Plato, TCS, and More

A trio of interesting articles from TCS Daily:

Plato's Republic or Milton Friedman's Market?

Sounds intriguing, no? Well, it's a little disappointing. Kling does belabor this comparison. But it's a quick, reasonable read.


Fantasy Island:

SAINT HELENA, UK (SatireNewsService) -- Tyrants exiled to this rocky south Atlantic island do not simply retire with terrified members of their retinue and large portions of their vast, ill-gotten gains. Rather they enjoy their golden years by playing United Nations sponsored, on-line games that simulate the lives they wanted to live in their third-world hell-holes.

The U.N.'s Saint Helena International Tyrants project is known as "The Project" due to its unfortunate acronym. It was created following the recent reorientation of the U.N.'s mission from the support of dictatorial governments and the advancement of human oppression and misery to the pursuit of projects and actions that advance human rights and democratic governance.

I admit it. My satire-meter is off today, and I actually believed this for several paragraphs.

And, finally, the best and most worthwhile of the lot, authored by Prof. Bainbridge...

Cafeteria Catholicism and the Minimum Wage:

When liberal Catholic politicians support abortion rights, conservatives are quick to accuse them of being cafeteria Catholics. When conservative Catholic politicians oppose increasing the minimum wage, liberals are quick to hurl the same accusation.

The metaphor is an apt one. Many Catholics stroll past the array of teachings offered by the Church, choosing to obey those that appeal to them personally and rejecting those that do not. Unfortunately for cafeteria Catholics, however, the Church makes clear that the cafeteria approach is not an authentic form of Catholicism. To the contrary, the faithful "have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church." (Catechism ¶ 2037.)

Yes, this article is definitely worth a read. Over my few years on this earth, I've been struck repeatedly by the willingness of Catholics to pick and choose the elements of the religion they find appealing and leave the rest behind. It's a mild form of the "personal spirituality" that most of my college classmates ascribed to. In their case, the buffet includes any and all world religions, so their religious potpurri can have some exotic aromas.

The very same person who abides by this approach (Catholic or otherwise) tends to be willing to adhere to the rules of a dietician religiously or follow doctor's orders to a tee. In all things but religion/spiritual life, such people are willing to abandon all judgment and rely on experts. But pose the tough questions ("How does one determine right and wrong?" "What is my purpose in life?" "Should I really give up my wool mittens because some poor sheep got a haircut to make them?) and there is no authority on God's green earth that can help them. They prefer to wrestle with these issues alone.

The results are no more surprising than the family that refuses to vaccinate its children or relies exclusively on homeopathic remedies for diseases. One's spirit will decline in health just as one's body would.

This, however, isn't the issue that Bainbridge is addressing. He's concerned with this question:

How do we distinguish between those areas in which faithful Catholics may properly disagree with pronouncements by the Pope or a bishop and those as to which faithful Catholics must give their assent even if their personal judgment is to the contrary?

An excellent question and one which I'll let him answer. Read on.

P.S. The comments attached to the article are hilarious and mind-numbing. Classic forum-nerd battle-posting.