a means to an end rather than an end unto himself? He should be free from government interfereing with his contracts that do not violate anyone else's rights.

AndyRand said...

I am not a vet, but I find it offensive in the extreme to refer to
homeless vets as parasites!!!!!!!!
Whatever psychological damage that resulted from their war experience was certainly not of their choosing.

Employers being in control of the
"means of production" are automatically at an advantage over workers. The playing field starts unevenly.

You also said:
"Only a philosophy that views people as ends unto themselves is justifiable."

This is utterly incompatible with Christianity.

666 said...

Cato:

To me, it doesn't matter if your scapegoats are the homeless, the public school teachers, the unions, the politicians, the blind, the Welfare Parasites, the disabled, the female sex, the vegetarians, or the Communist Party. To the extent that you need a scapegoat, you simply have not got your brain programmed to work as an efficient problem-solving machine. Your brain only seems to program to mouth the platitudes of you indoctrinatiors.

Anonymous said...

We need more selfish capitalists like Donald Trump. Inherit your wealth and become a parasite who can't turn a profit but can point a finger at someone vastly more qualified than him and say "you're fired."

Cato rhimes with Dildo.

Cato said...

"Cato rhimes with Dildo."

A veritable Alexander Hamilton we have here.

Cato said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Cato said...

How is viewing people as ends not means (Stalin viewed people as means) incompatible with Christianity? Considering how often one hears the Church and Christian call for an increasing amount of revrence for the value of human life, your statement about how they are incompatiable makes no sense whatsoever. Perhaps you read what I said wrong? I really, really don't see how you can reach the conclusion I did without a severe misunderstanding of what I wrote. I can understand opposing arguments usually. I understand where people are coming from. They may be wrong, but I understand them. But I really just don't get it here.

Cato said...

"reach the conclusion I did without"

should be

"reach the conclusion you did without"

Anonymous said...

Cato:

I think you meant to say the people of this world are masochists, and the government is one big spiked dildo.

AndyRand said...

CATO:

"How is viewing people as ends not means (Stalin viewed people as means) incompatible with Christianity?"
Communism is not compatible with either. It is economic determinism.
Maybe it's just too simple for you. If people are an ends onto themselves, there is no need for God.
Christianity is based emulating the selfless example of Christ. Objectivism is centered on the ultimate selfishness of me, myself and I. Not that Christians are not selfish, but they recognized themselves are sinners as falling short of the Glory of God. Objectivists deny original sin and see humanity as the ultimately rational and good.
I think reality speaks for itself as to the inate "goodness" of man.
You only show respect for man's accomplishments not man as man or as Christians would say children of God.

Maybe you mean something entirely different than what I interpreted?


Anonymous,
As much as I agree with your Trump
senitments.
Dildo and Cato is a pretty poor
rhyme and really uncalled for.

Anonymous said...

Any one who advocates the doctrine of universal selfish and slanders the dedicately -- and often times drafted -- soldiers who fought and died for the likes of Cato to parrott his crap on this or any blog in the universe deserve a literary knee in the nuts once and awhile.

Samuel L said...

English motherfucker, do you speak it?

In Defense of Cato said...

What luck for rulers that men do not think.

― Adolf Hitler

kerouac capote said...

Hey Slam U L:

This ain't speaking, this is typing.

AndyRand said...

Anon:

"Any one who advocates the doctrine of universal selfish and slanders the dedicately -- and often times drafted -- soldiers who fought and died for the likes of Cato to parrott his crap on this or any blog in the universe deserve a literary knee in the nuts once and awhile."



As much as I disagree with CATO's point of view, I will defend his right to express it. That's what our soldiers fought for.

Anonymous said...

Cato sounds very much like a frequent user from OTBL that likes to refer to people as units. Unfortunately Cato, I don't think you get it.
What is frustrating with your extreme opinion, is the lack of compassion for anyone other than self. I suspect that you live in a very self-imposed isolated world.
You didn't reply to several of my earlier questions about the reality of Christ. I suspect that is because acknowledging him, and his messianic teachings would rock your world. I don't know if you are involved in any form of voluntairyism, but, if you were, you would recognise that there are very real people in this country that do need help.

Cato said...

I am not a "frequent user from OTBL" nor did I ignore your posts. I fail to see any purpose in debating you if you believe that the historical Christ was the same as the Biblical Christ. There was no mass feeding of thousands. There was no walking on the water. These things were prophesy come true, but just like the prophesy of the destruction of the Temple, these prophesys were known (The earliest Gospel was approx. 70 A.D, after the destruction of the Temple) by the authors and thus used to show that he "fullfilled them." The Catholic Church had pleanty of Gospels to work with, some by authors who were not as knowledgeable or who did not share the same Christian escatological vision as the Church wanted to craft. Such things included the "secret sayings" of Jesus, which is a gnostic (we can almost call it Calvinist though) belief that you are saved if "you are in the know." There were many many gospels but only those that showed the prophesies come true and showed Jesus as both God and Man (John would had been rejected had it not been for one line that said he was flesh) were chosen as "divinely inspired." Matthew and Luke were plagarizers off of Mark and Q's work, although they did have some of their own material (hardly divinely inspired unless God is saying "oh copy this word for word!") and John was different and made very many literary illlustions back to the Old Testament. The Gospel of James is used by the Catholic Church for many of their beliefs, including the idea that Mary is the new Garden (The Temple in Jerusalem used to re-inact Genesis every year until the conclusion of which came with a bull that was slaughtered close to where God resided in the front fo the Temple, thus bringing blood (chaos) next to God (order) and recreating the Genesis...) or new Temple from which Jesus came, and that she was immaculately concieved herself, and that there was no pain in childbirth of her (labor pain is a curse that God put on us, since he loves us so much) etc., etc...

Anyway, no Jesus does not "rock my world." I have volunteered, when I felt like it and I do understand there are people who need help. I never denied that. But no ones need justifies taking away what is rightfully mine. WHen I put my time and effort into something I am putting my life into it. To take away things I own is to take away part of my life.

This is fun. Somewhat long, but fun:

http://www.free-market.com/resources/introduction.swf

Anonymous said...

Cato; good argument, but not valid. In a world that at the time was literally limited, much less the cost of papyrus. Some portions of "The Word" were actually written closer to 30-32 AD. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each reported as they saw (some via scribe), and each gospil was based on the authors report versus a duplicated report from one primary author. The timing of the production of many of the texts were comparably recent vs other historical documents. Though noted, "Q" has not yet been found. Theory was that it was used at a reference for verbal proclaimations of Christ's word. Actually, possibly similar to the Gospel of Thomas (not canonized).
Very clearly Christ did not profess Gnostic ideas, though there could easly have been some confusion as identified in the various gospels that were considered gnostic, and not canonized.
The denial of Christ's miracles are simply your opinion, and not refuted historically, or by witness accounts. I accept Mary as a person that gave birth to Christ, and part of the proclaimed lineage of Christ, but not a Diety, though given a great gift.
Cato; I hope that you do more research, and reconsider your opinion of Christ.
As a side note, Though I disagree, I do appreciate your candor. Matreial wealth only lasts until we die, you don't have much gain after that. In what seems to be your opinion, everything then just ends. I believe that it is just the beginning. Though I'm by no means poor, my belonings are just that, material. I've witnessed many situations where life for people abruptly ends. At that time, their acquired material wealth suddenly became meaningless.

Cato said...

No gnostic Jesus? Secret Mark says otherwise, and it was stricken from the rest of the Bible because of it. Secret Mark contains both gnostic and homosexual ideas, and fits perfectly in the story (since the naked youth runs by Jesus randomly while he is in the Garden later).

Matthew Mark Luke and John all reported what they were told. I didn't know that anyone thought they were actually the apolstles themselves who wrote this, I thought everyone agreed they wrote for the aposltes. People just think that they were written in the first half of the first century and that's silly.

You are correct, Q has not been found and whomever finds it it will be like they found the Holy Grail. I wonder if the Church would accept Q as divinely inspired since its words were directly plagarized by so-called dievelny inspired authors of Matthew and Luke.

Mary is not viewed as Diety by the Catholics, nor is she in the Infancy Gospel of James, but she is viewed as the New Eden. Hence the lack of pain at childbirth (a LIE but necessary for the story), how she grew up in the temple (as stated before, they re-inacted the entire genesis story... there) and everything in it... it's all very interesting, but all just really written by people who knew their scripture.

Cato said...

It may or may not be true but Secret Mark is here:

And they come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, 'Son of David, have mercy on me.' But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

And the youth in lenen is refrenced in 14:51. It has nothing to do with anything, aside from this passage...

AndyRand said...

CATO:

I know you are in the midst of an interesting scriptural debate with anon. but...

How do you reconcile these two statements made by you in this very thread?

"Have-nots are nothing more than fairy tales the government tells children to take their money."

"I do understand there are people who need help. I never denied that."

Perhaps the first is only hyperbole?

Cato said...

When I think of have-nots I think of people after a tsunami destroyed them. I don't think of this guy who has a sign that says "throw quarters at me for fun" who wastes space out infront of some store in Uptown.

I did give money to one guy just for being clever and making me laugh once though:

"Ninjas killed my family. Need money for kung-fu lessons."

Anyway, yes there are people who "need help." But are they "have-nots"? No. Over half the people in this country are owners of stock. That isn't government's doing, that's individuals taking initiative. Sure there are "poor" people. But nearly all poor people have a color tv, most have two cars, almost all have heating, most have AC, and the average living space for a "poor person" in this country is more than a "middle class" person in Europe. Oh my god they are so poor! They don't have 3 cars, what a life of destitution!

AndyRand said...

CATO:said

"Sure there are "poor" people. But nearly all poor people have a color tv, most have two cars, almost all have heating, most have AC, and the average living space for a "poor person" in this country is more than a "middle class" person in Europe. Oh my god they are so poor! They don't have 3 cars, what a life of destitution!"

You can't really believe this?
I know people with disablities that are suppost to live on less than $1000/mo and have NO car and cannot afford to see a dentist. If this is
your vision of the "poor" in this country your are certainly delusional. And you would have that income taken from them as well.
--------------
"I did give money to one guy just for being clever and making me laugh once though:

"Ninjas killed my family. Need money for kung-fu lessons."

I guess this does prove you have a sense of humor.

Cato said...

Actually I know those figures to be true; don't blink facts that are not to your taste.

There is a very small portion of the population who are as you describe. Minisule, but still there, yes. However, I don't know people with disabilites. Why should I help people who I have no idea whether or not they deserve my aid? Just because someone else said it'd be a "good thing"? Sorry, I disagree. I don't know if they are lying. I believe "obesity" is now a "disability," is it not? There is no way in hell I would ever help them gorge themselves more. I don't see why it is government's place to act there. If it is for some "greater good," pray tell, what greater good?

You can help everyone you want. I'll help anyone I want as well.

Frankly I think the ADA is one of the worst peieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress. Yay lets classify our citizens some more!

Anonymous said...

Cato
Secret Mark was written over 100 years after Christs death, and as with many other non canonozed texts, the auther was in question. Likewise there was a strong effort to refute Christ. Christ did not disagree with the law or what abonimations were, but he did say the salvation was through him. Christ became the sacrificial unblemished lamb as prophecis predicted. A
roab without underclothing was not uncommon, but had nothing to do with homosexuality. I disagree with your reference. I've read that document along with the archaeological study material. It was not written by Mark. Actually there would be more of a caes for Mary Magdalene and Christ. Sorry Cato, your a bit off.

Cato said...

"But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him."

Who cares about him being naked. That's the homosexual refrence. I'm not saying Jesus was ever with him, nor is that implied, but I think that's pretty obvious there...

The Gnostic Jesus actually ISN'T against Jesus' teachings. It's against Christian (read: THE CHURCH) teachings.

AndyRand said...

"However, I don't know people with disabilites."

If this is true, you indeed lead a sheltered life.
Perhaps in the most extreme cases obesity can be a disability. Some of the obese are that way because they got a rotten throw of the gene pool dice. Most are not, I agree.

"I have no idea whether or not they deserve my aid? "
Why not download a Soc.Sec. Disability Form, fill it out and apply. There are qualifications. In some instances they are so restricive they can not reasonably be investigated or enforced. In those instance where the qualifications are circumvented we are looking at fraud, not disability. Disabilities need to be verified by several medical doctors.
I don't think doctors would risk their licences to practice medicine to accommodate fraud. Some might but
probably sooner or later wind up in jail.

lavendar said...

The first fragment of the Secret Gospel of Mark, meant to be inserted between Mark 10.34 and 35, reads:

They came to Bethany. There was one woman there whose brother had died. She came and prostrated herself before Jesus and spoke to him. "Son of David, pity me!" But the disciples rebuked her. Jesus was angry and went with her into the garden where the tomb was. Immediately a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going up to it, Jesus rolled the stone away from the door of the tomb, and immediately went in where the young man was. Stretching out his hand, he lifted him up, taking hold his hand. And the youth, looking intently at him, loved him and started begging him to let him remain with him. And going out of the tomb, they went into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus gave him an order and, at evening, the young man came to him wearing nothing but a linen cloth. And he stayed with him for the night, because Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And then when he left he went back to the other side of the Jordan.

Then a second fragment of Secret Mark is given, this time to be inserted into Mark 10.46. This has long been recognized as a narrative snag in Mark's Gospel, as it awkwardly reads, "Then they come to Jericho. As he was leaving Jericho with his disciples..." This strange construction is not present in Secret Mark, which reads:

Then he came into Jericho. And the sister of the young man whom Jesus loved was there with his mother and Salome, but Jesus would not receive them.
---
Meanwhile over in Greece:

More recently, several authors, have argued that pederasty was not the only form of homosexuality known in Greek and Roman culture in the first century AD. Smith and Boswell especially give numerous examples of homosexual relationships that were not age structured, and were based on mutual consent. Moreover, both Roman and Greek cultures accepted homosexuality, and at times instituted it in non-pederastic forms. For example, Polybius (2nd century BC, Rome) reports that "most young men had male lovers" [Greenberg, 154]. Further, "many of the Roman emperors had homosexual tastes," and "in Greece, sexual preferences were frequently not exclusive," to the inclusion of Julius Caesar (Cato states that he was "every woman's husband, and every man's wife") [Greenberg, 155-56].

Anonymous said...

That is correct in how some people misinterpreted Christ's word, and it missed Christ's point. He is the Mesiah. Cato, I can't make you believe, that is an issue you seem to be fighting with.
What Christ said must be placed in the context of how he communicated, and the language of the day. He often spoke in parables, yet he was clear on sin and redemption. When looking at an example of language, nails were said to have been driven through Christ's hands, yet at that time, the wrist was considered part of the hand. The Roman's were particularly good at torture and carrying out punishment(crucifixion being one of the worst).They knew that putting a stake through the palm would tear out, and by putting it through the wrist would hold. The wrist has a very sensitive nerve (causing excruciating pain), would lock the hand, and hold the person in place. I'm not a scholar, and have been communicating from what I know, and believe. I haven't been using my references to this point, but it looks like I'll need to. I'll get back on the issues soon, but I'm working on some projects at home and will have to delay my reply.

Cato said...

When I say "deserve"... only someone who will use it for something I find beneficial to me or humankind would deserve my aid. Continouing a sad existence does not benefit me or humankind. It may benefit their relatives and freinds, but let them take care of the person then.

As for anon, the church is the one who made the canon, and if you accept that people are failable and messed up, then does that not mean that other gospels could indeed be true?

666 said...

Cato:

Your statement "When I say "deserve"... only someone who will use it for something I find beneficial to me or humankind would deserve my aid. Continuing a sad existence does not benefit me or humankind," strikes me as Hilter-lite. You don't advocate actually stuffing those that you deem the bottom feeders of society into the ovens, you would prefer to just let them wither into a coma and die -- hopefully out in the woods where public employees wouldn't have to use taxpayer dollars to dispose to their carcusses.

I don't think the libertarian party will be hiring you into their PR department.

Cato said...

Goodwin's...

And so I will not respond.

The Boss said...

666,

I think CATO knocked off his wealth building/blogging activities for the day. Good excuse for not responding.

Mrs. Cato said...

Cato:

Cut that crap out about your hotsy totsy libertarian ideals, shutoff that damn computer and get your ass up here front and center. It's the wseekend and I've got a "honey-do" list for you...

666 said...

Cato:

If it makes you feel better, I'm listening to Rush on the CD player. The current song is Freewill.

IF I WERE CATO said...

Gone Fishing

Wally The Beer Dude said...

No without a six pack of Blogger Lager...

Anonymous said...

Cato
Just to finish off this discusson from last week;
The Secret Gospel of Mark is thought to have been produced between 100 & 200 years AD. There is no substantiated proof that it was anything than a fraud. Additionally, there was no other substantiation to those texts.
It is unknown who moved the stone, but most certainly, if Christ had not died, he would have been in no condition to move the stone much less walk, or use his hands. Based on the practice of crucifixtions, and the testimony given in Christs crucifixion, he died. To believe that he move the stone blocking the tomb, would indicate a recognition of his rising. Sorry Cato, I don't buy your story.

Cato said...

I never said anything about the ressurection. Something had to have happened to have spread so quickly among the people. I am not sure of what. But the miracles he preformed? They were made up.

Mark can only be traced back to around 70 AD. What is so authentic about it? Because the Catholic Church stamped it's approval on it long long ago, it's "correct"?

666 said...

If it was true that Jesus really didn't perform miracles, would that mean He wasn't the Son of God and that all Christian religion is based on lies and propaganda?

Cato said...

Well the historical Jesus is much of a mystery. The resurrection is what people point to as the important part of Jesus -- and I do think something must have happened. What that something was I cannot say.

The miracles were but signs made up by the writers that pointed to something bigger. I could say you could awknowledge there were no miracles yet believe in the resurrection and be a Christian. I am not a Christian though so I will not comment further 666.

Anonymous said...

Cato
The miracles were based on witness accounts, and what is written in the supporting texts Biblically. I don't know that other than through faith, one can trust (believe the miricles). The same has been said by some twisted individuals on the Holocaust. Though I disagree with you on issues, you at least will debate, and I respect that.
Christ did die through Crucifixion, I believe that. I've studied forensics at the FBI national academy, and elsewhere. Based on the reporting of physiological data given, it is factual. I've seen more than my share of dead people, as I'm sure the Roman Solders did, I suspect that they were very experienced at recognizing death. There were reported accounts of witnessing Christ risen, again I believe the truthfulness to those reports. Many of those witnesses were willing to live difficult lives, and many ultimately gave their lives in horrible ways to profess their observarions, and as witnesses their knowledge of Christ, and his resurrection. Most people would have given it up if they knew these things to be lies, and there would have been documentation of that acknowledgement.
Cato;
I hope you do change your mind about your faith.