A couple of weeks ago somebody posted a . . . “meme” we
think it’s called? on our FaceBook page.
That doesn’t sound right, but it doesn’t matter. It’s not the point. The little poster showed Superman having a
cup of joe and asking Batman, “How can you start the day without coffee?” to
which Batman, of course, replies, “I’m Batman.”
You can see it for yourself, here.
Be that as it may, the Cowled One didn’t answer the
question. So, just one moment, Caped
Crusader. Let us ask you again: "How can you start the day without
coffee?"
An acceptable answer would have been “cocoa,” but that’s not
where we’re going with this. This is
where hanging around lawyers and dealing with both socialists and capitalists
comes in really handy. You start to
recognize "answers" that don't actually answer anything.
Despite the reputation of the institution, this was one of
the most important instructions issued to officials of the Inquisition in the Middle Ages: learn
how to ask the right questions, and how to discern honest answers — as opposed
to those answers that are half-truths, or lies in the form of truth.
This is especially bad when dealing with socialists who
claim not to be socialists, e.g.,
neo-distributists, neo-solidaristists, Professional Chestertonians, social
crediters (their spelling), and georgists . . . . Sidebar: it's very strange when georgists
claim not to be socialists, for Henry George made no bones about it. Dealing with capitalists is difficult in a
different way.
Now, just as Medieval heretics believed themselves to be in
the right and that orthodox Catholics were the "real" heretics, many
socialists today deny being socialists.
This is usually on the grounds that they have changed the definition of
socialism, making those who disagree with them the real enemies of God. They
may honestly believe they are right in believing what they believe, but they
are not being honest in what they believe, if you see the difference and it
makes sense. They are basing their
position on faith instead of reason.
The real problem, then, is not the specific point of fact or
doctrine or anything else being argued, but the orientation of the
disputants. Are they proceeding on the
basis of reason (lex ratio) or on
faith, which boils down to a personal opinion when it violates reason (lex voluntas)?
Once we settle that, of course, we can get down to what’s
really important: What does Batman
have to get started in the morning? We
don’t think it’s miso soup.
#30#
