 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Economists All: What d'ya think? | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/18/2010 5:37 PM (GMT -6) |   | Jeff: But then you've conceded to me that PATTERNS of wealth distribution, PER SE (i.e., INTRINSICALLY, as you originally said), have no implications for injustice. It could just have implications for different priorities in life.
Daniel: No, I've conceded that, given your example, the poor population is poor due to their refusal to work, Because your example already posits that the poor are refusing to work. Your sentence was a tautology, which is "certainly" true, however it doesn't capture the complexity which exists in the real world.
Your example also makes use of the common idea that people are poor because they're lazy. I can't imagine that one of the workers at foxconn would fall under anyone's conception of lazy (considering they are worked so hard they commit suicide). Yet, I can't imagine that one of the workers at foxconn would fall under anyone's conception of wealthy. The theme of Opportunity within libertarianism is far to simplified. The example of the queen owning all of Britian gives a great example. Lamont Rodgers critiques Winderquist for not explicitly stating that the population of Britain is there volitionally. However, the population is free to swim across the channel at any point. The opportunity to leave exists, but that opportunity is riddled with risks of death.
If we go with a scriptural idea of justice, and ignore for the moment what libertarian justice might be, it would seem that the 10% are obligated to give money to the poor. To use your example, it would seem that the rich must forgive the poor for being lazy. And since I cannot imagine any sort of ethics that would contradict the teachings of the New Testament, they should be willing to deny themselves any property rights they may have and give to anyone who asks, etc.
Thus, if the society was just, there wouldn't be 90% poverty.
But to the idea that patterns of wealth are intrinsically unjust ought to be obvious. I would suggest reading Winderquists paper, if you haven't already. Indeed, it's the libertarians idea that certain patterns of property rights (effectively the same thing as wealth, because you only have property rights to things you own) are intrinsically unjust, otherwise they'd have no conceptual grounding for their claim that "taxes are robbery". Which, to the Christian, ought to sound like missing the point. "Give to Caesar what is Caesars."
Jeff: More than that, scripture says those who show no mercy receive no mercy.
Daniel: What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that we are supposed to apply this in economics? Because I'm pretty sure that when scripture says that it's in regard to God forgiving humans, not human-human relations. It seems to be that the instructions regarding forgiveness between humans is that of never ending. Since economic relations are relations between people, are you suggesting that we should not forgive those who do not forgive us? Or that we should show no mercy to those who show us no mercy? I have a hard time squaring this with...well... the ENTIRE teaching of Jesus: "if you love those who love you, what reward will you get?"Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/18/2010 7:45:23 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 7/19/2010 7:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: But then you've conceded to me that PATTERNS of wealth distribution, PER SE (i.e., INTRINSICALLY, as you originally said), have no implications for injustice. It could just have implications for different priorities in life.
Daniel: No, I've conceded that, given your example, the poor population is poor due to their refusal to work, Because your example already posits that the poor are refusing to work. Your sentence was a tautology, which is "certainly" true, however it doesn't capture the complexity which exists in the real world.
Jeff: You're missing the logic of the statement. If you concede THAT the pattern OF ITSELF doesn't ALWAYS prove an INHERENT injustice, then you've agreed with ME. IOW, we don't KNOW all of what makes the patterns exist. THat would take god-like knowledge.
Jeff: More than that, scripture says those who show no mercy receive no mercy.
Daniel: What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that we are supposed to apply this in economics? Because I'm pretty sure that when scripture says that it's in regard to God forgiving humans, not human-human relations. It seems to be that the instructions regarding forgiveness between humans is that of never ending.
Jeff: The government is to praise the good and deter the evil. As for us, we are to feed our ENEMIES when they hunger (Romans). But EVEN we are to not "let" professing Christians "eat" if they are hungry due to being a busy-body (Thessalonians). You're over-generalizing.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/19/2010 10:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: You're missing the logic of the statement. If you concede THAT the pattern OF ITSELF doesn't ALWAYS prove an INHERENT injustice, then you've agreed with ME. IOW, we don't KNOW all of what makes the patterns exist. THat would take god-like knowledge.
Daniel: Okay, I admit I might be missing it. So lets work through it step by step from the start.
Your example was this : "If 90% of a society were poor because they refused to take the opportunities provided to them to acquire property, their poverty would be DUE to their own refusal to work. Hence, that mere PATTERN would imply nothing about any injustice done them by the 10%."
Your example limits the possibilities of what could be the cause of poverty by giving the cause of their poverty. I just don't think this example gives us any genuine information concerning real work examples. I don't know many people who are poor because they are lazy, or because they don't work hard. Considering I've worked as an electrician, in the grocery industry, and for UPS. The latter two during my time in college, the former as a full time worker. I know, first hand, that there are people who work 70 hour weeks who make roughly 20,000 a year, which is at the lowest range of incomes in the USA. They are not lazy, they work harder then most professors. They work harder than most white-collar workers (although there are the lower rung-white collar workers who are coerced into working insane hours to keep up with competition for the promotion). Very seldom does income have any direct correlation to work-ethic.
Your example suggests that the poor refuse to "take opportunities provided to them to acquire property". However, as Winderquist's paper made explicitly clear, opportunity doesn't tell us much about the actual possibility of actualization. An individual might have the opportunity to become a property owner, which means that everyone else trying to become the owner of that property doesn't become a property owner. Opportunity doesn't translate into "everyone has the actual possibility to become wealthy". Ownership is a 0 sum game. You either own it 1, or you don't -1. Libertarianism doesn't provide possible actualization of ownership to everyone. It provides the "opportunity" for everyone, but for many that opportunity is like playing the lottery.
The pattern of distribution suggests that the 10% are exploiting the 90% from historical precedence. Give me an actual example of a instance where the majority of people were just too lazy.
The pattern tells us something is wrong. It doesn't tell us exactly WHAT is wrong, but it tells us SOMETHING is wrong.
Jeff: The government is to praise the good and deter the evil.
Daniel: Paul never suggested, or even hint about obstructing what Rome was doing when Paul was under arrest, he never said anything amounting to "when the government does what is wrong (which it was OBVIOUSLY DOING when Paul wrote Romans) we should resist and plot against, and use hostile language towards, the government. Indeed, libertarian ideology suggests that some governments, or ought to not exist, and might need to be resisted violently (per Asher's comment regarding the "illogic" of the pacifists" . Which contradicts Romans 13:1. Which states that the Christian ought to submit to any authority they find themselves under. There is no clause in Romans 13 about NOT submitting when the government is unjust. I highly doubt Paul thought the roman government was just, thus i find it hard to believe that Paul was talking ONLY about JUST government when he wrote the first sentences of romans 13.
Jeff: As for us, we are to feed our ENEMIES when they hunger (Romans).
Daniel: More than that, we are to give to whoever asks (matthew). We are the love our neighbors. In other words, treat our neighbors the same way we treat our enemies. We are to give ourselves fully to Christ. Which means a relinquishment of property rights in favor of whoever needs whatever we might have (even if that is our body). I don't know what else it means to "carry our cross" if not the relinquishment of property rights to our very selves.
``
Jeff: But EVEN we are to not "let" professing Christians "eat" if they are hungry due to being a busy-body (Thessalonians).
Daniel: Okay. If there is a Christian who is hungry from being a "busy-body" then correct them in love. If there is anyone outside of that community, i.e. the majority of the world, then the general principle seems to be to give to them until we have nothing left to give.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/20/2010 9:20:55 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/20/2010 6:53 PM (GMT -6) | | On Karl Widerquist paper...
The paper I linked to was sufficient to show that IF YOU TAKE WIDERQUIST AT FACE VALUE, his argument is still not the knock out punch you were hoping for Daniel. And I think that Lamont Rodgers was being charitable toward Widerquist in taking him at face value. Now my analysis of the paper (with no charitableness given...just as you expect, huh, Daniel?):
What Widerquist proposed was a sort of Zeno's paradox in the realm of economics. And no rational person thinks they can't arrive at a destination because they are eternally caught in the clutches of having to go half the distance to their destination before ever arriving at the destination. In short, his whole proposition is ridiculously unbelievable when the whole of reality is taken into account. Perhaps you can extract one segment of reality and build your case just on that...which is what I think Widerquist does...but all of reality, since it is one and cohesive, corrects any such mistakes. To think that 1) all the while acting under the restrictions of libertarian ethics (no initial use of force, no fraud, etc) and 2) that the Queen always comes out with a profit in most every business transaction she undertakes and that 3) she undertakes a huge number of business transactions...all of which, in some form, must be assumed when taking Widerquist at face value...implies that the Queen is near omniscient and near omnipresent! To take Widerquist at face value, I would have to be asking myself if there was a second incarnation...this time as a woman. If we don't assume near omniscience and omnipresence then we have to ask ourselves how the Queen overcame her epistemological limitations and spatial limitations in purchasing all lands (each and every plot of real estate on the whole island of Britain) (Not to mention her time limitations) We would also have to assume that every other business person on the island of Britain were all morons.
And then when we look at every case in human history of some individual person claiming ownership of large swaths of land...what we find is that they definitely WERE NOT restraining themselves by libertarian ethics...force and fraud were the PRIMARY way they came about controlling their lands. Nope, Widerquist fails because, like yourself, he suffers from having too much of his social theory, economic theory, and ethical theory divorced from reality.
In brief again...everyone who hasn't already sworn allegiance to shear force as their primary means of acting, has bound themselves by some ethical system. This is where people get confused because of the intellectual difficulties of being consistent ethically. First, there is a sphere of ethics (let's call it set A) that everyone (except those committed to force) has bound themselves by (either explicitly or implicitly)...it is the a priori of argumentation and the preconditions of such argumentation. The preconditions include acknowledgment of an actor's right to use his conscience and his mental faculties to decide ideas for himself...it also includes acknowledgment of an actor's right to his own body (no brain-no thinky...no body-brain die) also known as self ownership, or property in oneself (I'll address this more fully later as Tom and Dwayne have issues with this...at least with the terminology)...also, because no body can exist for long without sustenance the preconditions include acknowledgment of an actor's right to own other private property (I know, I know...you have issues with this as well, I'll address that later as well)
That is the basics of ethics...what we are calling set A. As I have already stated in this thread, nobody finds set A, the basics of ethics, entirely adequate to structure their lives by...so pretty much everyone has added more propositions to their ethical system (let's call them set B, with subscript numbers to delineate all the possible sets within set B) For example, there are Buddhist ethics, Confucian ethics, Islamic ethics, Jewish ethics, Christian ethics, Stoic ethics, Objectivist ethics...etc. etc.
This is where the tricky part comes in that causes all kinds of havoc. People make the following mistakes:
1) They have some propositions within set B that either deny or are incompatible with set A...thus creating confusion in themselves and in others
2) They either explicitly or implicitly want to hold other people to their COMPLETE ethical system...set A AND their set B
The first kind of mistake is a knowledge mistake...that can have ethical ramifications (and usually does)
The second kind of mistake is ethical in itself. Because argumentation is the sole means (when initial force has been acknowledged as not an option ethically) of deciding between different ideas...those committed to argumentation must live (at least in this age) in tension. With many things never being decided upon finally. And so therefore, those things cannot be enacted as policies throughout society. But some people are so committed to their set B, it causes them to either 1) castigate ,outside the realm of argumentation, those who disagree with their set B...and this type of people insulate themselves in like-minded cliches. Everyone agreeing that their system is right and every other system and the people that hold them are wrong...without ever much engaging in argumentation with anyone with different beliefs. Or
2) forsake set A and to use some means of force to en-force their set B ethics on other people that disagree with them. And until the circumstances come about that they and like-minded compatriots have sufficient control of any given society, so that the use of force on such a scale to ensure their project is sufficient...they organize and propagandize (which in itself is no evil thing). The evil is implicitly there even before they take control. You can read it in their manifestos (Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, etc.)
What I am saying you are doing Daniel is both mistakes I mentioned above;
1) They have some propositions within set B that either deny or are incompatible with set A...thus creating confusion in themselves and in others
2) They either explicitly or implicitly want to hold other people to their COMPLETE ethical system...set A AND their set B
And you continually manifest these mistakes in your writings:
------------------------
Asher: "The power to collect taxes held by the government is lethal force."
Daneil: No, it's not. The government (at least in western democracies) will not kill you if you do not pay taxes. All governments are not equal.
If I do not pay my taxes a government official will either 1) electronically seize my assets or 2) come to my residence to actually seize my assets. And since they are acting aggressively toward me and against set A of ethics I have EVERY right to defend myself and my property. If I defend my property. The government will then act with force, up to and including lethal force to make me comply with their unethical demands. All non-libertarian governments are not exactly equal in every respect, that I will grant...but in some respects they are all EXACTLY alike...they are alike in that force is the bottommost foundation of all their policies.
-----------
Daniel: If you do not pay your income taxes you are defrauding the queen of her property rights for using her resources/land/capital to trade your labor.
Asher: "The power to collect rent...is not power...it is right...I have the right to collect rent because I own the property."
Daniel: You didn't read the paper, did you? The government, at least in theory, has a right to collect taxes, because like in the example of the queen, she owns (all) the property.
First, Widerquist is squashed, don't use his example to build a case on. Second, tax is not rent, and never will be no matter how you formulate it. Rent is typified by free exchange...I voluntarily enter into contract...and I get something and the property owner gets something. Tax is not voluntary, and I may or may not get something, but for sure it's not something I agreed to up front...so no free exchange applies.
--------------
Lamont Rodgers (quoting Rothbard): "Where the victims are lost in antiquity, the land properly belongs to any non-criminals who are in current possession."
Daniel: Doesn't this suggest that America should yield it's land to the surviving native population? How far back does this go? This would imply that Israel should yield it's land to the surviving Palestinian population, since Israel robbed the land from the Palestinians in the last century.
These are actually complex questions..that libertarian writers have tackled (and hence because of the complexity I will not attempt here) And although from your formulation I can tell that we would have some disagreement about this...you would probably be surprised at the extent of our agreement about this issue.
---------------
Daniel: The argument here isn't against capitalism per se. It's against the libertarian principles, and if followed logically, those principles defend monarchy and can result in extreme injustices. (Of course, it's not injustice to the libertarian, because the libertarian does not acknowledge that some distribution patterns of wealth are inherently unjust)
Again, using Widerquist is a mistake. And when you attack libertarian principles what exactly are you meaning? What I have referred to as set A of ethics? If so, the only alternative is refuge in force, and I thought you were a pacifist. You are most likely making the mistake of letting your set B ethics...which are inconsistent with set A ethics...override set A ethics. The logical thing to do here is adjust your set B ethics so that they are consistent with set A. Otherwise you are caught in a vicious cycle in which no matter what you say or do it is unethical.
------------
Me:"It is interesting that when I give you libertarian criticisms of socialism...you do not deny the criticism"
Daniel: That's because I'm not particularly invested in socialism as an economic idelology. So I'm okay with there being critiques of socialism. I think it (socialism) captures, in part, the way in which kingdom economics ought to work themselves out (a community working for and loving one another). And it's a helpful starting point for critiques of the current system, whether we call that capitalism or whatever. I've never argued for implementation of socialistic policies in any country I've lived in, and I don't vote so I haven't colluded with any politicians in enforcing socialistic policies. Communities (the type of social organization I WOULD argue for, and try to construct in my daily life) must be constructed volitionally, they cannot be established through coercion. Concern for the poor, etc are concerns of the community, thus necessarily a public concern (not simply a matter of individual, private, charity). This is where myself and socialism find a common ground.
First, let me say that there is common ground between us here...but you also have some logical inconsistencies that are impossible to work around.
- Socialism, in all it's guises (save contractual, which you allude to in this passage) must deny set A ethics and depend on force. And usually hide or ameliorate the deplorableness of it's allegiance to force by directing people to take a look at their set B ethics, instead of at their willful abandonment of set A ethics.
Daniel: I think it (socialism) captures, in part, the way in which kingdom economics ought to work themselves out
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you when I point out that this is an example of set B ethics...that are not enforceable on other people.
Daniel: And it's a helpful starting point for critiques of the current system, whether we call that capitalism or whatever. I've never argued for implementation of socialistic policies in any country I've lived in, and I don't vote so I haven't colluded with any politicians in enforcing socialistic policies.
Let's agree not to call it capitalism and we'll be making some progress.  Seriously, I am as outraged by mercantilist interventionist policy as you are...I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
You are arguing for socialistic policies in this thread, among others. Yeah,yeah...I know no government officials look here for policy ideas...but we are responsible for everything we say, where ever we say it.
Daniel: Communities (the type of social organization I WOULD argue for, and try to construct in my daily life) must be constructed volitionally, they cannot be established through coercion.
See, this is like music to me. And I'll gladly hum along...
but then you screech this:
Daniel: Concern for the poor, etc are concerns of the community, thus necessarily a public concern (not simply a matter of individual, private, charity). This is where myself and socialism find a common ground.
This is a form of socialism Daniel...and force is the only means of bringing about your policies...as a public concern...since not all the public agrees with you!
In the same paragraph, you affirm contractual voluntariness..and non-contractual coercive action.
I'm not done, but I have to go for awhile... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/21/2010 12:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Daniel: If we go with a scriptural idea of justice, and ignore for the moment what libertarian justice might be, it would seem that the 10% are obligated to give money to the poor. To use your example, it would seem that the rich must forgive the poor for being lazy. And since I cannot imagine any sort of ethics that would contradict the teachings of the New Testament, they should be willing to deny themselves any property rights they may have and give to anyone who asks, etc.
Thus, if the society was just, there wouldn't be 90% poverty.
This is a travesty of confused thought. First, you should acknowledge that not only are we living in a pluralistic society of ideas and beliefs overall...but that the Christian world is ALSO a pluralism. There is no one version of Christianity that all Christians agree upon. The "teachings of the New testament" are as subject to set A of ethics as anything else. And since we do not all agree, these things are subject to argumentation, but not to enforcement. Nor to holding other Christians to your standard of what the "teachings of the New Testament" mean. It is by no means as clear from Scripture that your points hold as that the other side holds...for example:
"Thou shalt not steal"...is pretty indicative of property rights.
"The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me." Certainly does not deny the ethical requirement to assist the poor, but it does imply that concern for the poor is not to be absolutized.
And injunctions to help the poor by no means enjoins that we enable the reckless poor (and NO, I am not implying that all poor are recklessly so...only that there is a difference)
"Give proper recognition to those widows who are really in need." I Tim 5:3 cautions us to MAKE A DISTINCTION between those in need by no fault of their own and those who are not.
"For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
You have a severely slanted view of Scriptural teaching.
From my set B: The way I see it is that God is the original Libertarian. He gave mankind LIBERTARIAN free will. And He even allows men to reject Him potentially forever.
I guess this is as good a place as any to address Tom and Dwayne's concerns with "self-ownership"
Sometimes Dwayne decries "self-ownership" and sometimes he decries "absolute self-ownership" Whether he means the same thing or something different by the two I do not know. And I am not exactly certain what their concern is with saying we have self-ownership. No liberal or libertarian philosopher mean by self ownership that man created himself or is the ground of himself or ontically independent in some fashion. What is meant...and as far as I understand such philosophers is ONLY meant by self-ownership...is that each man has the right to decide for himself about himself, and the right to act for himself about himself...all of which is also implied in the a priori of argumentation...set A of ethics. Self-ownership in no way gives consent for men to default other men of their self-ownership or to defraud them in any way. It means they decide for themselves what they will think and what they will do. And evidently that is the way God wanted men to be constituted...because that's how He made us all.
And any concern Tom and Dwayne have about self-ownership...I think...is some part of their set B ethics...which if being logically consistent cannot contradict set A ethics...which is what I think they do...at least in their theory...I don't think they are actually transgressing other people's self-ownership. At worst, they are causing confusion...which does make argumentation difficult.
In fact, at some earlier time in their lives both Tom and Dwayne made a decision or a series of decisions (self-ownership in thought and action) to accept whatever set of ideas is causing them trouble in proclaiming the idea of self-ownership. So, they in fact implicitly endorse self-ownership even though they have some set B propositions that are in logical contradiction.
What exactly is the libertarian free will that enables a man to say "No" to God potentially forever...that God Himself respects? What exactly is freedom of conscience that says a man should be free to think and then act upon what he thinks is true? It's self-ownership. That's what it is. And God considers it valuable.
What exactly is it about self-ownership you guys are opposed to?
----------------
Daniel: But to the idea that patterns of wealth are intrinsically unjust ought to be obvious. I would suggest reading Winderquists paper, if you haven't already. Indeed, it's the libertarians idea that certain patterns of property rights (effectively the same thing as wealth, because you only have property rights to things you own) are intrinsically unjust, otherwise they'd have no conceptual grounding for their claim that "taxes are robbery". Which, to the Christian, ought to sound like missing the point. "Give to Caesar what is Caesars."
Here you are confusing "natural" patterns of wealth with patterns that have come about as a result of unjust state intervention. State intervention in someone's property is unethical and that is what libertarians decry...whether the state intervention is coming at the hands of mercantilists or at the hands of socialists.
Daniel: "Which, to the Christian, ought to sound like missing the point. "Give to Caesar what is Caesars."
So confused. See libertarian writers on commodity (usually gold, but not always) standards for money. When a government issues money that is not "backed" by commodities...you can be sure they are counterfeiting their way to increased spending and devaluing their money in the process. Of course, in Christ's day those gold coins with Caesars likeness WERE backed by commodities...they were made from gold. And so you could take a hammer and BANG! BANG! No more likeness of Caesar. Now who does the gold belong to?
Daniel: "I don't know many people who are poor because they are lazy, or because they don't work hard."
How many people in the United States are ACTUALLY poor! I am not denying that there are some. I am saying that most of the "poor" in America are only "poor" relatively. And I know tons of people who are relatively poor because they are lazy and don't work hard. As well as having an online business, I deliver mail in a fairly typical small city (22,000). I see exactly this every day!
Daniel: "Very seldom does income have any direct correlation to work-ethic."
Yuh wanna know why! Mercantilist intervention has policies in place that keep the poor poor, and favor the established elite. You just wanna flip that and set up socialist interventionistic policies that favor the poor and disfavor the current elite. Libertarians say...why can't we do away with ALL government intervention in economics and watch everybody's wealth start increasing. SEPARATION OF ECONOMICS AND STATE!
-------------
Daniel: "Paul never suggested, or even hint about obstructing what Rome was doing when Paul was under arrest, he never said anything amounting to "when the government does what is wrong (which it was OBVIOUSLY DOING when Paul wrote Romans) we should resist and plot against, and use hostile language towards, the government. Indeed, libertarian ideology suggests that some governments, or ought to not exist, and might need to be resisted violently (per Asher's comment regarding the "illogic" of the pacifists";-). Which contradicts Romans 13:1. Which states that the Christian ought to submit to any authority they find themselves under. There is no clause in Romans 13 about NOT submitting when the government is unjust. I highly doubt Paul thought the roman government was just, thus i find it hard to believe that Paul was talking ONLY about JUST government when he wrote the first sentences of romans 13."
"We ought to obey God rather than men." means nothing to you?
The reason Paul didn't resist or take up a crusade of government resistance is that he had a mission to fulfill and didn't want to be hindered in that. And with Rome you could not speak out against the government freely like we can with ours currently.
There is a huge difference between speaking out when that is allowed and speaking out when it is not.
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men" does entail that sometimes it is not possible to live peaceably with all men. The question then becomes...what are the conditions that make it not possible and thus justify action?
Which pretty much cuts the rug out from under pacifism.
More to come, that's all for tonight.Post Edited (Asher) : 7/21/2010 12:49:11 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/21/2010 1:01 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Re: "This is a travesty of confused thought" and similar phrases.
As a lawyer, I often see legal briefs and memoranda in which lawyers attempt to aggrandize their position by characterizing their own argument or the argument of opposing counsel. ("Clearly" the opposing counsel’s argument is "disingenuous".) I have been guilty myself. However, this violates one of the basic rules we were taught back in my first-year legal writing seminar in law school.
As an advocate, my job is to argue clearly. However, writing the word "clearly" at the beginning of every sentence does nothing to advance this objective. Instead, it just comes across sounding presumptuous, lazy and insecure. Invariably, the judge feels quite capable of coming to his or her own conclusion as to whether or not the point is in fact "clear". What do I expect to accomplish by characterizing my argument as "clear" if I’m unable to actually demonstrate the point clearly or if I’m just too lazy to do the hard work of legal drafting? Do I think that I can fool the judge into believing that my point is clear merely by saying that it is? And if I do demonstrate the point clearly, then adding the word "clearly" does nothing except dilute and detract from my argument by adding unnecessary and unhelpful "clutter words". The judge, who has a limited amount of time, is interested in the actual arguments, not my characterization of them.
Likewise, by characterizing opposing counsel’s argument as "disingenuous", I risk losing credibility with the judge in a variety of ways (in addition to diluting my argument with unhelpful clutter and sounding presumptuous, lazy and insecure). First, the judge is not likely to appreciate having to preside over name-calling. Characterizing the arguments of opposing counsel as "disingenuous" is tantamount to saying that opposing counsel is a "disingenuous" person. The judge will be most interested in any actual argument that demonstrates that the argument of opposing counsel is actually disingenuous. However, the judge is likely to find my superfluous characterizations to be annoying distractions from the difficult job of sifting through complex legal issues.
Morever, how do I know that the judge is not intellectually predisposed or leaning towards agreeing with the argument of opposing counsel (however wrongly in my view)? By characterizing the argument as "disingenuous", I may be unknowingly casting aspersions on the judge as well as opposing counsel. Thus, even if I have a good argument, I may have lost all credibility before the judge ever hears it.
Why risk offending my audience with language that does nothing to enhance the merits of my argument? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/21/2010 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Earl: "Yada, yada, yada..."
Which proposition I have made do you disagree with, and why do you disagree?
Often when someone in a debate has nothing of substance to say, they will characterize the arguments of their opponents as being somehow in "bad form".
The proper goal of an argumentative discourse is to arrive at truth. If I have not arrived there, tell me where I am wrong, and why.
Being that socialists trade on being ever so superior ethically towards the poor than their evil capitalists opponents...I am gonna call them on that and say "clearly" that THEY are not ethical, that the very foundation of their political, social ideas is force, and that their economic ideas are so far from reality that to implement them is to destroy wealth in a society, not create it. And being as they often evade such calling to accounts, I'm gonna say it repeatedly.
Bad form is not binding oneself to logic and the ethical. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/21/2010 8:09 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm still working on the bit about the Queen and England.
If she is sole property owner of the the entire land and has entered into contracts with the many, this is no more a State than if she only had the back 40 and leased it out accordingly.
So, as long as everyone's agreed to the terms she offered, I can't see Widerquist's "Queen of England" as a viable analogy of non-separation of economics and state. (And I absolutely LOVE Asher's SEPARATION OF ECONOMICS AND STATE! That so rocks!). Widerquist's analogy, therefore, seems disqualified going out the gate (but I'm not philosopher!)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/21/2010 8:55 PM (GMT -6) | | JET: Re: Asher's "This is a travesty of confused thought."
As a lawyer, I often see legal briefs and memoranda in which lawyers attempt to aggrandize their position by characterizing their own argument or the argument of opposing counsel. ("Clearly" the opposing counsel’s argument is "disingenuous".) I have been guilty myself. However, this violates one of the basic rules we were taught back in my first-year legal writing seminar in law school.
TOM: I tend to agree with you Earl. That is, I'm finding some of Asher's pronouncements claiming a bit more certainty (as little as I understand about all this) than I find warranted. And then they come across a bit condescending too. I know Asher offline to be a super swell guy, so I'm a bit confused.
Asher, is there NO room in your thought on economics for the humble admission that you MIGHT be wrong about some or a lot of this? That your confidence in the truth of your economic theory doesn't quite rank up there with the gospel, the new birth, the Trinity, or the deity of Christ? If so, then couldn't you word yourself a bit less accusatory? Maybe my borderline F is showing! Ha. It just looks like there's a smidgen of personal animosity against Daniel mixed in here. Daniel loves Jesus too (which I don't doubt you recognize). Shouldn't that lighten things up a bit? Maybe not. I don't know. Maybe economics is the other side of the gospel coin. Dang.
Sorry to let me pastoral skirt show. ;o)
Peace,
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/21/2010 9:58 PM (GMT -6) | | How I'm viewing all of this from a simpleton's perspective.
The way it seems it "ought" to be:
People need to talk to each other and hammer out the guidelines for getting along with each other. Some presuppositions come into play before the conference kicks off:
...no one gets to force his/her way of life on another
...use of force to govern any system is a no-no
...each person has the right to think, ponder and conclude in an "I am my own person" environment, unrefrained and unrestrained (the thinking and conclusion, that is) by anyone else.
Modifications and/or improvements to this "state" of existence must be negotiated and be free from coercion or force from all sides.
Each person has a right to own his/her own property, free from control by another (and so went that concept out the door in this country with the arrival of property taxes).
Each person has a right to earn a living without deduction in wages forced upon him/her.
In Sweden, there is a very good socialized medicine system. It functions well and is supported by taxation. Anyone who doesn't like it can move out of the country. Now children being born today didn't have anything to say about the establishment of the system, but the people from Sweden I've talked to have talked very highly of the health care in that country. Canada's health care system, it seems, though, is what Americans are more inclined to hear about with regard to socialized health care, and it's not a very positive image Americans receive about socialized health care.
So, I'm thinking that some aspects of socialism, when not enforced, can not only be good for the "state" but also become a natural by-product of the argumentation process. In other words, if all were to go as it should, people would want to do what it takes to take care of each other. You get the best aspects of capitalism, libertarianism, and socialism (all redefined a bit, perhaps, but nevertheless...)
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Daniel M
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2009
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 7/21/2010 10:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Starkman,
Starkman: If she is sole property owner of the the entire land and has entered into contracts with the many, this is no more a State than if she only had the back 40 and leased it out accordingly.
So, as long as everyone's agreed to the terms she offered, I can't see Widerquist's "Queen of England" as a viable analogy of non-separation of economics and state.
Daniel: Exactly. The libertarian market (as set up in the hypothetical) can lead to the creation of a individual so wealthy and powerful, she might as well call herself the Queen. But she need not call herself the Queen. Can can be the CEO of the private business named Britain. Winderquist's point is that there is little to no difference between extremely powerful private ownership and government. Indeed, the government can be thought of as a private owner of certain property rights.
In the example they have to agree to her terms. If they don't, she doesn't have to do anything for them, the people are on her land, she can make whatever terms she wishes. It's her land. She is the hypothetical private owner of the entire island, if people don't like it, then can swim to France. She is not obligated to do anything for them. They can accept that they live on her land and must play by her rules, or they can leave. And she doesn't need to help them leave, why should she? They are on her property, not public property.
Starkman: SEPARATION OF ECONOMICS AND STATE!
Daniel: I just don't see this working. For an example, if something like what happened in the gulf coast were to happen in a state where there is no economic oversight by the state (let's even say that state is a democracy, so the people have some voice), then what does the state do to enforce the company to correct the problem? If they are completely separated from the economy, then there is no such thing as regulations or oversight. Should the state enforce minimum wages?
Capitalism and Mercantilism might be two different things. But from everything Asher has said, I don't see how capitalism doesn't lead to Mercantilism. Much like, Asher doesn't see how state Socialism doesn't lead to some sort of authoritarian state.
Although I'm not entirely sure I buy that "Mercantilism" is the root of all our problemsl. Doing some quich research on the basics of Mercantilism: i.e. protectionism, tarriffs, etc. Those sort of economic ideals seem to be very different from the economic policies that have created Free zones, and much of the labor exploitation in the last few decades.Post Edited (Daniel M) : 7/21/2010 10:53:22 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/21/2010 10:57 PM (GMT -6) | | TOM: I tend to agree with you Earl. That is, I'm finding some of Asher's pronouncements claiming a bit more certainty (as little as I understand about all this) than I find warranted. And then they come across a bit condescending too. I know Asher offline to be a super swell guy, so I'm a bit confused.
Asher, is there NO room in your thought on economics for the humble admission that you MIGHT be wrong about some or a lot of this? That your confidence in the truth of your economic theory doesn't quite rank up there with the gospel, the new birth, the Trinity, or the deity of Christ? If so, then couldn't you word yourself a bit less accusatory? Maybe my borderline F is showing! Ha. It just looks like there's a smidgen of personal animosity against Daniel mixed in here. Daniel loves Jesus too (which I don't doubt you recognize). Shouldn't that lighten things up a bit? Maybe not. I don't know. Maybe economics is the other side of the gospel coin. Dang.
-------------------
--I'm finding some of Asher's pronouncements claiming a bit more certainty (as little as I understand about all this) than I find warranted.
Are we talking about the ethical statements or the economic statements...or both? Either way I'm as certain about them as I am about the list of things you mentioned. (More on this toward the end)
--And then they come across a bit condescending too.
Look, I don't know if condescending is the word you're looking for...what I do know is that this stuff is crucially important, especially at the present moment. What I do know is that Misesian libertarian economists understand the field of economics. What I know is that socialists DO NOT. And I also know quite well that socialist theory (save contractual socialism) REQUIRES force
to bring it about in society. So, pardon me for being a little outraged at what they are willing to do to accomplish their goals. Why are you not as outraged? You seem more concerned that I "play nice" in my speech than that socialists will bring barbarity to civilization. Perhaps it is as you said, that you understand little about all this. (That's no fault of yours, except to the extent that you want me to pull back from certainty...given that you aren't certain) Even if you can't totally grasp the economics, can you not see that the logical substructure of socialism is force?
--Asher, is there NO room in your thought on economics for the humble admission that you MIGHT be wrong about some or a lot of this?
I'm gonna post a link to a paper to download at the end of this, read it and then ask me again this same question. Seriously, it is a VERY rewarding read. Without reading it and then logically deconstructing it if you can, then we are just talking about an area that you, nor Daniel, has the proper education in, and thus to question my certainty is actually only an admission of your own uncertainty. (Yes, I have read quite a few socialists...and will read anything they think is crucial to understanding their theory)
And as I have repeatedly said, argumentation is the proper field to seek the truth...if you can show me WHERE I AM WRONG, then, if you make sense, I will accept that I am wrong. I do not want to be wrong or to too strongly stand on arguments that have insufficient grounds..but currently YOU have insufficient grounds to deny my level of certainty.
I was once a soft Calvinist. I became an open theist.
I was once a Republican. I became a libertarian.
I will change my current stance if you can logically deconstruct the arguments.
--If so, then couldn't you word yourself a bit less accusatory?
I have yet to agree to your "If so..." Hey, I'm doing apologia on behalf of capitalist libertarianism. We're the ones being accused all the time (witness the opening video in this thread) , I'm just turning the tables and showing that the logic, nor the ethics are on the side of the socialists...that in fact...THEY...ARE...THE...ONES...THAT...WE...SHOULD...BE...ACCUSING! (Not to leave out blame for our Mercantilist friends...they've got plenty due them...but at least they aren't out to destroy capitalism)
---It just looks like there's a smidgen of personal animosity against Daniel mixed in here.
I am a staunch attacker of socialism...it's logic and it's ethics. Daniel is the primary proponent of socialism in this thread, thus he gets my attention.
animosity: ill will tending toward active hostility
With all my will I am against socialism...if you call that ill...then so be it.
I would never initiate force against Daniel. In fact, my entire philosophy precludes it. Ethically, politically, logically.
Daniel is a professed pacifist. So, at face value, his ethics precludes force. His social political theory REQUIRES force as the only possible means to bring it about. So, he has a logical problem with ethical ramifications. I am not saying he has a direct ethical problem...only that the logic of his social theory REQUIRES the opposite of his professed ethics. What am I to do with that?
I am following the tactic of Francis Schaeffer that he called "blowing the roof off". Directing Daniel to the logical conclusions of his own premises. And engaging him vis-a-vis Buber's concept of opposition. Which is the I-Thou way to directly confront an argument opponent.
Once I give up logically interacting with Daniel...I am basically saying he is beyond help. Since I am continually confronting Daniel
I am showing that in fact I am doing the opposite of what I am accused of...Daniel is receiving my highest regard, it's just that we disagree...and this is how high regard and disagreement plays out. Indeed, he would be more than welcome to stay at my place if he ever found himself traveling through Kentucky. We would have strong words about politics and economics...and then we'd share a meal.
--Maybe economics is the other side of the gospel coin.
No, but what I would say is this...reality is one...all fields of knowledge have implications for every other field of knowledge. To the degree of our certainty.
Check out the paper...it is astounding.
rapidshare.com/files/408309951/Praxeology.txt.html | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/21/2010 11:55 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Like I said, I don't want to squelch conversation. If what I shared doesn't find a place to land, then it doesn't find a place to land. That's cool.
Hey, I can see how my engagement, if not properly situated within the larger framework of 1)argumentation 2)Schaeffer's logic tactic and 3)Buber's opposition...could be seen as ALL the things you critiqued. That's why I particularly pointed those things out in my last post.
I'm not playing to some outside judge here, but directly to those engaging in the argument. But there are preconditions to argumentation...and when someone strays from these precondition (such as logical contradictions, etc) to be true to the argumentation you have to rope them back in. To continue forward without constant vigilance to all logical ramifications is to both engage in sophistry and allow your opponent to engage in sophistry, not correct argumentation. I do have an allegiance to what is true, and want to hear from those who think I am missing it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/22/2010 12:15 AM (GMT -6) | | |
I think that framing and metaphor has a lot to do with this discussion. (Tom: ‘Map’ and ‘territory’, right? How we propose to get to the promise land depends on the map / language we use.)
Since the 1970’s, rich people have given gazillions of dollars to think tanks that work full time on research, development and marketing of rhetorical framing that gets picked up by the uncritical media and masses. Thus, for example, the term “tax relief” comes to be used as a neutral term by Republicans and Democrats alike despite the fact that the frame of “relief” is actually part of the metaphor ‘taxes are an affliction’.
Another metaphor is that ‘government is a person’. This metaphor implies that the interaction between the government and an individual is no different than the interaction between two individuals. Thus, “taxes are robbery” and the government should “keep its hands out of my pocket”.
But it is only a metaphor. The government is not literally an individual person.
George Lakoff offers a different metaphor: ‘Government is a country club’. Thus:
[quote]Taxes are what you pay to be an American, to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity, and where there's an infrastructure that has been paid for by previous taxpayers. This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists - vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for. Taxes are your dues - you pay your dues to be an American. In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.
“It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country? It's about being a member. People pay a membership fee to join a country club, for which they get to use the swimming pool and the golf course. But they didn't pay for them in their membership. They were built and paid for by other people and by this collectivity. It's the same thing with our country - the country as country club, being a member of a remarkable nation.[/quote]
(I’m sure there are other metaphors for government each of which would correspond to a different way of framing the concept of ‘taxes’.) So take your pick; choose your map based on whatever criteria you like. Just remember that neither the map that you pick nor the map that you reject is the equivalent of the territory. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/22/2010 1:28 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Asher, paraphrasing Earl: Yada, yada, yada ...
Asher,
I understand that you feel a great deal of urgency to advance your ideas. I was only suggesting that some language is more effective than other language. Of course, you are free to use whatever language you like, just as I am free to skip over any posts at my pleasure. I figured you’d disagree with me, but I also figured that the more you care about your ideas, the more you’d care about whether or not I read your ideas. I don’t actually know if you care whether or not I read your posts. But just in case you do, I thought I’d share a little about how I choose what to read and what not to read.
So why did I even bother to write something about your “travesty of confused thinking” post? The truth is that I felt a certain amount of regret about skipping over your post. I genuinely wanted to hear and understand your thoughts. However, when I am reading this board, I am usually feeling guilty because I should be spending my time on other obligations. Thus, while I am interested in the ideas expressed here, I just don’t have time to sort through the gratuitous stuff to get to the actual ideas.
Ultimately, I ended up spending more time writing my post in response to your “travesty of confused thinking” post than if I had actually read your post to begin with. The reason is that I wanted to try to communicate effectively with you. I knew you would probably respond defensively (as you did). However, I thought that if I told a parable about myself and my colleagues (instead of focusing on you), perhaps you would be able to hear me without getting defensive.
Anyway, I hope this clarifies where I’m coming from.
Take care, Earl | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/22/2010 2:58 AM (GMT -6) | | It is no metaphor that money is being taken from me and others that is being called "taxes". I do not agree to voluntarily hand over my money, but since the only way to not hand over my money is to meet force with force, and I have far less force than the government, I have little recourse. How is that any different than an armed robber saying to me "Your money or your life."
---Another metaphor is that ‘government is a person’. This metaphor implies that the interaction between the government and an individual is no different than the interaction between two individuals. Thus, “taxes are robbery” and the government should “keep its hands out of my pocket”.
But it is only a metaphor. The government is not literally an individual person.
No one says "government is a person", did you just make that up? Government is a group of individuals, and yes a group of individuals can rob one individual.
----Government is a country club’.
Ludicrous. I have the ability to join a country club or to say "No thanks, I want no part of you." This metaphor fails.
-----Taxes are what you pay to be an American (I realize this is Lakoff's work not your own, but I assume that by posting it you have some affinity to it, so...)
Huh! In case you have skipped over reading the threads in which this came up...I am an anarchist with regards to government. If being an American is equivalent to being a slave to a government, then I don't want to be an American. But that's not what it really means, and we all know it. Liberty! That's what is prototypically American, even when American society has not been fully logically consistent. Martin Luther King Jr's calls to American society were calls for America to be logically consistent. Susan B Anthony made the same calls. America finally answered because liberty is the beacon that has drawn America forward. What we currently have and have had for quite some time is a divided society that places other objectives above liberty, both sides for the most part (excluding small minority status groups like libertarians) take the reigns of power when they win an election, and they both eat away at our liberties, from opposite ends and at a different set of our liberties, but they both are doing the same thing...and this is the injustice that I decry.
----to live in a civilized society that is democratic and offers opportunity
there have been civilized societies with no governments, there have been societies with governments, but with no taxation...you do not have to PAY to live in a civilized society...and if a government is taxing you, you can be pretty sure the civility is only skin deep and that underneath are the skeletons of barbarism. Democracy in America is only two unjust sides taking turns at depriving me of liberty. My paying of taxes provides no opportunity to me.
-----This is a huge infrastructure. The highway system, the Internet, the TV system, the public education system, the power grid, the system for training scientists - vast amounts of infrastructure that we all use, which has to be maintained and paid for.
Ridiculous. As if we wouldn't have those things if we had no government! Government is atrocious at managing all those things. The fact that they preclude private competition in any area they claim monopoly over, and the fact that they don't have to be profitable at ANY of those things (They can always raise our taxes!) is just part of the injustice.
----Taxes are your dues - you pay your dues to be an American.
Really? Do you really believe this? What about Americans before there WERE federal income taxes in America...were they not Americans? Not paying their dues? If I quit paying dues to a club, I will likely get kicked out of the club. If I quit paying taxes what will happen to me? We all know. But let's just assume that in this one respect clubs and governments are the same...I quit paying taxes and the government kicks me out of "being an American" What then? What does it mean for me to be living on my own property, paying no dues, not being an American. So what? Can't get your head around that? If I am on my own property, living as someone who has no allegiance to the government club totally surrounding me...will the government be so threatened by me that they will invade. You betcha they will. If I can get away with ceding from their monopoly of coercion, theft, and fraud...it might give my neighbors ideas about doing the same. The government will have none of it. So, they are decidedly UNLIKE a club. METAPHOR OVERLOAD! SYSTEMS CRASHING! METAPHOR FAILURE!
----In addition, the wealthiest Americans use that infrastructure more than anyone else, and they use parts of it that other people don't. The federal justice system, for example, is nine-tenths devoted to corporate law. The Securities and Exchange Commission and all the apparatus of the Commerce Department are mainly used by the wealthy. And we're all paying for it.
So let's quit paying for it! Yippee! You are finally getting it...What?...Oh, that's not what you meant?
----It is an issue of patriotism! Are you paying your dues, or are you trying to get something for free at the expense of your country?
Patrick Henry is rolling over in his grave. I'll pay for whatever I use, and as far as I am concerned, the country can stop spending on my behalf thank you very much.
Finally, Earl, I'm pretty sure you are reading my posts and will likely continue to do so, even if you don't respond to them. "I just don’t have time to sort through the gratuitous stuff to get to the actual ideas." The majority of everything posted here is not concise in the way you are alluding to, so you would not be reading nearly anything here by anyone if you actually followed that guideline. And I'm pretty sure that my posts have a fairly good actual ideas/gratuitous stuff Quotient
Maybe...maybe it's that you just don't like my ideas. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 7/22/2010 3:17 AM (GMT -6) | | "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean."
Jesus! Don't you know you catch more flies with honey? | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 7/22/2010 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | | By quoting Jesus, I don’t think Asher necessarily meant to compare anyone here to the Pharisees or refer to anyone’s heart. I think he was just defending his own use of confrontation language by showing that Jesus himself used confrontational language.
However, from other posts, it does seem like Asher believes that he can judge someone's heart based on their views of economics. He seems to be so confident in the internal logic and Obvious Truth of his system that he feels no embarassment about saying that anyone he identifies as a "socialist" is evil because, according to the logic of his system, all socialists are either: (i) refusing to submit to the obvious Truth and, thus, culpably ignorant; or (ii) knowingly promoting robbery.
I don't think Daniel has claimed to be a socialist and I don't hear Daniel as promoting socialism. I just hear Daniel wanting to talk "comparitive economics" from a Kingdom perspective. It doesn't even seem like Asher really gets under Daniel's skin. I just regret seeing a potentially valuable conversation get derailed by "flaming". However, Asher seems to be as confident in his methodology as he is in his ideology, so ... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 7/22/2010 11:22 AM (GMT -6) | | JET: By quoting Jesus, I don’t think Asher necessarily meant to compare anyone here to the Pharisees or refer to anyone’s heart. I think he was just defending his own use of confrontation language by showing that Jesus himself used confrontational language.
TOM: Confrontational language can be a good and right thing. No argument there. It just looked to me like he was equating more specifically what he was doing with Daniel to what Jesus was doing with the Pharisees…which, like I said, seems extremely odd given the great gentleman I know Asher to be offline with me.
JET: However, from other posts, it does seem like Asher believes that he can judge someone's heart based on their views of economics. He seems to be so confident in the internal logic and Obvious Truth of his system that he feels no embarrassment about saying that anyone he identifies as a "socialist" is evil because, according to the logic of his system, all socialists are either: (i) refusing to submit to the obvious Truth and, thus, culpably ignorant; or (ii) knowingly promoting robbery.
TOM: I don’t care for socialism as a system, but I don’t know that I could call all socialists evil people.
JET: I don't think Daniel has claimed to be a socialist and I don't hear Daniel as promoting socialism. I just hear Daniel wanting to talk "comparative economics" from a Kingdom perspective. It doesn't even seem like Asher really gets under Daniel's skin. I just regret seeing a potentially valuable conversation get derailed by "flaming".
TOM: I think Asher believes mercantilism IS the Kingdom perspective when it comes to economics. Am I understanding you rightly Asher? If so, I can see why so much is at steak with economics. But if the gospel doesn’t ENTAIL mercantilism per se, then…then what?
Tom
KIXYTΘEMTA | | Back to Top | | |
| 134 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 8:40 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|