Incidentally, I invite people to consider who is more prejudiced--the

non-believer or the believer.  Here's the self-described Catholic:



"I don't know Hudson but everything I've read by him and

heard about makes me think that he is just a retread commie trying to Coopt land

taxation. So basically I'm skeptical on most of his assertions/ propaganda."





"Are you sure you're just not a shill to make lvt seem like a nutty thing."





And here's the self-described agnostic:



"I haven't avoided Augustine, Aquinas or St. Anselm because they are Catholic

(and have in fact enjoyed and learned from them), but I take their extreme

religious involvement to make it necessary to exercise additional caution when

reading them."





Who is more charitable with respect to views with which he does not agree?  You

be the judge.



W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:



> "I don't know Hudson but everything I've read by him and

> heard about makes me think that he is just a retread

> commie trying to Coopt land taxation.



I do not get that impression at all. He is clearly anti private monopolies for

sure - and pro unrigged free-market. He tends to see things as they are in a

pragmatic manner.  I have a lot of empathy with him. He is a very bright man.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "John" <burns-john@...> wrote:

>

> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:

>

> > "I don't know Hudson but everything I've read by him and

> > heard about makes me think that he is just a retread

> > commie trying to Coopt land taxation.

>

> I do not get that impression at all. He is clearly anti private monopolies for

sure - and pro unrigged free-market. He tends to see things as they are in a

pragmatic manner.  I have a lot of empathy with him. He is a very bright man.

>





Just thought I'd point out that, in spite of your citation, I didn't write

that--JDK did. My post actually criticized his remark.



W

The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy.  When it was able

to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.  It can't now,

so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is ensuring that

members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.



--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

>

> I barely even know what this thread is about and a point by point response

> really makes this tedious.  So I'll write in general.

>

> First, being catholic does not make one more or less likely to be

> "charitable" (the word used by Walt).  All humans can be charitable and

> should be.  Catholics do not have a monopolistic privilege in sainthood.

>  It is open to everybody:  Atheist, Agnostic, Catholic, Buddhist, whatever,

> can be jerks or saints or mostly both.  That's just human condition.

>

> I don't think I was being uncharitable.  I'm pretty left of center.  I've

> been called a commie and a socialist before.  My only objection to that is

> that it implies I might be an atheist or that I am against private

> property.  I'm all for private private property in both things and even

> land, subject to the "universal destination" of goods and the earth.

>

> I am pretty sure that Mr. Hudson is a socialist and/or was a communist.  I

> don't think that he'd take offense to being called that -  (he might object

> to the "retread" part).  But he really isn't first and foremost a Georgist

> or a Land Taxer.  And I suppose we could delve (but I wont because I don't

> know all the facts) into his break with the Shalkenbach crowd.  All I was

> saying was that the stuff of his that I've read makes me believe that he is

> a socialist (I used the word "commie"  because I do think up until the

> collapse of Sov. Union; he was on board with that system.  I thought he

> favored "state capitalism" instead of "private enterprise imperialism".  So

> from what I've read and from what I've generically heard, it seems as

> though he is a co-opter of the Georgist thing.  Some of the stuff he writes

> is very interesting but there something in his writing that makes me

> skeptical - its hard to tease out what is real and what is exaggeration and

> what is revisionist history.

>

> So the basic formula here is I've read some of his stuff and I've heard

> some things and my intuition tells me to be skeptical and that he seems

> like a old-time socialist maybe trying to co-opt Georgist theme of land

> taxation, so be skeptical.  I'm not skeptical because he is a socialist (if

> he isn't well my apologies), but because of my interaction with his

> writings and with what I've heard.   In other words,  EVIDENCE leading to

> skeptical view.    NOT skepticism based on what he is.

>

> As to Roy.  His evolutionary theory of "natural rights" is just a bunch of

> cockamamie nonsense.  The whole point is of the concept of "natural rights"

> is that it is supposed to be universal and free from culture or political

> system.   His way of looking at it can not even get you to a universal

> right to life or liberty.  (Saying nothing of utter lack of knowledge of

> genetics of the nearly, I'd say entirely, non-existent link between culture

> and genetics.)   Just suppose by some fluke (which is a big part of how

> evolution works), the whole world gets destroyed except for North Korea and

> Roy Langston.  Good luck Roy because the individual right to life or

> liberty will not be what has "survived".   Do you think North Koreas

> (nearly three generations of them) have some special gene that makes them

> predispose to their notion of society and oppression?  It is, in fact,

> nutty.

>

> So basically, to my way of thinking, Roy's exposition of his theory of

> natural rights ensures that natural right to use land is basically done as

> a persuasive argument in favor of land value taxation.  That's why I asked

> the question about whether he was a shill for corporations against LVT.

> Because that is a known method of disinformation propoganda -  you link an

> idea you are against with a cockamamie idea of an ostensible supporter of

> the idea.

>

> Again, the formula is EVIDENCE leading to my view (actually a question but

> perhaps rhetorical.)

>

> Now we come to Walt, who knows full well Roy's theory of natural rights is

> crazy.  Both in its basis and its implications.  But he is going to bust my

> chops for calling it out, in one post from the beginning rather than

> dragging it out in a tit for tat thread.

>

> My beef with Walt is that he says IF someone is catholic or religious THEN

> a priori his writings are tainted, even if in the end they are useful or

> interesting.   That is PRE-judging, i.e. prejudice. Now my responses may

> well be too rough or caustic or non-charitable,  but I am not presuming

> taint -  I am making judgments based on the writings or history.  I am

> judging the message,  not judging the messenger a priori.

>

> What's the bigger message for land taxers -   I think that George's ideas

> have suffered during the last hundred years of being co-opted by

> libertarians, anarchists, socialists, communists, environmentalists,  the

> I'd like a CD or BIG because I'd rather not actually hold down job, and the

> professional Georgists and/or int'l conference goers.  (You all know who

> your are. And I know you are all trying your best.)  Maybe, it is the other

> way around and at some point Georgists were trying to coopt these groups.

>  But all of these groups are on the fringe.  And it is very hard to do

> legislation from the fringe or margin.

>

> I don't need to convert anybody to Catholicism.  As far as I am concerned

> the whole of humanity is already catholic, even if they don't know it.

>  This is basic catholic teaching. Lumen Gentium   Follow and inform your

> conscious and you can't go wrong, even when you go wrong.  This is also

> basic catholic teaching.

>

> But from a practical view, being able to appeal to the nominal catholic

> church about land taxation is a way to make land taxation less a fringe

> notion. I do think the lesson is the Henry George had his great success

> because of his association with McGlyn - who in the end was reinstated and

> who in the beginning was not punish by church because of land value

> taxation but because of petty disputes between him and his bishop about

> authority (privates don't bust the chops of generals) and about comingling

> public education and catholic education (McGlyn didn't  want to take public

> money to educate kids).

>

> And also, there is a lot in the tradition of the church that the left could

> benefit from - if they put away their knee jerk prejudice.  (The right is a

> dead dead end.  Just remember Gorbachev called Pope John Paul II "one of

> the most important thinkers of the left".  "OF THE LEFT!".)   Henry George

> is part of the Left, to put him in any other camp is revisionist. He wasn't

> a land nationalizer or communist or socialist but he is squarely in the

> tradition of the left.

>

> JDK

>

> "Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the

> rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are

> not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him

> back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be

> for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the

> rich."  Populorum progressio

>

> typed in haste and not proof read.

>

>

> On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 9:13 PM, walto <calhorn@...> wrote:

> >

> >  Incidentally, I invite people to consider who is more prejudiced--the

> > non-believer or the believer. Here's the self-described Catholic:

> >

> > "I don't know Hudson but everything I've read by him and

> > heard about makes me think that he is just a retread commie trying to

> > Coopt land taxation. So basically I'm skeptical on most of his assertions/

> > propaganda."

> >

> > "Are you sure you're just not a shill to make lvt seem like a nutty thing?"

> >

> > And here's the self-described agnostic:

> >

> > "I haven't avoided Augustine, Aquinas or St. Anselm because they are

> > Catholic (and have in fact enjoyed and learned from them), but I take their

> > extreme religious involvement to make it necessary to exercise additional

> > caution when reading them."

> >

> > Who is more charitable with respect to views with which he does not agree?

> > You be the judge.

> >

> > W

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> --

> Very truly yours

>

> John D. Kromkowski

> 6803 York Road -- Suite 207

> Baltimore, MD 21212

>

> Tel     410-377-6248

> Fax     410-372-0624

> Mobile  443-271-0500

>

> This communication, along with any documents, files or attachments, is

> intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain legally

> privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended

> recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or

> copying of any information contained in or attached to this communication

> is strictly prohibited.

>

> If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender

> immediately and destroy the original communication and its attachments

> without reading, printing or saving  in any manner.

>

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

>

> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...

> > wrote:

> >

> >  The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it

> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.

> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is

> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.

> >

> Thanks for sharing this one too.  I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.

>  It really is best if we get it all out in the open.  It's for the same

> reason I won't hide my background.

>

> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for

> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with

> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice.  I'd still have a beer in

> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.

>

> JDK



*shrugs*  Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think

there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. 

Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene."  Basically, ideas are

duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's

survival of the fittest.  The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." 

Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that

generally act as a drain on society?  They're very advanced critters in the

world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive

weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to

question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis

for social behavior.



Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic

virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is,

and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as

well as emotional) of clergy.  Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc

opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible

enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in

particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to

be mixed up with it.



Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's

less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the

internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions,

but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid

evolution of memes.  The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I

think people will just eventually find a new normal.



One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the

sinner.  I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you.  It's worth making a

conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because

it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:

>

> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:

> >

> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > >  The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it

> > > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.

> > > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing

is

> > > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.

> > >

> > Thanks for sharing this one too.  I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.

> >  It really is best if we get it all out in the open.  It's for the same

> > reason I won't hide my background.

> >

> > This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for

> > charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with

> > mutual love of beer or gin or your choice.  I'd still have a beer in

> > Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.

> >

> > JDK

>

> *shrugs*  Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think

there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. 

Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene."  Basically, ideas are

duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's

survival of the fittest.  The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." 

Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that

generally act as a drain on society?  They're very advanced critters in the

world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive

weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to

question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis

for social behavior.

>

> Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic

virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is,

and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as

well as emotional) of clergy.  Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc

opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible

enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in

particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to

be mixed up with it.

>

> Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's

less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the

internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions,

but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid

evolution of memes.  The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I

think people will just eventually find a new normal.

>

> One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the

sinner.  I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you.  It's worth making a

conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because

it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.

>



You mean, except Roy.



W

As JDK will be quick to tell you, I'm not terribly sympathetic to organized

religion, and I generally agree with Matt's post.  The only thing I'd disagree

with (as being overly cynical) is the claim that the main point of these

organizations involves clergy enrichment.  I think the main basis has always

been human fear of death and separation.  Or, more generally, loneliness.  So

religions fill a natural need.  No doubt the organizations take advantage of

those frailties and (like nationalism and sports) play on homerism/team spirit,

which has often just translated into fear and loathing of  other such groups. 

And they have been more than willing to scoop up the money, power, land, etc. to

be gained from the business.  But I don't think that the greed preceded the

need.



What interesting along these lines are Dennett's recent findings that the so

much of the clergy tends to believe so much less of their doctrines than their

parishioners.  They go to seminary because of their needs/beliefs, but they

learn there that it's mostly hocum.  E.g., they may be taught as children that

the Bible is the divine word of God, but when they get to seminary they learn

how it was actually scraped together.  And they find that many of the arguments

they bought as children are actually fallacious or contrary to the modern

science that brought them airplanes and microwaves.



Anyhow, even though it's a huge and painful revelation for many of these

students, many of them have gone so far down their career path they just stay on

it.  They come to feel that both they and their churchgoers get something out of

the malarky and convince themselves that it decreases suicides or increases

charity or whatever else makes them feel ok about living in that fashion.



W





--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "mattbieker" <agrarian.justice@...> wrote:

>

> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@> wrote:

> >

> > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > >  The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it

> > > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.

> > > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing

is

> > > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.

> > >

> > Thanks for sharing this one too.  I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.

> >  It really is best if we get it all out in the open.  It's for the same

> > reason I won't hide my background.

> >

> > This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for

> > charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with

> > mutual love of beer or gin or your choice.  I'd still have a beer in

> > Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.

> >

> > JDK

>

> *shrugs*  Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think

there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. 

Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene."  Basically, ideas are

duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's

survival of the fittest.  The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." 

Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that

generally act as a drain on society?  They're very advanced critters in the

world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive

weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to

question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis

for social behavior.

>

> Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic

virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is,

and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as

well as emotional) of clergy.  Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc

opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible

enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in

particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to

be mixed up with it.

>

> Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's

less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the

internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions,

but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid

evolution of memes.  The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I

think people will just eventually find a new normal.

>

> One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the

sinner.  I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you.  It's worth making a

conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because

it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.

>

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:

>

> As JDK will be quick to tell you, I'm not terribly sympathetic to organized

religion, and I generally agree with Matt's post.  The only thing I'd disagree

with (as being overly cynical) is the claim that the main point of these

organizations involves clergy enrichment.  I think the main basis has always

been human fear of death and separation.  Or, more generally, loneliness.  So

religions fill a natural need.  No doubt the organizations take advantage of

those frailties and (like nationalism and sports) play on homerism/team spirit,

which has often just translated into fear and loathing of  other such groups. 

And they have been more than willing to scoop up the money, power, land, etc. to

be gained from the business.  But I don't think that the greed preceded the

need.



I'd argue that they subsist on -or rather, exploit- that need.  One could say

church-goers pray, and churches prey. :)



> What interesting along these lines are Dennett's recent findings that the so

much of the clergy tends to believe so much less of their doctrines than their

parishioners.  They go to seminary because of their needs/beliefs, but they

learn there that it's mostly hocum.  E.g., they may be taught as children that

the Bible is the divine word of God, but when they get to seminary they learn

how it was actually scraped together.  And they find that many of the arguments

they bought as children are actually fallacious or contrary to the modern

science that brought them airplanes and microwaves.

>

> Anyhow, even though it's a huge and painful revelation for many of these

students, many of them have gone so far down their career path they just stay on

it.  They come to feel that both they and their churchgoers get something out of

the malarky and convince themselves that it decreases suicides or increases

charity or whatever else makes them feel ok about living in that fashion.

>

> W



Another point I want to make here, is that I don't necessarily argue that the

clergy does this knowingly.  As you point out, many surely do.  But that's

somewhat irrelevant to the point; it's the entire organism of the religion that

does the exploiting.  That said, its definitely more repugnant when the church

was set up and exists specifically to knowingly exploit people, as is the case

with Scientology or one of those churches run by a "faith healer."



It's an interesting way of looking at human institutions.  What's really

interesting is that, even though Henry George was a devout Christian, he argued

somewhat along these lines.  In SPE, he argued at length of how societies are

like a great organism, with the culture as its organs, and the state as its

brain.

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:



> The only thing I'd disagree with (as being overly cynical) is the claim that

the main point of these organizations involves clergy enrichment.  I think the

main basis has always been human fear of death and separation.  Or, more

generally, loneliness.  So religions fill a natural need.



You are conflating the organization with the beliefs it promulgates.



> But I don't think that the greed preceded the need.



In addition to the human aversion to the fact of personal mortality, a major

basis of religion has been the human need to believe the world is

comprehensible.  So religions typically offer an array of just-so stories to

explain phenomena that pre-scientific thinking could not explain.



> What interesting along these lines are Dennett's recent findings that the so

much of the clergy tends to believe so much less of their doctrines than their

parishioners.  They go to seminary because of their needs/beliefs, but they

learn there that it's mostly hocum.  E.g., they may be taught as children that

the Bible is the divine word of God, but when they get to seminary they learn

how it was actually scraped together.  And they find that many of the arguments

they bought as children are actually fallacious or contrary to the modern

science that brought them airplanes and microwaves.



Yes, I have a friend who went to a Jesuit seminary, and went through that kind

of deprogramming until the day one of his teachers said, "Of course, we don't

actually _believe_..."  That was the end of that.



> Anyhow, even though it's a huge and painful revelation for many of these

students, many of them have gone so far down their career path they just stay on

it.  They come to feel that both they and their churchgoers get something out of

the malarky and convince themselves that it decreases suicides or increases

charity or whatever else makes them feel ok about living in that fashion.



Just as slave owners, rent seekers, etc. rationalize doing evil.



-- Roy Langston

RL "So religions typically offer an array of just-so stories to explain

phenomena that pre-scientific thinking could not explain"



Classic conflation between pagan non scientific superstitious nonsense and the

Church's tradition going back to Jewish roots.  (You [the pagans] worship what

you do not know; we know what we worship [the Jews]). If I was a Protestant I'd

give you cite I think in John.  See modern physics and ancient faith, Stephen

Barr. 2003



Science presents no obstacle to my tradition



Jdk



On Nov 17, 2012, at 1:32 PM, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:



> So religions typically offer an array of just-so stories to explain phenomena

that pre-scientific thinking could not explain

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:



> RL "So religions typically offer an array of just-so stories to explain

phenomena that pre-scientific thinking could not explain"

>

> Classic conflation between pagan non scientific superstitious nonsense and the

Church's tradition going back to Jewish roots.  (You [the pagans] worship what

you do not know; we know what we worship [the Jews]).



I.e., the God that periodically puts a rainbow in the sky to remind the Jews of

his covenant with them, and not just whenever sunlight coming from behind them

happens to refract and reflect through raindrops in front of them...



And snakes have no legs because one of them deceived the first woman, not

because it led to reproductive success in certain niches eons before the first

woman was born.



Etc.



> Science presents no obstacle to my tradition



The seminary Jesuits beg to differ.



But lets not do this on LandCafe, OK?



-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:



> you cannot persuade governments to adopt lvt from the fringe, and I might be a

radical but I am not on the fringe of the masses.

>

> So if you've got some kooky baggage then everybody ought to know about it or

you ought to be able to keep it to yourself, but quite a few of you have decided

you want to lead with it.

>





"You mean John is selling those raffle tickets?  But he's a kook!"



"What do you mean?"



"Well he thinks you should have to pay full rental value of your land every year

to the government--just like you hadn't paid for it already!"



"Wow, that IS kooky, but on the other side of the coin, he goes to St. Agnes--so

he couldn't be completely crazy."



"Yeah, that sounds ok, then.  It's not like he was an atheist or an agnostic or

something really screwed up like that. I guess it might be ok to buy the tickets

from him."



"Don't worry, honey, I'd never have even THOUGHT of buying anything from an

atheist.  I mean, even if I won the lottery they'd never have paid up.  Probably

just take the money and send it to terrorists or Satan or something."



"No kidding."



W

 

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:

> you cannot persuade governments to adopt lvt from the fringe, and I might be a radical but I am not on the fringe of the masses.
>
> So if you've got some kooky baggage then everybody ought to know about it or you ought to be able to keep it to yourself, but quite a few of you have decided you want to lead with it.
>

"You mean John is selling those raffle tickets? But he's a kook!"

"What do you mean?"

"Well he thinks you should have to pay full rental value of your land every year to the government--just like you hadn't paid for it already!"

"Wow, that IS kooky, but on the other side of the coin, he goes to St. Agnes--so he couldn't be completely crazy."

"Yeah, that sounds ok, then. It's not like he was an atheist or an agnostic or something really screwed up like that. I guess it might be ok to buy the tickets from him."

"Don't worry, honey, I'd never have even THOUGHT of buying anything from an atheist. I mean, even if I won the lottery they'd never have paid up. Probably just take the money and send it to terrorists or Satan or something."

"No kidding."

W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, JDKromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:



> That's literature.



Just-so stories _are_ literature.  Before science, religion offered just-so

stories to explain by supernatural agency phenomena that science has since

explained naturally.  The history of religions over the last 500 years,

especially the Catholic church, is largely a history of first ignoring the

scientific explanations that conflicted with their just-so stories, then

denouncing them, then persecuting those who sought to inform their ignorance,

then sheepishly changing their tune while never admitting they were wrong. 

Galileo, Darwin, etc. could inform you on this long thread of church history.



> There is no Jesuit or nor diocesan nor priest of any order that believes that

science is an obstacle to Catholicism. Give me the name and location so I might

inquire with his bishop or superior or him personally.



"_Nobody_ expects the Spanish Inquisition!"



> We should do this here, because you cannot persuade governments to adopt lvt

from the fringe, and I might be a radical but I am not on the fringe of the

masses.



I doubt that any great reform ever started anywhere but the fringe.



> So if you've got some kooky baggage then everybody ought to know about it or

you ought to be able to keep it to yourself,



As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"



> but quite a few of you have decided you want to lead with it.



Nonsense.  You ask, I'll tell you.



-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:



> Was Aristotle a just-so story teller?



Example?



> As to your other pronouncements, I didn't know that there were still

> historical materialists around. Your theory is just another version of Marxist

determinism.



Garbage.  You appear to have no understanding whatever of my theory.



> Hate to break it to you but neither evolution nor

> history have a direction.



Clearly false.  Evolution is moving toward higher specific energy use, history

toward an Enlightenment view of human rights.



-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:

>  Evolution is moving toward higher specific energy use, history toward an

Enlightenment view of human rights.

>

> -- Roy Langston

>



What would you take to be disconfirming events for these theories.  Do elections

in Peru count?  African massacres?  The growth of various religions?  The

increased resistance to anti-biotics?



W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:



> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:

> >  Evolution is moving toward higher specific energy use, history toward an

Enlightenment view of human rights.

>

> What would you take to be disconfirming events for these theories.



A decline in the dominance of warm-blooded animals over cold-blooded would

indicate evolution was moving toward lower specific energy use, and the

emergence of a major world power whose government system was based on the divine

right of kings would indicate a retreat from the Enlightenment view of human

rights.



> Do elections in Peru count?



As much as any others.



> African massacres?



As much as any others.  It is indisputable that the fraction of the population

dying by violence is far lower now than in former centuries.



> The growth of various religions?



Most religions are actually in decline, and I expect this to continue, though it

will take time.  The Net is enabling a fearsome winnowing.  Religious people try

to defend their beliefs in online forums, are invariably demolished and

humiliated, and this is witnessed by millions of smart-phone subscribers who

would otherwise never have been exposed to reasoned argument on the subject.  I

suspect that in 30-50 years, Islam will be the only remaining significant

religion, and it will have to be sustained by oil money, overt violence, and

brutal suppression of dissent.



> The increased resistance to anti-biotics?



For all its microscopic significance in the evolutionary scale of eons.



-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@...> wrote:

>

> --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@> wrote:

>

> > --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "roy_langston" <roy_langston@> wrote:

> > >  Evolution is moving toward higher specific energy use, history toward an

Enlightenment view of human rights.

> >

> > What would you take to be disconfirming events for these theories.

>

> A decline in the dominance of warm-blooded animals over cold-blooded would

indicate evolution was moving toward lower specific energy use, and the

emergence of a major world power whose government system was based on the divine

right of kings would indicate a retreat from the Enlightenment view of human

rights.

>

> > Do elections in Peru count?

>

> As much as any others.

>

> > African massacres?

>

> As much as any others.  It is indisputable that the fraction of the population

dying by violence is far lower now than in former centuries.

>

> > The growth of various religions?

>

> Most religions are actually in decline, and I expect this to continue, though

it will take time.  The Net is enabling a fearsome winnowing.  Religious people

try to defend their beliefs in online forums, are invariably demolished and

humiliated, and this is witnessed by millions of smart-phone subscribers who

would otherwise never have been exposed to reasoned argument on the subject.  I

suspect that in 30-50 years, Islam will be the only remaining significant

religion, and it will have to be sustained by oil money, overt violence, and

brutal suppression of dissent.

>

> > The increased resistance to anti-biotics?

>

> For all its microscopic significance in the evolutionary scale of eons.

>

> -- Roy Langston

>



You are even more sanguine than Pinker, who doesn't believe in any sort of

historical determinism himself.  Your brand of optimism seems sort of religious

to me, but it's sweet nevertheless.  Hope you're right.



W

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "walto" <calhorn@...> wrote:



> You are even more sanguine than Pinker, who doesn't believe in any sort of

historical determinism himself.  Your brand of optimism seems sort of religious

to me, but it's sweet nevertheless.



It's not determinism, and it's not optimism.  It's just recognition of the truth

of Herodotus's observation that history is philosophy learned from examples.  If

you understand philosophy, and how it is implemented in public policy, you know

in broad terms what is going to happen.



-- Roy Langston

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:



> You're relying upon Herodotus, the father of lies?



Speaking of which, I am doing no such thing.



> How "basically"  could one have predicted, at the time, that the American

> and French Revolutions would lead to the Reign of Terror.



The Terror was an incident of history rather than a direction, but something of

the sort could be predicted from the extremes of privilege and poverty found in

France's ancien regime, and the exceptional arrogance and viciousness of its

privileged classes ("Apres moi le deluge." -- so even Louis himself knew).



> Or that "the

> Enlightenment" would eventually be followed by Nazism and Communism.



As surely as knowing that Locke and Montesquieu were followed by Kant and Hegel,

or that Bach and Mozart were followed by Wagner and Mahler.



-- Roy Langston

 

--- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, John David Kromkowski <jdkromkowski@...> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 12:01 PM, mattbieker <agrarian.justice@...
> > wrote:
> >
> > The catholic church has one real function: serving the clergy. When it
> > was able to, it dominated a large swath of the earth in an imperial form.
> > It can't now, so it fills out whatever niches it can; but the main thing is
> > ensuring that members of clergy don't have to go and get real jobs.
> >
> Thanks for sharing this one too. I'm getting better picture of Land Cafe.
> It really is best if we get it all out in the open. It's for the same
> reason I won't hide my background.
>
> This isn't a cocktail party, where we need to avoid the topic for
> charitable purposes - or at least for the purposes of not interfering with
> mutual love of beer or gin or your choice. I'd still have a beer in
> Baltimore (once), with any of you clowns.
>
> JDK

*shrugs* Whatever one thinks of Roy's evolutionary basis for morals, I think there's fairly clearly a pseudo-evolutionary basis for ideas and institutions. Dawkins made this case in his "The Selfish Gene." Basically, ideas are duplicated, with variation, in the minds of individuals; from there, it's survival of the fittest. The conceptual equivalent to a gene being a "meme." Why do religious institutions survive despite being a load of crap that generally act as a drain on society? They're very advanced critters in the world of memes; they've evolved a whole host of defenses to offset their massive weaknesses, such as the notion that it's not polite or even acceptable to question a man's faith, or that without beliefs in these memes, we have no basis for social behavior.

Catholicism isn't necessarily the most egregious case of this sort of memetic virus (that has to go to Scientology, don't you think?), but that's what it is, and all the bottom line of them all is the same: enrichment (both financial as well as emotional) of clergy. Still and all, its senseless and generally ad-hoc opposition to contraception, even in the light of AIDS epidemics, is horrible enough in and of itself to give me a fairly thoroughgoing distaste for it in particular, and I'd pretty much rather not see any meme I deem useful or good to be mixed up with it.

Personally, I think one of the best parts of online discussion is that there's less tendency to hold back one's beliefs; many lament this, saying that the internet just makes everyone rude because they don't fear social repercussions, but I believe there's inherent value there, as it allows for a more rapid evolution of memes. The noise and nastiness comes with the territory, and I think people will just eventually find a new normal.

One common Christian meme is certainly right though: hate the sin, and not the sinner. I agree, I'd have a beer with any of you. It's worth making a conscious effort not to take attacks against our beliefs too personally, because it turns out everyone tends to be wrong quite often.