Comments on: Pastor Wright: blame it on his first name

By: Finz Isamu

Finz Isamu — Thu, 07 Apr 2011 18:21:44 +0000

Free to watch movies and tv

By: alex farguson

alex farguson — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 19:25:06 +0000

nice post…

By: Nolanimrod

Nolanimrod — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 06:27:08 +0000

Now you’re cookin’, Neo. Good job. Jeremiah was also the prophet who brought down (literally, as it turned out) Ahab, no?

By: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad

Tom Grey - Liberty Dad — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 16:36:38 +0000

I find the Acts (of the Apostles) to be quite “socialist”. Based on the wrong belief that Jesus Christ would really return in his Second Coming, before the Apostles die.

It’s not clear when this socialism was revised to be more sustainable.

I strongly favor peaceful, voluntary socialism — but more strongly oppose involuntary redistribution. Taxes are not collected peacefully.
(The credible threat of violent force is not peaceful — imagine the IRS without the power to garnish wages or jail you or do anything other than hurt your reputation.)

Churches which want the gov’t to do charity in solving a problem, are asking for non-peaceful solutions to that problem. They should, instead, be solving the problem peacefully, and voluntarily.

Too bad there is no corporate organization that rewards managers only for hiring more people, with the “middle line” of headcount maximization being the goal — using revenue in excess of current costs to increase headcount (and costs, thus reducing “profit”).

This idea is sort of “Jobism” — not sure if this is formal. “Living wage” folk don’t like it because they think most jobs aren’t so hot. I don’t like their silly socialist ideas.

By: sergey

sergey — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 13:12:13 +0000

Vince, not should, of course. But, realistically, can be expected to. I have seen many times how persecution or harassment makes people paranoid. All “old Russians” are paranoid about KGB, with very few exceptions.

By: sergey

sergey — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:52:44 +0000

Life in Stone Age surely was not a paradise, as hippies and Christian anarchists, like Leo Tolstoy, painted it. But it still was socialist, while short and brutal.

By: Vince P

Vince P — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:47:45 +0000

I can understand Wright’s jeremiads to some extent

Of course. Because being exposed to “racism” means that one should believe things like the US Govt invented HIV to kill blacks and all the rest.

It’s all about empowerment!

By: sergey

sergey — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 10:41:53 +0000

I can understand Wright’s jeremiads to some extent. If you were exposed to racial hatred in your childhood, you can be expected to be a bit paranoid and oversensitive to this stuff, and see racism where no of it is actually present. Early emotional traumas are pervasive, they tend to color all subsequent perceptions. But Obama sells himself as a new, post-racial generation politician, and his almoust life-long association with such a person reveals either poor judgment or hypocrisy. Both cases are very damaging to his public image, and if many his black supporters see nothing wrong with it, it certainly weakens his appeal to young whites, who actually can not see any justification for race-baiting.

By: sergey

sergey — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 08:40:06 +0000

Art, your definition of socializm is different from mine. You imply state-imposed socialism; I describe a community where the is no private property, no money, no institutionalized hierarhy and no written law. Statehood, markets, law – all this are very recent concepts, thay do not apply to Stone Age.
Any pre-agricultural community in this sense was socialist, and many of them were remarkably stable. Even now such communities exist in Israel; but membership in them is all-voluntary, and this is critically important. State-imposed socializm implies coercion, and exactly this makes it unworkable.

By: Artfldgr

Artfldgr — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 05:00:37 +0000

sergey,
the groups in the past were not socialist. no one ‘shared’ like we do till much later. food is scarce, and from wasps up to humans those that have a bit more can do better. we have always competed just like every other evolving living thing.

there were locations and things that at times resembles socialism, but they were not that at all. they just had plenty for a while.

once you do some math, you can figure out the math situation where you can have enough for some and not for all.

all the ways we solve problems today, like voting, they didnt have. life was more like the western town where each family tilled their own.

in fact viking law followed natural law. as your stake was the amount of property you could walk around in a day.

life before our inventions didnt have enough food. look at africa, then remove all food shipments and farms, and thats what we were pretty much like.

we were also cannibals. probably why we are so smart. an arms race within the species, as we hunted each other. predator pray tends not to increase past some balance.

there were no noble savages… life was as hobbes said, brutal and short.

however, if you look at how we develop, our intelligences could go up faster as long as societies didnt change the percieved landscape. once they did that, we would develop for a world that matched the rules of what pressure they change and hold, not the world we walk around in.

no socialist group has ever lasted other than fake modern socialism.

socialism is really the state trying to take over the communal function of knit groups… to make charity statist.

however, no one that actually pushes it sees it that way.

sorry got to go, real late. .